St. John Studies

“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.

“God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion” [Romans 1:26-27].

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders” [First Corinthians 6: 9].

After these direct references in the New Testament, Christians who seek to disconfirm homosexual behavior turn to First Timothy 1: 8-11 where the condemnation is less direct.  First Timothy refers to the law being righteous for those who are Godly and not for those who are ungodly.  The word “pervert” is used in the NIV, not homosexual.

One can see the concern among Christians about these passages, especially the first two.  It seems like Paul is attacking homosexuality.  Peter Gomes, in his Chapter entitled “The Bible and Homosexuality,” * shrugs off the references in the Old Testament as an effort to promote heterosexuality so human society can be promoted [Genesis].  Sodom and Gomorrah did not have a “homosexual problem” just because some citizens lusted after male angels and Levitical prohibitions against homosexuality were more about keeping Jewish culture pure against encroaching cultures than anything else.**

But Christians are people of the New Testament.  How can we shrug off New Testament words as only applying to Jews?  They apply to us.  How can we act like this condemnation does not exist when it clearly does?  How can we say that cultural acceptance of homosexuality makes these passages of Scripture irrelevant?

For Peter Gomes it is all about context. 

Romans seems to be the most non-confirming indictment of homosexuality.  I quoted Romans above but if you turn to Romans 1: 26-27 you will see that I left out the words “Because of this” at the beginning of the quote.  Many times one can alter the context of Scripture and that can make a big difference.  Gomes writes that Paul is not talking about homosexuality as much as he is the fallen nature of mankind.  This fallen nature has caused both Gentile and Jew to suppress the truth about how wicked they are.  The focus is on wickedness in general, not homosexuality.  It is “because of this” that man has turned from honoring God.  It is “because of this” that man has become a worshipper of self, caught up in his own ego.  Gomes calls this a “golden calf moment” [O.T.].  “We become what we worship” is what Paul is really saying as man has turned from worshipping God to worshipping self.  When man begins to follow the lusts of his heart, he loses perspective.  The truth of God is exchanged for a lie and man begins to serve the creature rather than the Creator. 

The specific “ways” this loss of perspective manifests itself in human behavior needs to be addressed because that’s where sexual practices come into play.  Paul has a long list of wicked examples in Romans 1: 29-31 from covetousness to ruthlessness.  This is the context in which he inserts homosexuality.  Gomes says he mentions this sexual “sin” and never brings up the subject again.  It is just one sign of the consequences of man’s fallen state.

What makes this particular “sexual sin” so significant in today’s context?  Gomes says this is a reflection of the non-confirming attitude society has toward homosexuality since the Nineteenth Century.  It should not be considered that significant; it is one of many behaviors that Christians should not have that would make them unfit for heaven. 

Gomes still has not dealt directly with the sinful nature of homosexuality.  Is it a grievous sin?  Will this kind of behavior condemn a person to hell?  In today’s context, is it an activity that some feel can disqualify someone from preaching God’s word.    It is an activity that can keep someone from being married in same-sex union within the church .  Gomes seems to be saying that the New Testament passages condemning homosexuality are not unique;  that they are just one of many sins that man can commit. 

Gomes goes further in his discussion by saying that the New Testament has very little to say about homosexuality; the silence on this subject “speaks volumes.”  I have already discussed that idea in other posts.  This is arguing from silence.  Jesus did not have anything to say about people who were homosexuals; he had more important things to discuss.  Since Jesus did not address it, it must be of little importance.  Maybe it is ok.  Gomes cites Jeffrey S. Siker from Theology Today who writes “Thus the Bible has relatively little to say that directly informs us about how to address the issue of homosexual Christians today.  The Bible certainly does not positively condone homosexuality as a legitimate expression of human sexuality, but neither does it expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God’s intentions for humanity” [Gomes, 160].   Attitude toward homosexuality is the problem that is most important cites Gomes; he calls this attitude “doctrinaire prejudice.”  Instead of focusing on Scripture, people with prejudice against homosexuality make a value-judgement that homosexuality is sinful and they find support within Scripture that is not that strong, some would say not strong at all.

Gomes writes that homosexuality is the “last front” in the battle for the Bible.  Will an attitude of inerrant Scripture fueled by conservatism prevail or will an attitude of loving acceptance fueled by cultural change prevail?  “Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous and faithful person sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer” [Gomes, 162].  How did they understand this form of sexual behavior?  They viewed it as prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness and exploitation.  Were these practices common among homosexuals?  Of course maybe they were, but do those practices define homosexuality today? 

Where is the problem of homosexuality?  For Peter Gomes, the problem is not the Bible.  The problem is how non-confirming Christians bring a negative attitude toward the Bible.

“The problem…is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it” [Gomes, 162]. 

*From Peter Gomes’ The Good Book, Chapter 8.

** “Much Ado About Nothing”  May 15, 2024,  St. John Studies.

When Peter Gomes wrote The Good Book in 1996 some would say he did so to explain how he could be a gay man and also a Christian pastor.  During that time in our culture, the idea of homosexuality was not very accepted, with Christians largely condemning the practice of homosexuality. Today, times have changed.  Homosexual behavior is more openly discussed than ever before and some would say it is much more accepted.  Of course it remains a contentious issue within the church.  My original reason for beginning a three book discussion on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity was to learn as much as I could about the affirming position of Christians, the disconfirming position of Christians and the middle ground between the opposite views.  The issue has touched me personally, as my church has disaffiliated from the United Methodist congregation over the issue of homosexuality in the church.  To date 7,600 churches have disaffiliated, 25% of the churches within the United Methodist congregation.

Gomes actually does much more than just explain his sexual preference, he “defends” it.  His defense is built on the “hard texts” of the Bible.  In the first seven chapters of his book he focuses on Scripture and alcohol, Scripture and race, Scripture and anti-Semitism and Scripture and women.  To put is simply, he is making a case that the Bible does not always provide adequate guidance about issues that evolve over time within our culture.  In Chapter 8 [“The Bible and Homosexuality: The Last Prejudice”] he reaches the most compelling point within his book and like the previous issues, he expects the reader to agree with him that prejudice against homosexuals should be a thing of the past.  That is why in 1996 he refers to hatred against homosexuals as the “Last Prejudice.”

When Gomes refers to homosexuality within the church, he refers to it as “love that dare not speak its name.”  He also writes about compromise on this issue: “compromise or sweet reasonableness is thought to be capitulation to error, and therefore unacceptable” [145].  One must keep in mind that his comments came in the late 1990’s.  He also goes right to the heart of this issue because he feels that cultural acceptance of homosexuality is not the main problem; the Biblical basis for prejudice against homosexuality is the main problem.  That’s where people of religious conviction draw the line.

So what do we do with this problem?  Old Testament Scripture refers to homosexuality as an abomination, Sodom and Gomorroah was punished for the sin of homosexuality, Paul was opposed to homosexuality etc. 

In the late Twentieth Century many felt that AIDS was a terrible consequence of homosexual behavior, a punishment so to speak.  In 1991 a pastor out of Kansas named Fred Phelps captured national attention with his war on gay people, picketing funerals of homosexual men and women with signs like “GOD HATES FAGS”.  “Gay bashing” has long been a part of the cultural scene and it was popular in the 1990’s.  Gomes cites the case of Stephen Jones who died by being tossed from a bridge.  One has to merely go to a web browser and type in “list of violent crimes against homosexuals” to see an appalling list of additional acts. 

Gomes reponds to all this information with these words: “No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals.  The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community and its abuse of Scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable” 147].

Gomes turns to Scripture to parse out God’s words against homosexuals; “when the Bible speaks of homosexuality, does it mean what we mean when we speak of homosexuality?”  Does the Bible even have much to say on this subject?  Gomes states “It has not.”  The subject is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the summary of the Law.  No prophet mentions the topic.  Jesus does not mention it.  Homosexuality does not show up as a problem in the early churches.  It is almost as if Gomes is saying [to quote Shakespeare] that we are making “much ado about nothing.”  The Bible does not use the word homosexual.  Gomes says it was invented in the late nineteenth century by translators of earlier Biblical manuscripts.   No Hebrew, Greek, Syrian or Aramaic languages really have a word corresponding to “homosexual.” 

In other books I have discussed, both authors DeYoung and Sprinkle comment directly on Scripture dealing with homosexuality.  DeYoung finds ample support for his non-affirming position when he exegetes Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and Timothy.  His conclusion:  homosexuality is a grievous sin.  Sprinkle turns to those same passages and finds that there is room for some compromise between those who condemn homosexuality and those who do not.  He feels it  is better to err on the side of love than stand on hatred; Christians need to be careful as they examine their negative behavior toward homosexuals.  What messages are they sending the world? 

I find it interesting that the Bible Scriptures yield support for all three positions, but now we are focused on Peter Gomes’ position.  His view is the affirming view and in the next post, I will examine what he has to say on this issue. 

Like DeYoung and Sprinkle, he devotes several pages to “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality,” almost a direct quote of Kevin’s DeYoung’s title for his book.*

We will see if his notion of homosexuality as the last prejudice is plausible or does homosexuality deserve DeYoung’s label, “grievous sin.”  Gomes wrote in 1996 but 7,600 United Methodist churches disaffiliated in 2023 and 2024.  With this as a backdrop, how can one say that this issue is resolved?  Are Gomes’ thoughts relevant today?  We will see…

*Kevin DeYoung, What does the Bible Teach about Homosexuality?

For anyone following this blog, there has been an absence lately. I have not posted since April 6, 2024, a post about the role of Christians in society today. In particular, that post entitled “Can We Be The Balm That Can Heal?” was a retread from 2016 about how Christians get involved in politics in a very negative way, adding fuel to the fire that unbelievers already feel about our faith. In essence we don’t act like Christians; we act in a hateful manner.

I did post on April 4, about Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s ideas on Jesus’ beliefs about homosexuality. Jesus did not really address this issue but Sprinkle believes that many affirming* Christians feel His lack of words bolster their position that homosexuality is ok within the church. Non-affirming Christians use Jesus’ silence for their position; He was a devout Jew and would have followed the hard line about homosexuality. Why would He talk about something that was obviously a grievous sin? That post was entitled “Neither Do I Condemn Thee.” Sprinkle tries to find common ground between the affirming Christians and non-affirming Christians.

It is now time to get back to the issue of homosexuality in the Christian church.

I have been away on a relaxing vacation. It is the first time I have gone away with no telephone and no computer. I got some very needed perspective.

It is good to be back.

Now it is time to return to the topic at hand, and the timing could not be any better. I am at Chapter 8 in Peter Gomes’ book. Gomes is the most affirming of the three authors that I have been discussing. I started with his book when I began this project on February 2, 2023. His chapter is entitled “The Bible and Homosexuality, the Last Prejudice.”

That sounds serious.

I venture to say that is his key discussion on the issue I am trying to discuss.

Remember (any reader who is following this blog), I will go from Gomes to DeYoung** to Sprinkle***, trying to find a balanced discussion of this topic.

But for now, we look at “The Last Prejudice.”

*an “affirming” position on this issue means that Christians have no problem with homosexuality in the church

**Kevin DeYoung, a “non-affirming” Christian author on homosexuality

***Dr. Preston Sprinkle, an author who tries to bridge the gap between the affirming and non-affirming position.

This post was first written on April 1, 2016. I have rewritten it to fit today because I feel like Christians need to recognize that our actions do matter.

I am so blessed to have close friends and family members who are pastors. I am so blessed to have so many solid Christians in my life who are friends.  I am so blessed to be a member of a Christian church family.

Why is it that I wonder from time to time where my Christian friends and family members fit into the world of politics today? [ I know this idea does not seem to transition well from the first three sentences, sorry.]

“Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him [Jesus] in a statement. They came and said to Him, ‘Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?  Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’  But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’   They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’   And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’” [from Mark 12].

“My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” [from John 17].

These two scriptures are very popular and may mean different things to different people, but I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is trying to relay the idea that what the government demands of man is much different than what God demands of man.

The Jews of Jesus’ day were longing for a Messiah (they still are).  In Jesus, they did not find what they were seeking.  They wanted a warrior to overcome Roman rule.  They wanted an activist who could take control of the political situation of the day and change it in their favor.  Instead, they got an advocate for peace and a model of servitude for common man, both Jew and Gentile.  When He responds to His questioners, he tells them to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars’s”.  This is not a tax revolt statement.  It is more of a “pay your taxes” statement, but keep in mind that God’s Kingdom is above the Roman Empire.  God’s Kingdom is above all.  Remember, you believers are “not of this world.”

Politics?

I don’t know about you, but to me, the word has a distinctly “worldly” feel about it.

As Americans, we are told by many in other cultures that we should appreciate our vote, our ability to participate in government, our means of expression.  We should.

I don’t advocate that we just quit participating but I do advocate that we educate ourselves as much as we can about what is going on with a candidate and we need to reflect on what our support for a candidate really means. 

This may be a very inconsequential metaphor, but it is just like clicking “like” on someone else’s Facebook post.   Be very careful what you like.  Be very careful about who you like.  Your liking indicates something about you.  No one has to know how you voted, but thanks to “social media” today, so many Christians are expressing ideas about who they are supporting in an open manner.  Expressing our political views on social media is a choice [like voting] but some of the things I see on social media make me cringe.  I have a lot of contact with non-believers and I can tell you that they ridicule Christians who get carried away with politics and post hateful statements online.  I have heard like “Is that what Jesus teaches?”  “You wonder why I don’t go to church?  Now you know.”  “Why would I want to worship sitting next to those hypocrites?”  As Christians we wring our hands about how the power of the church is waning in society today and we don’t see ourselves as contributing to the problem.  Let me be bold.  Christians who are so caught up in politics that they make hateful statements are contributing to the problem.

Also keep in mind that politics can be all about “being used.” Adam Hamilton in his book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White says: “Too often faith has been used by Christian leaders and politicians to further a particular political party or political agenda.”   For many political operatives, the Christian Evangelical group of voters is just a demographic group.  I don’t know how many times I have heard a pundit or a politician say that such and such candidate has “locked up” the Christian Evangelical vote.  I don’t want to think of myself as a voter in a block of voters, just voting like others in my demographic group.  I don’t want to be courted by a politician who wants my vote and that is all.  I vote and then find out that said politician really does not reflect my beliefs, knows nothing about God or His Word, and displays behaviors that are incompatible with my faith.

At the beginning of this post I commented on the many Christians I have in my life.  Guess what; I have many non-Christians among my family and friends and many of them won’t have anything to do with God because of their feelings of disgust about the church.  Often they are not fully aware of the position of the church.  They just think they know because of how hey see Christians behave.  There is a trite expression that many Christians forget: “You are the only Bible that non-believers will ever see.”  As Hamilton says, “Christianity has become a wedge that drives people from Christ, rather than drawing them to Him.”  Christian behavior is the real wedge.

I want to vote with my head and my heart. I want to vote for the candidate that reflects the best choice for me.  I want to vote for the candidate that reflects how I feel about my faith.

Is the perfect candidate out there?

Sadly no.

They all have flaws just as you and I have flaws.

You may have to make the slightly square peg fit into the round hole, finding a way to make it work.

It is important to do this because our vote does matter.  It matters because we have the right to vote.

It is important for Christians to be actively, intelligently informed about our government.  What we need to give to “Caesar” is our vote [and our taxes]  because we have a nation that allows participation and requires taxes. But also what we need to do in the world today [in my estimation] is never to forget that we are people of God, people who advocate peace and love for one another.  That is the message from the King of our Kingdom.

That is the message we should show to the world.

Our political activity should be positive rather than negative. We should discuss and act as citizens who want to offer “the balm that can heal” a divided country rather than citizens who want “to divide our nation” [Hamilton, XV].

I wonder from time to time where we all fit into the world of politics today?

We don’t seem to fit, but we need to do the best we can to be a positive force, to offer that balm.

Just go to your polling place, vote and try to be “the balm that can heal.”

Dr. Preston Sprinkle makes an effort to examine the topic of homosexuality and Christianity in an unbiased manner.*   In the previous post “People to be Loved” I commented on his thoughts about Christians who attribute actions to Jesus that Jesus may have never done.  Would Jesus affirm homosexual behaviors?  It is highly unlikely.  Why would a more conservative Jew “affirm” behavior that goes against Scriptural Law that He knew so well?  Christians who say that Jesus affirms homosexuality are probably very wrong when they argue that His silence means acceptance. Silence on the subject of homosexuality does not mean anything other than His words and actions focused on other ideas.

But let’s turn the tables.  Is Sprinkle saying that Jesus was bound by Scripture in Leviticus that speaks against homosexuality [Lev. 18:22 and 20:13]?   The “hardline stance” against homosexuality found in the Old Testament may seem to be proof that the “non-affirming” crowd has scored a victory. Indeed when a more conservative Jesus does not address this topic, maybe non-affirming Christians are justified in their negative feelings about homosexuals.

Sprinkle will not accept that idea either.

How can he feel that way?

First of all, just because the church in the Twenty-first Century is locked in a debate about the acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexuality does not mean that this was a relevant discussion in the First Century.  Maybe there were more pressing matters to address in Jesus’ short time on earth.  Also Jesus rarely spoke of His relationship with Jewish law, saying  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Laws or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” [Matthew 5: 17].  In my reading, He was less concerned about changing Jewish laws than the misinterpretation of those laws by the Pharisees.  His concern was not so much with the Law or politics of the day; He wanted to show the world how to deal with people, people who needed to be loved and accepted for who they were.

Sprinkle points to His acceptance of the “less than desirable”.   In Matthew 8 Jesus meets a centurion.  These Roman military leaders represented one of the most oppressive empires known to man.  Yet when Jesus encountered this man, He found that he needed healing for his servant.  Jesus perceived the need and felt the good in this man’s heart so instead of responding with negativity, He responded with love.  He healed the servant and found that the centurion had great faith.  This shocked the Jewish community because centurions were labelled the most sinful humans on earth.  What is Jesus doing?  He is teaching His followers that love is a very powerful force in this world.

Matthew the tax collector is another example.  When Jesus saw him sitting in the tax collectors booth, He went up to him and said two simple words “follow Me.”  Matthew got up and followed Jesus.  It is not a small thing that Jesus has done here.  Religious Jews hated tax collectors, thinking them worse than thieves and murderers; Sprinkle states that they were “on par with dung collectors”.  The Jewish community considered them turncoats as they sold out to the Roman Empire so the Empire could fill their coffers with Jewish taxes.  To make matters worse, tax collectors were well-known as people who led lavish life-styles and excessively immoral lives.  In essence, “they were thought to be past the point of repentance….a modern day parallel might be a pimp, who is also a drug dealer, who runs a porn studio on the side, and funnels his profits to support terrorism around the world” [Sprinkle, 76-77].  What would you say if you encountered someone like that? 

Jesus says “Follow Me.”

Again what is Jesus trying to say to His contemporary community?  He is not supporting tax collecting.  I would imagine that Jesus would not want Matthew to continue collecting taxes and Jesus gives Matthew something else to do—be His Disciple.  How does He convince Matthew to change—by accepting him, by loving him, by going against the accepted norm which was “Jews must hate tax collectors”. 

Jesus, time and again, confounded the religious people of His day by befriending terrible sinners. 

Why? 

He is saying to all of us that this is what we are called to do.  Reach out to those who need our help.  Their needs are great and we must show them our love.

This past Super Bowl was a perfect case in point.  The Christian advertising group “He Gets Us” produced and aired a commercial about foot washing.  There is no act that can depict caring and loving for others more than washing another’s feet.  It is humbling to do this and it is humbling to receive it.  This ad portrayed unusual people paired together in foot washing.  The pro-life protestor washing a young woman’s feet outside the family planning clinic [presumably she was a client in the clinic], the Hispanic policeman washing the black man’s feet in an alley, the dislocated migrant woman holding her baby having her feet washed by the white woman from a suburb [she has been bussed there from the southern border].  The ad seemed to be telling us that we need to reach out to others in love, acceptance and service, the very message that Jesus sought to preach with His actions at His last Passover meal with His disciples.  Maybe some Christians got the message, but many did not.  They were angered by the ad [all you have to do is check out the criticism on your computer].  I read these views and I see words like “blasphemy,” “right-wingers upset,” “controversy ignited,” and “conservative Christian outrage.”  Dare I say it, but are there Pharisees alive and well in the Gentile community?

Maybe…

Let me end with this point which brings us back to the debate of whether Jesus would affirm or disaffirm homosexual behaviors in people today.  We have no record of His stance on homosexuality, but we do have a record that He felt compassion for sinners.  He told the story of the prodigal son who was embraced  and loved by his father.  He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery, telling her to “sin no more.”  He washed the prostitute’s feet and did not mention her sin.

Did Jesus affirm sinners?  He did not.  Did He love them despite their failings?  Yes He did.

This is where the “non-affirming” Christian is missing Jesus’ message.  Too many Christians just condemn and hate [yes that is a harsh word] the LGBTQ community. 

What do non-believers think about this?

I venture to say that Christians who cannot love others [different from themselves] are sending out a strong message that they cannot act out the faith that Jesus portrayed for all of us.  You may not like homosexual behavior but you don’t have to hate homosexuals.  Christians are seen as “judgmental” and “hypocritical” because of this stance.  Recent statistics summarizing the feelings of young non-Christians report that ninety-one percent say the first thing they think about Christians is they are “anti-homosexual.”

Non-affirming Christians don’t know what Jesus would do today if He encountered members of the LGBTQ community.    

Let me be clear; Preston Sprinkle is not calling on the church to give up its convictions.  We can’t ignore Scripture that labels homosexuality a sin.  But Sprinkle is calling on the church to “change its posture.”  Christ did not limit His love to the “desirables.”  He reached out to the sinner and the righteous alike.  When He encountered those who sinned, He gave them love; He gave them compassion.  The way to repentance was not hate; it was love. 

I love the way Sprinkle ends his Chapter Six so much I will use his words.  “He [Jesus] stands in solidarity with the woman caught in adultery, taking on her shame and sin, and declaring: ‘Neither do I condemn you.’”

Do believers often fall short of the glory of God?

Are they able to truly say “Neither do I condemn thee” to the LGBTQ community?

Some can, but You know the answer to that question for many…

*This is my opinion only.  I have read criticism of Dr. Sprinkle from very conservative Christians, that he “leans too far to the left.”