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.”
I have always had a fascination with debate, argument and persuasion. When I was a community college professor, I had classes in speaking and I coached a speech team. I had a graduate class in debate and more than one class in persuasion. I am always looking for situations on television where reasoning is applied [not just political debates but even commercials where “pitch men and women” are trying to sell products to the consumer]. I even turn to Facebook for examples of persuasion as people feel emboldened to express their opinions [with evidence “sometimes”]. I have enjoyed reading the defense of the truth of Christianity over the years [reasoning applied to the truth of the Christian faith].
But what happens when reasoning is turned against the church by people who feel they have been wronged by the church? I continue my discussion of answering objections that same-sex advocates have against non-affirming Christians. Kevin DeYoung* [a staunch non-confirming pastor] tries to address the issues of gluttony and divorce.
How does the line of reasoning against the church run? Detractors within the LGBTQ+ community like to say, “Look at all the overweight Christians who attend church; look at all the obese pastors. What right do you have in singling out homosexuals for persecution when the Bible prosecutes all of us who love food to excess?” Regarding divorce, the dissolution of marriage is common in our culture and sadly, statistics in the church for dissolved marriage and remarriage closely reflect cultural statistics. “Is this not a more important sin that same-sex marriage? Why do you attack homosexuals and excuse divorced church members?”
Logicians may cry foul; you cannot indulge in false analogy [commonly referred to “comparing an apple to an orange”]. But the LGBTQ+ community does not see it that way. Winking at gluttony and divorce seems hypocritical [the old plank in the eye example]. DeYoung also says that detractors of the church may say that this is a prime example of inconsistency. “You get your own house in order and then we will talk” [DeYoung, 89]. Last is the effort to “dial down” the response to same-sex relationships. “No one lives up to God’s ideal so let’s call off the inquisition”[89]; the church is far from perfect so let’s all cool off.
What is DeYoung’s response to these lines of attack? He admits that the church has problems in these areas. He admits that Christian Bible readers take the clobber passages** of the Bible literally when it comes to homosexuality but they get “loose and free” when it comes to their belly. Critics of Christian traditional marriage love to cite that the Bible contains three times as many exhortations against gluttony as against homosexuality. DeYoung entitles the section of his book on gluttony “Their God is Their Belly.” Gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins, and one of the sins that most all of us commit.*** Theologians have understood gluttony in different ways. For some it is immoderate desire and for others it is just eating more than we need [literally]. The basic idea is that gluttony (as many other sins) dulls our spirituality and distracts us from God.
DeYoung continues that the word gluttony does not appear on any New Testament vice list. For the most part, the New Testament is positive about the need for food [feasts abound and Jesus chose to leave this earth with the celebration of a last supper]. The word glutton appears four times in the English Standard version of the Bible and is always paired with the word drunkard. What I think DeYoung is trying to say is that gluttony is a trait that is paired with other failings: loafing, partying, high society indulgence and drunkenness. Should the church take a stand on gluttony? Yes, but DeYoung won’t admit that gluttony is on par with homosexuality.
The more contentious of the two issues is divorce; “What God has Joined Together” is the title of the section that DeYoung devotes to divorce. He admits that the no-fault divorce attitude has crept into the church as many believers have ended their marriages at a similar rate as people outside of church.
Why is this issue so contentious? Pastors are too scared to preach against divorce because there are too many divorced couples in church. Elders in the church don’t practice any discipline against divorcing church members, because this area of discipline is too volatile. Christian counselors can help but too many Christian couples bypass that route. Christian lawyers do not encourage reconciliation enough [financial loss?]. Church leaders have not helped people understand God’s teaching on marriage and have not practiced forgiveness for past mistakes.
Where does the church stand on divorce. It does not really stand. Where does it stand on homosexuality? Many churches take a hard line stand against homosexuality. When the church has expressed a position on divorce it is usually along the lines of divorce is sometimes acceptable (cases of infidelity or desertion by an unbelieving spouse). DeYoung sums up this position with the words, “Simply put, homosexuality and divorce are not identical because according to the Bible the former is always wrong while the latter is not. Every divorce is the result of sin, but not every divorce is sinful” [94].
Is the church record on the handling of divorce without fault? Of course not; it is too high. Marriage sanctity should be upheld but it is often not. Churches would rather ignore this issue than anger members to the point that they leave the church.
DeYoung states that new members of his church are asked about the nature of their divorce upon joining the church. His church has had to discipline elders who have made “questionable” decisions about divorce. His church has offered counseling for struggling couples and the majority of pastoral care crisis situations have involved failed marriage situations. He states “Our church, like many others, takes seriously all kinds of sins, including illegitimate divorce” [95].
Is this a courageous stand in support of the sanctity of marriage? It is. Has it resulted in people leaving his church? It has.
It hurts when someone points out the plank in your eye. DeYoung admits that the evangelical church has lots of “plank-eyed Christians.” Many churches, church leaders and pastors have given up on topics like gluttony and divorce much to their detriment. “The remedy for this negligence is not more negligence” [95]. It must be corrected, even if the cure is slow. He cites the need for “biblical exposition, more active pastoral care, more consistent discipline, more Word-saturated counseling and more prayer.” I find the last sentence of his chapter to be very interesting; all these cures need to be applied for “illegitimate divorce, same sex behavior and for the other sins that are more easily condoned than confronted” [95].
*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
“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.
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?
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.
As I have tried to learn as much as I can about the issue of homosexuality and the church, I have consulted three sources. When I began this project on February 2, 2023, I began with Peter Gomes’ book The Good Book. Gomes was a preacher to Harvard University and was a homosexual [and a defender of the role of the homosexual in the church]. I countered his thoughts with Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality. I wanted a very conservative, non-confirming view on this topic and DeYoung gives the reader that. Preston Sprinkle tries to “bridge the gap” between the affirming Gomes and the non-affirming DeYoung with his book People to Be Loved.
Gomes defends his position by examining the Bible and the changing positions toward certain various practices over the years. As the culture has changed, the Bible seems to have changed. Maybe more accurately, how we view the Bible has changed. He discusses the Bible and hard drink, the Bible and race, the Bible and Anti-Semitism and the Bible and women.
He builds his thought toward the Bible and homosexuality which he calls “the last prejudice” (Chapter 8).
He builds his thought about “the last prejudice” to a key part of his book in Chapter 8, “Testimony in the Yard.” He is referring to his testimony about his sexual preference in a very public forum.
I have been in an audience when a homosexual announced his sexual preference. I taught speech communication for thirty- six years in a college setting. In those years, I had a student named Adam who gave a speech on what it feels like to be a “gay” person. I had no idea that he was going to do that. He changed his topic at the last minute. I remember being surprised but I don’t remember having negative feelings about Adam. I always strongly encouraged respect in my classes and I don’t remember having students who acted in a negative manner. He just got up and revealed an innermost secret in a very public forum.
This is what happened to Gomes on the steps of The Memorial Church at Harvard. He was invited to speak to a rally for homosexual students who felt they were being attacked by a group of Roman Catholic Harvard students for being gay. The Roman Catholic students published a periodical denouncing the homosexual lifestyle as bad for people and bad for society. The homosexual community at Harvard was outraged and as Gomes describes: “this community was a diverse and secular one, and that while many of its members were doubtless devout practitioners of a number of religious faiths, it would be less than accurate to call the community as a whole particularly visibly religious” [163].
It is in the context of that rally to support the besieged gay students that Peter Gomes declared his homosexuality. Gomes was well known as a Republican, having prayed at the inauguration of Ronald Reagan and preached at George Bush’s inauguration. His declaration was indeed a surprise and it was followed by outrage from Harvard’s more conservative factions. His American Baptist affiliation threatened to disown him. How did he respond? “I prayed a lot, and was prayed for, and the support of friends who were secular and could not understand the problem, and of religious friends who did, and did not, and of strangers who heard not me but what I said, served to sustain me in those difficult times” [165].
I find it interesting that Gomes had a very private response to all the uproar: he studied his Bible. Even then people accused him of reading another Bible than theirs, he assured them he did not. There were many arguments with people who did not appreciate his position and in many cases “anathemas were hurled and damnations promised.” I find it interesting that he felt in those days that he got to the true heart of homophobia: he said it was fear. The same fear that he expressed in his chapter on racism. “Religion—particularly the Protestant evangelical kind that had nourished me—was the moral fig leaf that covered naked prejudice” [166].
He states “I further concluded that more rather than less attention must be given to how we read the Scriptures, what we bring to the text, what we find in the text, and what we take from the text. This transaction has brought me to the present moment and I am grateful for that” [166].
As a commentator and learner about this issue, I have worked through The Good Book to get to these pages. What will Gomes say? How will he speak directly to this issue in his book? Let me say that he does not get “weak-kneed” at this point. In upcoming posts we will discuss his view of the “last prejudice,” what it is founded upon.
Here is a preview of coming thoughts on this matter: it is all about sex, it is about our attitude of shame about sex, it is about what the homosexual does to have sex and how society needs to move beyond the idea that sex is only for procreation.
Will all readers agree with what Gomes has to say? Of course they won’t. I am not sure I do, but one thing I do admire is his is frank and honest in his discussion. At times as I read his pages I feel he is getting right to the heart of the problems that non-confirming people have with homosexuals.
I lived through a church-wide discussion of this issue as my church decided whether it was going to be an affirming congregation or a non-confirming congregation. Church members got up and stated that they would leave the church if we became non-affirming. Their argument was that “some of their best friends were gay; how can you do this to them?” No one really had a lot to say in response to that statement. What was the church going to do to them? My church took a non-confirming position and to my knowledge no one has been turned away from the church door because they are homosexual. Those people who felt their gay friends were so important to them, left the church. Church members got up and stated they would leave the church because they had family members who were gay. No one really had a lot to say in response to that statement. What was the church going to do to them? To my knowledge no gay family member has been turned away from the church door because they are homosexual. Those with gay family members left the church. We even had a well-respected lawyer comment that the last great wedge that split the United Methodist Church was over chattel slavery. He said that this issue is very much akin to that. No one said no. No one said yes. If Peter Gomes was in attendance, I guess he may have agreed, but maybe not. Maybe he would have felt that being a slave on a plantation was much worse than being a homosexual in today’s world?
What is the point? I am not sure that people have much knowledge about this topic. I agree with Gomes; they react with fear or even anger. This past year the United Methodist Church has grappled with this topic. My church has grappled with this topic. I have seen a lot of emotion in peoples’ reactions: fear is an emotion, anger is an emotion.
Many people have left the church, friends of mine, people I miss being around. Just yesterday I saw someone who was a close friend at the grocery store. I spoke first and I got a very frosty reply. I got the distinct feeling that she was not glad to see me. Why?
Could she really tell me or was she just feeling something. Why have I become a Christian that she does not like anymore? I know her son is a homosexual and I like him just like I used to like him when he was in youth group with my son at my church.
This issue has resulted in brokenness. Like so many things in our world today, this issue has become all about picking sides. You pick your position and hate those on the other side.
I have a question that I just can’t resolve yet and maybe it will never be resolved on this topic…
“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.
In his section within Chapter Eight of his book entitled The Good Book, Peter Gomes addresses Scripture about homosexuality directly. We have looked at scriptures before from the point of view of a pastor who condemns homosexual behavior. Kevin DeYoung* examines the creation story in Genesis, the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the condemning passages in Leviticus and he concludes the same-sex activity is a grievous sin. Preston Sprinkle** looks at those same Scriptures and admits that they are condemning but allows that Jesus’ admonition to “love your neighbor as yourself” overrules all animosity that anyone would feel against homosexuals. Sprinkle also provides some context based on his advanced theological knowledge that homosexuality was not very common in Old Testament times and the practice would not have been condemned that much because of that.
So what is Gomes arguing about these Old Testament Scriptures, what Sprinkle calls the “clobber passages?”***
First of all, Gomes addresses The Creation Story in Genesis 1 and 2. Creation Scripture focuses on heterosexuality because it is all about one man and one woman. Detractors of same-sex behavior love to say that creation is all about Adam and Eve, “not Adam and Steve.” Gomes says that heterosexuality may be the dominant form of sexuality in Genesis but that does not mean it was the only form of sexuality. Gomes states that the primary theme of Genesis 1 and 2 is the procreation of the human race and to accomplish this you must have two human beings of opposite sex engaging in heterosexual sex.
In the Old Testament world other factors that influence relationship dynamics are the idea that women were subordinate to men. This is inherent in this context and could encourage the idea that men prefer heterosexual activity. Also Scripture does not mention people who prefer to be single and Scripture does not mention the idea of friendship. Gomes is trying to make the case that Genesis is about one thing: the establishment of human society through heterosexual sex. “Genesis does not pretend to be a history of anthropology or of every social relationship” [150]. He even goes so far as to say that “the creation story is the basis and not the end of human diversity, and thus to regard it as excluding everything it does not mention is to place too great a burden on the text and its writers and too little responsibility upon the intelligence of the readers.” Furthermore, the intelligent readers of the Bible should know that same-sex relationships have always existed, even at the creation times. The church has always tolerated diversity in human relationships; for example, priestly celibacy, voluntary virginity and monastic community life. Wouldn’t it be unlikely that same-sex relationships would be condemned wholeheartedly?
When Gomes turns to Sodom and Gomorrah, this Scripture seems to support condemnation of homosexuality due to the behavior of the men who visit the home of Lot. The rowdy “visitors” want Lot’s guests to come outside so they could have sex with them. Little did the mob know that those “guests” were Angels who had come to visit Lot and warn him of the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot refused the mob access to his visitors and instead offered his daughters [a bit of a shock].
What do many readers of Scripture assume about Sodom and Gomorrah? They assume that the cities are going to be destroyed because of same-sex behavior. In fact that assumption is not made clear by Scripture. Sodom and Gomorrah is referred throughout the Old Testament as a place of wickedness but nowhere does it say that the form of wickedness that it is known for is homosexuality. What are the sins that are mentioned in Scripture: pride, gluttony, idleness, neglect of help for the needy. In Matthew and Luke Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as a place lacking hospitality.
What should be condemned with the story of Lot and his guests? Of course homosexual rape should be condemned as rape of any kind should be condemned. Gomes says that readers of the Bible go too far with the implications from the story of Lot and his guests. He quotes Jeffrey Siker in an article from Theology Today where he writes that “David’s sin of adultery with Bathsheba does not make all heterosexual expressions sinful” so readers of Scripture should not make more of this situation than necessary.
Finally we have the strong words of Leviticus. Leviticus 18: 22 reads “You shall not life with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20: 13 says “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Gomes admits that these statements are very clear, but “the context and application is not.” What does he mean by that?
Gomes means the context of these Levitical codes is the influence that other cultures are having on Jewish culture. What is the purpose of such harsh statements? Simply put, this is all about “nation building.” God wanted statutes to be kept because of outside influences on the culture of His Chosen People. They were chosen by God and expected to be on a higher plane than other peoples. Fruit trees may not be harvested until the fifth year. Kosher laws must be kept. Round haircuts were forbidden. A man may not have sexual relations with his wife while she menstruates. These statues defined purity for the Jewish people and to defy these laws is to not only be punished but on a much larger scale, it is to “weaken the cultural definition of the children of Israel” [154]. Gomes states that the context can be summed up by three words: “identity, protection and procreation.” In this context, homosexual conduct is a risk to all three of these frontier ambitions.
Ok, but does this totally account for the full meaning of the admonition? Maybe today we are not living in a context that demands ritual purity. We are not a frontier folk trying to live in a promised land. But does that mean that same-sex behavior is ok due to the idea that we don’t live in a society that demands purity? Gomes says this is a distinction between “what is ritually impure and what is intrinsically wrong” [154]. Examples of intrinsic evil acts are theft and rape. Examples of impure acts are eating pork or engaging in sex during menstruation. An abomination by definition what the Gentiles do, but that does not make it evil or a violation of the Commandments. Here is Gomes main point: “homosexuality is an abomination in Leviticus not because it is inherently evil, but because the Gentiles do it, and it is therefore ritually impure” [154].
What Does the Bible say about Homosexuality?
According to Gomes, the Old Testament “clobber passages” don’t amount to much. When it comes to Genesis, non-affirming Christians like to focus on the idea that the emphasis is on heterosexual marriage not the idea that human society needs to be established. When it comes to Sodom and Gomorrah, non-affirming Christians like to assume that the city was destroyed for homosexual activity; after all, the word sodomy comes from the city of Sodom. The meaning of Scripture in Leviticus is an effort to keep a culture pure rather than to condemn a sexual act. Whereas non-affirming Christians make a big deal about these Scriptures, Gomes seems to have an approach that is much akin to the title of the famous Shakespearean play:
Much Ado About Nothing.
*Kevin DeYoung. What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
**Preston Sprinkle People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just An Issue
***some explanation… These passages are used to “clobber” LGBTQ+ people…..
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.
St. John Studies 