It is important to stop and reveal the plan to any reader who happens along to this blog. On February 9, I wrote a post entitled “The Ongoing Battle.” It was commentary on Peter Gomes’ chapter on the role of women in the church. Gomes devotes a chapter on this topic in his book entitled The Good Book. Basically he argues that inclusion of women in the ministry of the church is where we are as a society today. Maybe the Bible was written in a patriarchal society in a patriarchal timeframe, but to continue to exclude women from leadership in churches is a mistake. Culture has changed and along with it, we need to adapt the Bible so it can be more inclusive and less exclusive.
My overall plan in discussing The Good Book is that Gomes would get to his main point [his next chapter entitled “The Bible and Homosexuality”]. I have two other books that do not align exactly with Gomes. Kevin DeYoung argues in his book* that homosexuality is a sin and homosexuals need to repent for their sinful lifestyle. Dr. Preston Sprinkle in his book** argues that there should be a middle ground between advocating for homosexual leadership in the church and homosexual union in marriage and downright condemning the practice of homosexuality all together.
Where are we going now?
From a friendly attitude toward homosexuality, I will comment on DeYoung’s Chapter 5 entitled “A New Word from an Old Place”. DeYoung looks closely at Scripture, especially the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai and concludes that a revisionist view of the Bible is wrong.
Why do this? I am grappling with this issue myself. My church has split away from the United Methodist Church over this issue. St. John is now a Global Methodist Church.
How should I feel?
Is it time for the culture to influence the interpretation of the Bible?
Is it time to hold to the Bible as it and push back on cultural influences?
*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
**People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue?
“The church should define the culture, not the culture should define the church.” I can’t tell you where I picked up that quote, but I throw it into my Sunday school lessons from time to time, just to stimulate conversation. It may sound to some like a clarion call for conservative Christianity, but I am not sure. Is the church being defined by today’s culture? Is that a bad thing? Is that a good thing?
Some may say that the church needs to strive to be relevant, which seems to support the idea that culture needs to define the church. Why cling to a First Century point of view, with all its outdated ideas? Others say that those ideas are not outdated. They are God’s ideas expressed in His Holy Book. They are timeless. They are truth for all ages.
What is the solution to the problem? We can’t ignore passages that don’t seem current, like First Corinthians 14: 34-35 and First Timothy 2: 11. If you aren’t familiar with those, these are the Scriptures that call women to be silent in the church. First Timothy says that women should not have anyone under them [as a teacher or preacher]. It is wrong for women to have authority over men. [Is this saying that women are not as important as men?] It seems the big question is this attitude disrespectful toward women? If we view the Scripture from a 2024 perspective, the answer would be yes. But in the First Century the prevailing, accepted normal attitude was to discount the role of women in church. To have any other view was not socially appropriate.
As I wrote previously [a January 27th post entitled “The Bible and Women”] one of the best pastors I have ever had in my life was a woman. I look around in churches: the women are leaders in ministry, education and administration. Some churches would have to close their doors if women decided to leave.
Yet what are we to do with First Corinthians and First Timothy? The doxology uses the words “Praise Him all creatures here below” and closes with “Father Son and Holy Ghost.” Even today, when a congregation sings songs like “Rise Up, O Men of God” how does a female feel like an equal participant?
Peter Gomes was confronted with this issue in his congregation* as he welcomed a Roman Catholic woman from Boston College to come to speak. She presented her ideas and abruptly led a walkout in protest of the church’s anti-feminist point of view. This plunged him into the issue of the role of women in the contemporary church and what the Scripture says about women, in essence the relationship between Scriptural tradition and unique contemporary cultural experience.
Without going too far afield, Gomes brings up the issue that any generation that has read the words of the Old Testament and the words of the First Century in the New Testament has struggled to understand the context. A twenty-first century spin on the Bible is bound to happen as readers read and visualize with contemporary minds. Did that happen in the Eighteenth Century? It did. Did that happen in the Sixteenth Century? It did. Will a man read the Bible differently than a woman? I would imagine that to be the case. My wife leans toward feminism and she is galled by some patriarchal language that she encounters in Scripture.** But yet it is there.
Gomes comments: “The roles of men and women in agrarian first-century society were prescribed by the circumstances of that society, where, with very rare exceptions, women were subordinate to men” [139]. That’s putting it lightly.
Did that influence Scripture? Of course it did.
The foundation of this problem to put it simply resides in what a person believes about the authority of Scripture. If all Scripture is authoritative, the stance of the Southern Baptist Association is correct: women should not be allowed to take leadership positions in church and men should never be subordinate to women.
Are there those who look at Scripture as less authoritative? Of course defenders of women write that the idea that women must take a submissive role is not binding. First Century men were taught to be disrespectful to women and that is not relevant anymore. Malcolm Tolbert writes “one of the most fundamental mistakes in the reading of Scripture, particularly of the New Testament, is to assume that the structures and the systems it describes are as sacred and authoritative as the principles it affirms. Not only is that wrong, it is idolatrous, even blasphemous, to use the Word of God to affirm and maintain human privilege” [Tolbert in Gomes, 143]
That is the very argument that Gomes has stated to attack the idea that chattel slavery was correct in the eyes of Southern Christian plantation owners. He also argued that this same approach fueled discrimination and persecution against Jews as Christians singled them out as killers of Jesus and deserving of punishment.
The battle for a prevailing contemporary viewpoint is ongoing as people continue to grapple with what to do with the stated male dominance of the Bible. For now, Gomes does not actually side with one view or the other, even saying that he understands this issue but “for my part, I have been more willing to edit out offending passages in hymns than I have been to edit out offending passages in Scripture” 135].
For now, there is no definitive answer for this issue and he ends his chapter on “Women and the Bible” with the words “The most significant battle for the Bible since the debates over slavery [the battle about women] women have lead the way, and one would like to think that Lydia, Phoebe and Priscilla would be pleased” [143]. When we return to Gomes, he will have a chapter where he will weigh in on a problem that he feels he must address: the Bible and homosexuality.
My guess is that he will not sit on the sidelines on that topic; we will know where he stands.
Will his argument be effective?
We will see.
*Gomes was pastor to Harvard’s Memorial Church, admittedly more “liberal” than some congregations.
**Yes, she reads every post that I write so I am not trying to speak for her.
I majored in English in the early 70s at a regional university. My major interest was English literature. During those days, English majors had tools which they used to understand the meaning of literature. I remember going to class to hear about contemporary methods which were new criticism, Jungian interpretation, mythical/archetypal interpretation and the historical/biographical context of the author. At that time, “new criticism” was the “new kid on the block.”
I never did much with my English major, teaching English in high school for one year and then teaching writing in a community college for several years before concentrating on human communication for the bulk of my teaching career [36 years]. I never really got to teach English literature.
Little did I know that the world of understanding literature [referred to as literary criticism] had changed significantly over the years. In the last few years, I have taken more time to interpret literature and when I considered the tools used to understand, I found that Feminist interpretation had come into the critic’s toolbox. Women have insisted on having their perspective considered as they feel their views have been subsumed by a patriarchal society.
What does this have to do with the Bible?
That same feminist perspective has changed the interpretation of the greatest work of literature in the world, the Bible. Feminist theologians began to assert that the Bible was written in a world of patriarchy and even though many women are mentioned in the Bible, they are [for the most part] denigrated. Is this fair? What does it say about the value of women to the world? How can God write the greatest book in the whole world and place women in such an inferior position?
As feminist theology gained steam, Christians were challenged by this new approach. Many believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God so if He portrayed a patriarchal world, that is how He intended it to be. God does not make errors. Others felt that God’s word needed updating. The world of the Old and New Testament is not that relevant and that emphasis on patriarchy is very much “out of style.”
My denomination resolved this problem in its earliest days, with John Wesley licensing a woman to preach in 1761. Officially, full rights were granted to United Methodist Women to preach in 1956. However, other denominations are still struggling with this issue, most notably the Southern Baptist Conference.
Can anyone deny the power of women in the church? I think not. Women are in the majority in many churches Often the ministry program is managed and supplied by women. Initiatives in religious education have been instituted by women and church charity has long been the province of females in the church.
In short, women have had a profound moral and religious impact on the church.
Where is the problem? One must look at First Corinthians 14: 34-35 and First Timothy 2: 11-12. In both cases women are supposed to be silent in the church. In both cases women are supposed to submit to men. Women cannot teach or “have authority over” a man.
Peter Gomes writes in his book [The Good Book] this problem with female participation is comparable to other interpretation of Scriptures [e.g. the institution of slavery] because the more seriously one takes Scripture, “the more difficult becomes the problem of several, often contradictory voices, and therefore the more urgent becomes the development of a persuasive principle of interpretation by which the differences are reconciled” [131]. The question of interpretation is one of understanding the text as best as one can and it is not simple especially if you consider text, context and subtext. Often Protestants want to interpret the Bible for themselves, but are there aspects of meaning that are missed? I am one who believes that this is so.
Take the feminist subtext for example. The text says one thing and to have an ample meaning of God’s word, one has to try to determine what the writer and readers felt in the time of the writing. What about an underlying subtext? Feminist theologians cry out that the writers of the Bible were all men who considered women as second class individuals, of little value to society as a whole. “There is a substantial and growing body of Christians in all communions, for whom the Biblical texts in question and the climate of interpretation are in fact out of sync” [133]. Gomes goes on to admit that the most “interesting, creative and demanding scholarship” in the field of Biblical interpretation since the translation of the Bible into English has been the feminist interpretation of Scripture.
Has this view been accepted with open arms? No it has not. “It has become the habit on the part of some evangelicals and religious conservatives to dismiss the mountain of female scholarship on the Bible with the taint of the most extreme and deconstructive dimensions of that scholarship, suggesting pagans and goddesses reside under every hermeneutical bed” [Gomes, 134]. I am afraid that does not sound like acceptance.
This past year the Southern Baptist Conference expelled two large churches that have women pastors and amended their constitution with the following words: “a Southern Baptist congregation should not affirm, appoint, or employ a woman as a pastor of any kind.”
Where are we to go from here?
I will go further into the examination of the text where women feel they are being harassed. Gomes writes, “Language has become the battlefield for the conflict between inclusion of females and exclusion of females.” One extreme position says it is no longer appropriate to pray “Our Father” and other masculine titles like “Lord” and “King” need to be excluded from the text. The other extreme position is one of fear. Like the abolitionists of the Nineteenth Century, many Christians today are scared of women who insist that the subtext of male chauvinism is evident throughout God’s word. What will that mean for my interpretation of God’s word? Are these women wrong?
Are there people who are making the effort to avoid extremes? Of course there are. Has the role of women changed in our world today? Of course it has. Are women more dominant than ever before? They are. Are they capable of leadership, do they have superior abilities, do they have superior intelligence? As society has changed, many feel that the interpretation of God’s word needs to change. There is a conflict between the feminist view and the conservative, patriarchal view.
We need to move on from that.
Yet there is a denomination of 13,680,000 Christians who are not there yet—the Southern Baptists.
I will look deeper into the texts that the Baptists are standing on in the next section of Gomes’ book, a section aptly entitled “Textual Harassment?”
It is time to get our bearings. If you get your “bearings” or find your “bearings,” you find out where you are or what you should do next. If you lose your bearings, you do not know where you are or what you should do next.
When a I am trying to discuss three books at one time, three different approaches to the same subject, it is good from time to time to stop and think about where I am going.
I just finished Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s discussion of homosexuality in the First Century. Before that I resurrected a post that I wrote for Christmas several years ago. Preceding the Christmas post, I dealt with Kevin DeYoung’s discussion of “Ought Nots” as he condemns homosexuality outright. Before that I discussed Peter Gomes and his opinion on Anti-Semitism among Christians.
Where am I now? I am ready to return to Peter Gomes and this time he is touching on a subject that is “close to home.” I am a married man. My wife is a Christian. I think I am accurate in saying that my wife has never been called to preach God’s word, teach God’s word or write books about God, but she has strong feelings that women who want to do those things have a right to do so.
What is the problem? This is the 21st Century.
Many denominations allow active female participation in preaching, teaching and writing about God.
The problem is there are passages in the Bible that speak against women participating openly in leadership roles in the church. In the 21st Century, a major denomination has taken a stand against female participation. The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has been debating the role of women in the church since the 1880s . In 1984, the SBC passed a resolution against women’s ordination, stating that women were excluded from ordained ministry to “preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall”.* This past year they expelled some churches from the denomination because of female leadership concerns.
This is a denomination of 13,680,000 Christians.
More importantly to me, it is my wife’s former denomination and she does not agree with this stand. She is a very intelligent, highly educated, independent woman who is not satisfied with saying that women are subservient to men.
I agree with her. I have had a female pastor and in my lifetime, she was one of the most outstanding pastors I have ever had.
And that is where we are: Chapter 7 of Peter Gomes’ book entitled “The Bible and Women, The Conflicts of Inclusion.”
*from “The Conversation” website, by Susan Shaw accessed on 1/23/2024.
The Christian church in all its various denominations has been losing members for many years. Many people have theories about why that is happening. Polls have been conducted on the “unchurched” to have a more factual explanation about why people have left church. I could cite numerous theories and “facts” concerning this matter but I have a simpler explanation. Some may scoff at my ideas but here they are anyway. God has great expectations for man. Jesus came to earth to “set the bar high” for human behavior. As Christians, many of us have not tried hard enough to live the words of our Father and mirror the life of His Son. We have given ourselves a “pass” on acceptable Christian behavior. We have invented the idea that a lower standard for Christian behavior is acceptable. In reality, we have lost our way.
People inside the church and especially people “outside” the church have been taking notice for some time now and they have left the institution of “the church.”
Christians seem to think that becoming allies to politicians will give us power and maybe this does, but at what cost? Did Jesus play politics with the powerful of His day? Romans 13: 1 says “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” Jesus knew that there was only one Divine Leader and that is the way He lived His life. The Apostle Paul knew that Jesus the politician did not exist and doing His Father’s will was His only guide (as it should be ours). Paul knew that there are no Scriptural examples of Jesus cozying up to politicians like Christians do today. Christians take the Bible and twist it to fit the policies of the day or even turn their faith into a political movement. Some see this and say “I can’t be a part of this anymore.” Those on the outside of church looking in only see hypocrisy as some politicians advocate policies that are anything but loving, the idea that Paul advocates for in First Corinthians 13: “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” Why join with those people who say one thing and show another?
Christians seem to think that taking stands against certain groups of people “outside the mainstream” is also a proper attitude. That is why I am doing this discussion of Christian thinking on the LGBTQ+ issue. Trying to be even-handed in today’s world is tough. We live in a world where intolerance is the watchword, as some seem quick to condemn someone who has different thoughts than they do. Too many Christians seem quick to condemn a lifestyle that others are living if it is a different lifestyle than their own. Trying to discuss this issue with a pastor who advocates for the LGBTQ+ community (Peter Gomes) and a pastor who advocates against the LGBTQ+ community (Kevin DeYoung) and a pastor who makes an effort to see both sides of the issue (Preston Sprinkle) is challenging but I feel is worthwhile. Meanwhile Christians keep on denigrating others, forgetting Jesus’ call to love.
And the church keeps on hemorrhaging members and new member recruitment seems almost impossible.
Dr. Preston Sprinkle is making the effort to understand the world of the First Century middle-east. In my January 4th post entitled “Exegesis: Same-Sex Texts in Ancient Times” Sprinkle explains the idea of same-sex relations in a First Century context. Too often we read The Bible and try to understand Scripture in our 21st Century framework and that does not accurately represent what the original writer has said. Sprinkle’s study on this topic makes us see that concern for same-sex relations and gender identities were not uppermost on a person’s mind in the First Century. However in my January 4th post, he focuses on the Greco-Roman cultural context, not the Jewish. What was Jewish First Century thinking on same-sex relations? Jesus was a Jew and He had rabbinical knowledge of existing Jewish texts in His lifetime.
Sprinkle states “This is one of the most important questions in the current debate. It’s important because Christianity was birthed out of Judaism and still maintained a very Jewish perspective on most ethical questions” [64].
How does Sprinkle address this question? He turns to contemporary Jewish writers of the First Century on the subject of same-sex relations and he researches the most socially acknowledged form of homosexual behavior [pederasty].
Two examples of prominent Jewish writers were Josephus and Philo. Both of these writers were steeped in their Jewish heritage and they were also aware of Greco-Roman cultural practices. Josephus writes regarding same-sex relations: “The Law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which [is] according to nature [kata physin]. Josephus is writing about marriage, with the idea that opposite sex intercourse is the only context for sex. Josephus believes because Leviticus 18 and 20 say same-sex relations is wrong, that means it is wrong. Philo comments on the Sodom story and states that men lusting after men is “unnatural desire.” Other less prominent Jewish writers have commented that same-sex practices for men “defile themselves in their relationships” and “We [Jews] are quite separated from these practices”. It is quite obvious that the Jews of Bible times were not accepting of homosexuality.
The most socially acknowledged same-sex practice was pederasty. As seen in my January 4th post, Greco-Roman culture accepted it. Did Jewish culture? The short answer is no. Since Jewish custom was that Jewish women got married between the ages of thirteen to seventeen and pederasty involved boys from that age group, the practice was condemned for practical reasons. Also, related to this idea is that the practice of sex was for procreation, not pleasure [pederasts focused solely on pleasure]. The First Century Jewish thinking on this was the human body is designed for opposite sex intercourse, not same-sex intercourse. Sprinkle cites writers who provide reasons for this prohibition and the main reason given is “God said no.”
Today it seems like some Christians are reading a non-Jewish New Testament and clearly that type of Bible has never existed. “Every Jew who wrote on the subject five hundred years before and five hundred years after Christ agreed on one thing: same-sex relations were against the will of God.”
Dr. Sprinkle is an example of a contemporary writer who is trying to find middle ground between those who advocate for LGBTQ+ people being totally accepted in the church and those who condemn LGBTQ+ practices and are willing to say these people are not fit for church leadership or receiving a Christian marriage ceremony. Yet he has turned to the original texts and found little support for LGBTQ+ acceptance.
As we leave Chapter Four of his book* it is pretty clear that some Christians who seek to accept same-sex behaviors are reading a different Bible than those who condemn those behaviors. Love one another [literally] does not extend to sexual relations between the same sex. Sprinkle says it best after providing us with the context: “If we say that Christians should endorse same-sex relations, then we will need to recreate a rather un-Jewish Jesus and an un-Jewish New Testament” [68].
Can we do that? Society says we should, but Scriptural context says we can’t. Maybe contemporary society has “evolved” to the point that acceptance is the norm, but a look into the thoughts of First Century writers provides little support for this evolution. Christians may be condemned for standing against same-sex relations, but maybe it is how we choose to discuss the issue. Can we treat others who have different orientations with respect? Yes we can and we should. Not feeling we can endorse other lifestyles may be justified, but hateful condemnation is not the way to show others that Jesus is our Lord.
If Christians keep expressing damnation and hatefulness, the trend of the amazing shrinking church will continue.
*Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue.
Can you imagine specializing in the study of same-sex relationships in Bible times?
That is what Dr. Preston Sprinkle has done.
He has tried to explore the meaning of those controversial texts in their original context.
Why do that?
That is what more serious students of the Bible do; they try to explore the original context of the Bible as much as they can. They recognize that the Bible was written over a 1,500 year period and those times are far removed from today. The writers of Scripture lived in a particular time in history and a particular culture and it is certainly not our time or our culture. Sprinkle considers such questions as what did these texts mean to the people who wrote them? What did they think about God? How did they understand themselves?
This is called exegesis.*
Some may say this is useless. God’s word has eternal relevance. It speaks to all people in all ages and in all cultures. I would agree to a certain extent, but ignoring the fact that we can understand the Bible better with more accurate interpretation is a form of denial. Arguing that we can’t gain insight with increased study of ancient times and ancient cultures does not make sense. Authors Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart don’t denigrate what they call “devotional” reading of Scripture but they do encourage “reading for learning” and “reading for understanding.” Exegesis would be part of a Bible reader learning and understanding.
Exegesis is what Dr. Sprinkle has done in Chapter 4 of his book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue, a chapter entitled “Rated R.”
First of all, we will discuss what homosexuality meant in Greco-Roman culture in this post; then we will discuss what homosexuality meant for the Jews in the next post.
A word of warning: Sprinkle tries to take this subject and present it with a “PG” rating, but when one turns to a consideration of same-sex relations in Greco-Roman culture, the discussion can get very graphic.
Why go there? Why consider this culture? The Bible is a Jewish text, the Old Testament writers were Jews and New Testament writers were Jews.
Here’s why.
“The Biblical writers were not writing to a modern Western nation. They were writing to ancient people living in a time and culture different than ours. The Old Testament writers were interacting with concepts and world views trafficked into Israel from Mesopotamia, Egypt, and other surrounding cultures, and the New Testament was written to a people steeped in a Jewish and Greco-Roman environment. To understand what the Bible means, we’ll need to understand the world in which it was first written and read—especially with a topic as important as homosexuality.” [Sprinkle, 55].
Too often we put on a contemporary “Western” lens to view the Bible and nowhere is that more evident when it comes to homosexual behavior. Sprinkle reveals that homosexual practice was accepted in the ancient world as long as it was not among equals. A man could have sex with another man who was of lower class or a slave and not be thought of as strange. Sprinkle cites numerous sources to support this idea, sources from the historical period.
Too often we think of this behavior as a sexual identity issue, that people who are attracted to members of their own sex are not masculine or not feminine. In the ancient world, concern for sexual identity was nonexistent. “Ancient people didn’t think in terms of sexual identity; they thought in terms of gender identity” [Sprinkle]. Homosexuality is a modern sociological term coined in the nineteenth century and gay and lesbian refers to people who label themselves based on their personal sexual attraction.
Today, there is a long-running debate about the nature of homosexual behavior. Some declare that it has a biological origin and some declare that it is socialized behavior. Many ancient writers did not consider this issue at all. Again Sprinkle cites contemporaneous writers like Aristotle and Parmenides to support his assertions. However, there is also some evidence that there was an attitude that same sex attraction was fixed at birth. Sprinkle cites the book Love Between Women by Bernadette Brooten. Brooten has seen in some ancient literature the discussion that same-sex desires were fixed at birth. Brooten is an affirming author** so naturally she would hold this point of view. Sprinkle has studied her work and declares that even though Brooten has a bias, her work has some merit. The notion that the idea that sexual orientation occurs from birth was totally absent in the ancient world is probably inaccurate.
In the section of his chapter entitled “Diversity in Same-Sex Relations” Sprinkle goes into an extensive discussion of the Greco-Roman worldview regarding same-sex relations. As we have seen power differential was a main factor in this activity, with unequal power as the reason for its acceptance. However, the attitude of sexual openness [flagrant expression of sexuality] was common in this world. Murals were often pornographic. Sprinkle even talked of pornographic images on water pitchers which would be passed around the family at the dinner table. The culture was a breeding ground for sexual expression.
A practice that we would find very questionable today which was found in ancient times was pederasty or love for a younger boy by an older man. That was not condemned in Greco-Roman culture and its practice led to acceptance of same-sex relations in this culture. Sprinkle writes this “had a massive influence on the way people thought and lived for many years to come.”
Lesbian relationships were written about in the literature of the period and Sprinkle cites documents that support this idea, even to the point that lesbian marriage was sometimes allowed. Lucian of Samosata and Clement of Alexandria refer to woman as having other women as their “lawful wives.”
After considering the wide spectrum of same-sex relations in the ancient world and the obvious acceptance of these practices, what is the relevance for Judaism on this topic? Again, “The Biblical writers were not writing to a modern Western nation. They were writing to ancient people living in a time and culture different than ours…. To understand what the Bible means, we’ll need to understand the world in which it was first written and read.”
But how much did the “world” influence the Jewish faith and Old Testament writers and how much did the “world” influence New Testament writers who wrote for a more Gentile audience. Sprinkle has thoughts on this important issue that directly relate to the attitude that Christians have toward same-sex relations today.
His basic concern is this: some of today’s Christians want to endorse same-sex relations. Is there support for this in God’s word or are we reading the Bible through twenty-first century lenses? Sprinkle says he has studied the ancient context. In my next post, we learn the answer to the question, what would the Jewish Biblical writers feel?
*for a more thorough explanation of techniques of exegesis, see How to Read the Bible for All It’s Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart.
**an affirming author is an author who desires to affirm positive positions regarding homosexual behavior.
I have had the pleasure of reading the Bible through a few times, but as you know, it is a complex book. The Word of God provided a challenge to me [as I am sure, to you]. Some parts remain deeply ingrained in memory while other parts do not. No one can expect to remember it all [or for that matter, understand it all]. Recently I was asked to read Scripture for my church on the third Sunday of Advent. I was asked to read Mary’s response to Elizabeth’s blessing in Luke 1: 46-56. I decided to really do some serious study prior to my reading, so I could understand the magnitude of the Scripture and the context of Mary’s response.
I found that I did not recall the context at all. I did not recall that Elizabeth [the wife of Zechriah] was pregnant with her baby [John the Baptist] when she blessed Mary. I did not know that when Mary encountered Elizabeth, Elizabeth’s baby was filled with the Holy Spirit and leaped for joy in her womb. I did not recall that Elizabeth was far beyond child-bearing years and Zechariah had received an Angelic visit with the announcement that his wife was to have a son.
When I taught Sunday school the morning of my reading, I taught on the “Secret of the Christian Life.” That secret is the secret of joy. This was on the third Sunday in Advent, the Sunday when the Advent candle is pink, the liturgical color for joy. I opened my class with “Fa La La La La” and I kept repeating that happy Welsh refrain from Deck the Halls. I kept repeating it until several class members joined in [forced joyfulness?].
I asked tough questions like “What about your life right now is stealing your joy?” I asked “Why should a Christian be joyful?” Squirmy questions. I often ask indirect questions, questions that can prompt a comfortable response that does not reveal things personal things. I have even used rhetorical questions which are statements that are posed in the form of questions: no reply necessary. On this Sunday I let the squirmy questions come out.
Why do we not approach the Christmas season with joy? Some would say that it is a cultural problem. We are influenced too much by “the world” which expects a big, glossy, loud and fast Christmas. Turn on the television and you see it on the commercials and in many Christmas shows and movies. We have to be ultimately happy and of course, the more presents we get under the tree, the happier we will be. Christmas is a mad dash to purchase gifts, the more dear a person is in your life, the more difficult it is to buy them the “perfect” gift. We wind up spending way too much money, wasting way too much time and for what?
I truly do not know.
Ann Voskamp** says that at Christmas, we spend too much time at the foot of the Christmas tree. We think we can understand the story of Christmas there. Instead she thinks we should try to spend time at the Jesse Tree. At that tree we will find hope; we will find true joy.
Isaiah 1 recounts the story of the tree [which really represents the family tree of Jesus]: “Out of the stump of David’s family will grow a shoot—yes a Branch bearing fruit from the old root….In that day the heir to David’s throne will be a banner of civilization to all the world. The nations will rally to Him, and the land where He lives will be a glorious place.”
Imagine our obsession with that big real or fake evergreen. Replace that with a stump.
What a contrast.
Imagine our obsession with what the world tells us to do during Christmas: go for the big, glossy, loud and fast. Instead focus on the miracles that are within each of us, focus on making time and space for Christ in the Christmas season, focus on being defiant in the face of a world that seems insane and too stressed. Wait for the coming Christ. Wait……..
What a contrast.
From out of that stump grows a sprig, a hopeful spring, a sign that hope still exists, is alive and well in this world.
The gift that really matters is coming; the gift of Jesus Christ. On Christmas day we celebrate the greatest gift. On Christmas day the Light comes into the world, the Light that shines in all the dark places of this world, all the dark places in our hearts.
When Christmas comes, the Jesus candle burns brightest, burns hot, gives its light to the world. The greatest gift comes into the world for you and for me. Christ came into the world for all of us; we come into the world for Him.
Like the shepherds at the manger, when we consider what we have been given, we want to spread the word to the world. “When you’re a manger tramp who came with nothing but your ragged heart and leaned in close over that crèche, when you’ve beheld His glory, the white heat of a Love like this; who doesn’t tramp out of the manger and into the world with a glowing heart like hot embers in your chest? A heart like this could catch the world on fire” [Voskamp, 258].
“For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given” [Isaiah 9: 6].
When Christmas comes, we get our greatest gift….
God is with us…
“Christ, the always Gift for all our days.”***
When Christmas comes, we understand Christian joy.
Christ the Christian’s secret…Christ, the source of our joy…
*Commenting on J.I. Packer’s book Knowing God has been challenging. Since beginning this blog on December 30, 2014 with Kyle Idleman’s AHA!, I realize how far it has come. Idleman’s thoughts are exemplary, full of well-intended discussion of the “aha” moments we can find in our spiritual lives but Packer’s work is much more dense, more thorough and more complex. I began in 2014 by posting almost every day. Recently I have been posting on a weekly basis and that is ok, because Knowing God is so difficult. Recently I have been commenting on chapters that are the hardest to comment on; “God the Judge” is not full of “happy” news as we have had to confront the fact that Jesus Christ will decide if our body of earthly work is good enough for salvation or condemnation. At this Christmas season, I have decided to suspend our discussion for one post because the next chapter is “The Wrath of God.” I would like to be uplifting in my thoughts five days before the birth of Jesus. Hopefully the discussion in today’s post will be acceptable for all who follow this blog and to anyone who visits…
It is time to examine the issue of homosexuality and Christianity and how Scripture addresses this from another point of view. As I indicated in the previous post, Peter Gomes is playing what I would describe as a “long game.” He points out “hard texts” where Christians have taken Scripture and gotten it wrong [e.g. prohibition of alcohol, slavery and the Bible and Anti-Semitism and the Christian faith]. His line of reasoning is inductive, essentially that all these examples are misinterpretations so LGBTQ+ condemnation is also a misinterpretation. This line of reasoning takes some time as case after case is built one on others, but it is time to look at another point of view that I would describe as direct, Kevin DeYoung and his discussion of Romans 1: 18-32.
Today Romans 1: 18-32 is considered a “text of terror” among LGBTQ+ people. Some Christians have used Paul’s epistle to bolster their arguments against same-sex marriage, transgender identity, and adoption and parenting by LGBTQ+ people. Whereas Gomes would decry this type of interpretation, DeYoung uses this text to support his view.
Note how DeYoung starts Chapter 4 of his book* entitled “The Romans Road in the Wrong Direction.” “The most detailed and significant treatment of homosexuality is found in the first chapter of the most important letter in the history of the world. Romans 1 reinforces with unambiguous clarity all that we’ve seen up to this point from the Old Testament; namely, that homosexual practice is a serious sin and a violation of God’s created order” [DeYoung, 49].
That phrase “created order” is the crux of DeYoung’s argument. The “wrath of God” is reserved for all men who are ungodly and unrighteous. God has given man the path of righteous living through the message of the Gospel. That message is our guide as we know we cannot be saved by faith apart from knowledge of The Scripture. God does not condemn the innocent and the ignorant, but “none are innocent because none are wholly ignorant” [50]. Righteous behavior is known by the “the law written on our hearts” and observation of the natural [God made] world. What the Apostle Paul is saying is that we live in a fallen world.
Wasting no time, DeYoung turns to verses 21-23 where he elaborates upon Paul’s message that ungodly men exchange the glory of the Lord for the “foolishness of idolatry” [v. 23] We should give thanks for God’s creation for that creation itself guides us in our behavior. Verses 24-25 talks about lusts that lead man astray. Lust causes man to perform more and more ungodly behavior, especially sexual immorality. By doing so, man dishonors a wonderful gift from God, the human body.
Verses 26 and 27 deal directly with behaviors contrary to the “natural order,” the idea of same sex intimacy. DeYoung says “in Paul’s mind same-sex intimacy is an especially clear illustration of the idolatrous human impulse to turn away from God’s order and design” [52]. The main issue here is that turning from the natural heterosexual relationship to same-sex relationships that is a move toward the unnatural. Paul is blunt and so is DeYoung: people who are capable of heterosexuality “become dissatisfied with their usual sexual activity, lust after new experiences and seek out homosexual encounters….Homosexual behavior is a sin….Every passion directed toward illegitimate ends is considered excessive and lacking in self-control” [DeYoung, 53]. DeYoung considers the basis for Paul’s argument the idea that homosexual behavior is “contrary to nature.”
The Creator of the world set this world in place. The creation is a plan that anyone can see in the world of animals, birds and creeping things. Man is part of this created world and man should follow God’s created order. When man does not follow that order, he is following a lie and should feel shame. Hence “homosexual practice is sinful because it violates the divine design in creation” [DeYoung, 55].
Paul goes further in expressing his thought about this sinful practice. Verses 28 through 32 condemn same-sex practice in very strong terms. People who do not acknowledge God and practice debased behavior are “full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless…[they] deserve to die.”
“They deserve to die.”
Is there a stronger condemnation than that?
Now I must admit that Paul is not focusing solely on same-sex behavior as “the only sin.” He’s not. He points to same-sex intimacy as an example of a heinous sin. In the larger context of his argument he, is really saying that everyone is guilty of sin; we all fall short of the standard that God expects and the model that Jesus Christ presented for us in His life here on earth. In the larger context, he is making a case for the fact that we all need a Savior.
Revisionist theologians point out that excess was the real problem that Paul speaks about. Excessive use of same-sex intimacy was the real problem that Paul was addressing. Paul was also trying to set a trap for the super-righteous Pharisees who felt their behavior was beyond reproach.
DeYoung says no to that. “There is no way to rescue Paul from his strong condemnation of homosexual behavior. We can’t make unclean mean ritually impure. We can’t make contrary to nature mean out of the ordinary….We can’t make this text about nothing more than pederasty, exploitation, or excess passion.”
DeYoung looks at the Apostle Paul and Romans 1 and unleashes the “terror.” Is it a message that is friendly to LGBTQ+ individuals that seek acceptance by all Christian Churches? It is not friendly at all. It is condemning.
Whereas Gomes slowly works toward his message of reconciliation of same-sex behavior and Christian faith, DeYoung says no, this will not work. The last lines of Chapter 4 express his views is no uncertain terms: “God’s people ought not engage in homosexual behavior or give approval to those who do.”
*What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality?
As I jump from one author to another, I feel I have to post a “Don’t Lose Sight” post.
I have just spent three posts on Peter Gomes and his book entitled The Good Book.
Gomes is an author who represents a particular view, a view that is “friendly” to the LGBTQ+ community in the Christian church.
My comments in those posts had to do with Anti-Semitism in the Christian community, but it is imperative to know that Gomes has a bigger idea in mind. He is trying to produce some “wiggle room” within Scripture for his eventual argument that this is nothing wrong with LGBTQ+ people in the church. After all, Gomes was a gay pastor of Harvard’s Memorial Church.
Essentially what Gomes is doing is arguing that Christians have taken God’s word and have used it against others. Essentially, there are instances when Christians have not gotten “it” right. Is this what we have done to homosexual people?
Kevin DeYoung says no.
In fact DeYoung presents the exact opposite viewpoint from Peter Gomes. Scripture does not have it wrong. Homosexual behavior must be condemned.
Don’t lose sight of what I am doing here. I am trying to understand this controversial issue of the day by looking at the opinions of three authors: Peter Gomes in The Good Book, Kevin DeYoung in What does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? and Preston Sprinkle People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue.
In my next post, we move from “friendly” to extremely unfriendly– Pastor Kevin DeYoung.
Peter Gomes has spent six chapters of his book entitled The Good Book trying to convince the reader that some people have used God’s book to do evil in this world. As a country, we banned alcohol consumption on Scripture that did not exist. As a country [especially southern slaveholders] we tried to justify the practice of chattel slavery. As a faith, he states that Christians use scripture to justify Anti-Semitism.*
Gomes says Christians have done that very thing.
In the previous post “Say it Ain’t So” [November 27] Gomes provides evidence that Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the Christian community.
In this post, we will ask how can that be?
Recently, I have hungered to return to Bible reading on a regular basis, but I have not felt comfortable with how I have been reading the Bible. Bible reading plans are ok; they push you through The Text at a pace that is comfortable. The Bible can be broken down into small parts and one can easily read through all of the Scriptures in one year. But what is lacking is a deeper understanding. Over the years, I have been more motivated to meet my daily goal than always understanding the The Text. Some Scripture bears closer reading, serious interpretation, even meditation. A Bible plan reader can read the words but can forget to ask what do the words mean. Helps are available but often they are quite simple, written to express a little extra meaning but not too much. After all, most of us are not trained theologians, people who have been to seminary to learn the art of hermeneutics** or the skills of exegesis.***
How does this all relate to Anti-Semitism? Gomes says that Christians who dislike Jews should not turn to the Bible for support.
Since the Second World War and the massive extermination of six million Jews by the Third Reich, much has been done to dispel the idea that any human being could justify this mass murder. No one in the Christian community would state that Hitler helped rid the world of people who were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. That statement is just too horrible. But the confusing facts are there. Some Christians point to the idea that the Jews who demanded Christ be crucified did do just that. Some Christians [like Bailey Smith from the previous post] think that God does not answer the prayer of the Jew because they don’t recognize Jesus as Messiah. Some Christians know of the violent acts perpetrated by Christians on Jews [even though some refuse to own that history]. Gomes points to the German soldiers who were Christians at Auschwitz, conducting the work of extermination and taking weekly communion in the Catholic parish church.
Confusing, very, very confusing…
Gomes writes that Christians need to have a serious, close study of the Bible. Anti-Judaism was evident in the New Testament but one has to ask why. Taking Scripture out of context allows all kinds of meanings to emerge, but trying to read Scripture in context helps one to understand the source of Anti-Semitism. Jesus was a Jew and He did not come to earth to provide an impetus for the destruction of His own people. He came to earth to show that the Jewish status quo was wrong. The Jewish religious leadership sought to maintain their status and power over their people rather than inspire their people to lead devout, God-fearing lives. They put their own power-hungry need above God and Jesus knew that. Was He critical of their role in Jewish society? Yes He was, but a careful, thoughtful interpretation of Scripture can find nothing that would say that Jesus wanted Jewish leaders exterminated. He just wanted them to do their jobs correctly. He wanted them to lead their followers to God.
One turns to Paul and his comments regarding Jewish regulations and the needs of Christian converts. Did he disagree that some Jewish laws [e.g. circumcision] should not apply to the Christian? Yes he did, but does that mean he advocates that Jews were wrong in their thinking? Gomes writes “the Torah of the Jews was, and remains, the way of salvation for them. Paul’s argument is that the cross of Jesus is to Gentiles what the Torah is to the Jews and that both are means to salvation and righteousness…. Paul’s good news was never intended to be bad news for Jewish people” [Gomes 116-117]. Paul never argued that Jews had to embrace Christ but he did argue that God spoke to the Jews through the Torah. God also speaks to Christians through the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Of course, my discussion of these matters is just cursory. Biblical scholars have been applying their learned approaches to Scripture for some time now, especially since the Second World War. Gomes says that they have worked very hard to get back to the root of Anti-Semitism in the Christian faith. My discussion does not do their work justice.
Within Chapter Six of Gomes’ book he has a subtitle. His title for Chapter Six is “The Bible and Anti-Semitism” but one of his subtitles is “Could We Have Got It Wrong?” That’s exactly what he is saying in his discussion. When it comes to the idea that Christians should have Anti-Semitic feelings, yes we have got it wrong. “Paul would be appalled at Bailey Smith or with anyone else who said that the prayers of the Jew did not reach the ears of God. What utterly silly and profoundly unbiblical nonsense” [119].
People have always and will always be prone to act on such nonsense as we see in our world today. Some opinionated “talking head” on television expresses his idea as if it is news and people change their minds. A politician spews hatred and leads people to commit violent acts. Websites promulgate falsehoods that support certain viewpoints and those viewpoints provide mental foundation for human behavior.
Too often, people do not take the time to examine the information that flows their way. They read and they react. Would all Christians be better served by reading God’s word in a more careful manner? It matters what the New Testament writers meant, what they meant in the timeframe when they said it. We cannot take writings from so long ago and just forget the context.
There are those that posit that God’s word is timeless and I agree with that to a degree. But I also know that God’s word can be misused by individuals who have an agenda. We have seen that too much in human history. It is hard to own up to this fact, but to ignore it is to turn our backs on how human beings can do gruesome things to other human beings.
Yes, in my opinion, one of the most deadly uses of God’s word is when it is combined with people who are powerful and people who are ignorant.
*Let us not lose sight that Gomes was a homosexual and he will continue his theme of the misuse of “The Good Book” in future discussions of women in the church and homosexuals in the church.
**hermeneutics is the methodology of interpreting biblical texts, a discipline that deals with the art of understanding the word of the Bible.
***exegesis is the detailed analysis of the biblical text, focusing on its context and its historical background.
St. John Studies 