St. John Studies

In considering the issue of LGBTQ+ acceptance in the church, Preston Sprinkle spends chapter three of his book* discussing Sodom and Gomorrah.  My comments on his ideas are in the previous post “Building Bridges or Accommodation Theology.”  He also deals with what he calls “clobber passages” in Leviticus [18 and 20].  If the story of Sodom and Gomorrah cannot be seen as a way to “clobber” gay people, certainly Leviticus 18 and 20 are.  These passages are very direct in their condemnation of same-sex intimacy.

Let’s look at these verses.  Leviticus 18: 22 says “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”  Leviticus 20:13 says “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.  They are to be put to death; their blood is on their own heads.”

Of course, these are very strong words.  They sound like there is no room for discussion.  Sex with a member of the same sex is bad.

Sprinkle tries not see it that way.

Number 1:  Do these verses refer to all forms of homosexual acts or just to what he calls “exploitative” acts [e.g. rape or prostitution]?  What if a couple is engaged in an consensual, monogamous, loving relationship?  Number 2:  Do these verses carry authority for Christians today or is this just another example of outdated Levitical law?

Sprinkle has a Ph.D. in New Testament theology from Aberdeen University in Scotland.  He has never shied away from difficult theological topics.  His website describes him as “Preston loves talking and writing about hot-button cultural and theological issues with thoughtfulness, honesty and grace. He is passionate about approaching topics that everyone wants to know about, but few are willing to talk honestly and graciously about. Topics like sexuality, gender, race, violence, patriotism, hell, politics, war, and what it means to follow a Jewish prophet-king who was executed for treason. He works hard to challenge himself and others to read the Bible with conviction and humility, while holding their predetermined beliefs loosely.”**  Maybe he will attack Leviticus 18 and 20; maybe he will hold his predetermined beliefs loosely.  We will see.

He admits that the defense for Leviticus 18 and 20 revolves around the idea that both verses refer to exploitative sex [rape, temple prostitution or a man forcing himself on a boy].   Remember, I chose Dr. Sprinkle as the “bridge-builder” between an openly gay pastor [Peter Gomes] and a pastor who condemns same-sex behavior as a mortal sin [Kevin DeYoung].

He does not accept this defense.  He states “A close reading of the texts suggests not.”  “There is no mention of rape, coercion, age difference or anything else that we saw in the Sodom story” [45].  The verses are referring to consensual sex and both partners are condemned.

Other interpretations point to the idea that the verses refer to cultic prostitution, but Sprinkle knows a lot about that subject.  He references study he has done on this topic and says that continuing to assume that the ancient world was filled with cultic prostitution is a mistake.  “It probably did not exist in the world at that time, let alone in Israel.” 

Another interpretation is that Israelite culture had a “high view of men and a low view of women.”  To have Scripture to support the idea that men should not have sex with other men is understandable in this male-centered society.  This would put one man as a passive partner in the homosexual sex act and that would be very unacceptable.  Scripture should support the idea that no man should assume a passive position in the sex act. Sprinkle condemns this view as “Neanderthal.”  This also makes the Levitical verses highlight gender differences, the idea that one sex is inferior to the other.  The interpretation moves away from condemning homosexual sex.

Ok, we see that Dr. Sprinkle sees little support for defending these Scriptures as cultic sexual abnormality or inappropriate for a male-dominated society, but are they relevant today?

In essence, are these just weird laws that no one follows anymore?  The Bible forbids tattoos, but that seems irrelevant today.  One is not supposed to wear mixed fabrics, eat pork or seed lawns with mixed grasses.  Those laws seem outdated and peculiar to most Christians.  What about other laws, especially laws regarding sexual behavior.  Incest is forbidden.  Adultery is forbidden.  Bestiality is forbidden as well as using one’s daughter for prostitution income.  Those  laws are binding but what about same-sex activity?  Do we just declare Leviticus outdated and say that we should dismiss Leviticus 18 and 20 because well, after all, it is Leviticus?

It is not that simple.  Sprinkle is not willing to dismiss 18 and 20 regarding same-sex  behavior just because “it is Leviticus” and nonaffirming*** interpreters should not do that either.  He feels evidence should be provided for these laws being binding or not.  A further point is these verses appearing in The New Testament.  If Old Testament law is referenced  in The New Testament, what does that mean?  Same sex judgement occurs in Leviticus but Paul also refers to this very idea in Romans as well as in First Corinthians and First Timothy.  If Christians look on The Old Testament as a book for the Jewish people, what does it mean when the same laws get referenced in the Christian book, The New Testament?

When we come back to Sprinkle’s discussion he will widen his discussion to understand the world of The New Testament. 

“We’ll look at how Judaism viewed same-sex relations within the context of the Greco-Roman environment.  After all, Christianity was born out of Judaism, and despite some theological disagreements between Jews and Christians, they still agreed on a good number of ethical questions” [53].

But for now, we will return to the discussion of The Good Book written by a gay pastor, someone who affirms the acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community in the church.  His focus will be timely.   Given the nature of current events, Gomes’ topic will be “The Bible and Anti-Semitism.”

*People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue

**from the website Theology in the Raw accessed on 10/31/2023.

***nonaffirming means “not affirming LGBTQ+ Christians.”

Does Pastor Preston Sprinkle try to “bridge the gap” between those who advocate for LGBTQ+ participation in church and those who do not?

We have looked at two chapters of his book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue and he has tried to explain that the Bible does provide evidence that sexual difference is necessary in marriage, but the Bible does not “directly” address questions about homosexuality.  Can homosexuals be married?  In two chapters of his book he states: “None of the texts [Genesis 1 and 2*] we’ve looked at were written to refute same-sex relationships.”

Now we look at what Sprinkle calls clobber passages.

What are these “clobber” passages?

Genesis 19: 1-9 when Abraham went to Sodom and Gomorrah and a gang of men visited the home of Lot demanding they have sex with Lot’s angelic visitors [homosexual sex?]

Leviticus 18: 22  “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

Leviticus 20: 13  “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

Romans 1: 26-27   “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

1 Corinthians 6:9   “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men.”

1 Timothy 1: 10   “The Law is made for…for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.”

I reproduce these passages here because they are the passages from Scripture that are at the heart of this contentious issue.  Sprinkle calls them clobber passages because “Christians have ripped them out of their life-giving context and used them to club gay people” [41].

Ok, I can see that but what are we to do with these passages?

Are we supposed to take razor blades and cut them out of our Bibles?  Are we supposed to believe them or ignore them?

Sprinkle keeps coming back to the idea that there are people involved here when these passages are used to condemn them, real people who respond to hurtful words.  When we throw these passages at them, we are calling people “abominations”.  “These texts are dripping with blood.  When gay people hear them, they immediately think of hate, not love; abuse, not embrace;  ignorance, not understanding”.

Is there painful abuse of people when Christians misuse these scriptures?  Of course that could be the case.  No one is debating that.

But again, what are we to do with these passages?  Whether they are used to hurt other people or not, are we supposed to play like they don’t exist?

Sprinkle begins his discussion with Genesis 19.  Sodom has been synonymous with God’s hatred of gay people in the minds of many Christians.**

Sprinkle does not see this episode in Scripture as a “contribution” to the discussion of homosexuality.  He feels that Lot’s guests were angels [who appeared as men].  We also know that Lot offers up his virgin daughters to the crowd that is clamoring to be with the angels.  This is his effort to protect the angels  [not exactly what I would call a “moral” act]. 

Does this story have anything to do with “consensual, loving, monogamous same-sex relations today?”  Sprinkle feels that it does not.  At worst, this is a story of gang rape of men by other men.  There is nothing that says this is acceptable. 

Sprinkle also points to other instances of Sodom being mentioned in other Scriptures.  Isaiah 1: 10-17 refers to Sodom but does not refer to gay sex.  Isaiah 3: 9 also does not mention gay sex.  Jeremiah 23: 14 likewise does not refer to homosexuality regarding the city of Sodom.  Lamentations 4: 6 does not bring up the subject either as well as Matthew 10: 5-10.  What are we to make of that?

Some scholars feel there is too much focus on sexuality in the city of Sodom, the idea being that the whole city was full of homosexuals.  Sprinkle thinks otherwise; the main reason the city was destroyed was inability to help those less fortunate, an overabundance of pride and gluttonous behavior etc. [see Ezekiel 16: 49]. 

Ok, is Sprinkle parsing his words or does he have a point?  What about those other scriptures that are very direct: Leviticus 18 and 20 and others?  He writes “As we read these verses, we’re faced with two questions;  first, do these verses prohibit all forms of homosexual acts or just certain exploitative forms of it (rape, prostitution etc.)?” [45].   Are these verses relevant for the consensual, monogamous, loving gay couples of today?  

We will turn our attention to the “very direct” clobber passages in my next post, but for now let’s consider what Sprinkle is trying to do.  Some would say he is trying to be a peacemaker between more accepting Christians who are willing to invite LGBTQ+ people into the church for full participation and those Christians who say you can come into church but don’t ask for marriage or expect to be a leader if you are gay.

I would be naïve if I don’t state that there are those who feel that Sprinkle is practicing “accommodating theology,” twisting God’s words into a contemporary framework.  That contemporary framework is accepting of the LGBTQ+ community.  Maybe God did not really intend to be that “accommodating” at all.

Ok, maybe I can see his point about the aggressive behavior of the people of Sodom toward Lot’s visitors not being relevant but as we turn to other passages, will the argument that God’s words don’t appear to be relevant really apply?  Is Sprinkle really bridging a gap or just making allowances with accommodating theology?

We will see…

*see August 28, 2023   St. John Studies “The Need to be Affirmed” and September 4, 2023  St. John Studies  “Male Female Pairing…A Necessity in Marriage.”

**see August 19, 2023  Kevin DeYoung  St. John Studies  “Sodom and Gomorrah and Revisionism”.

Sadly, on October 16, 2023 it seems like the world is ready to wage another war.  As if the war between Ukraine and Russia were not enough, we are ready to begin another war in the middle- east between Israel and the Palestinian terror group Hamas.  Today, the world awaits the imminent invasion of Gaza, where 2.38 million Palestinians live.

My wife shakes her head, saying “why can’t people live together in peace?” 

It is a good question.

This past year has been a year of strife and separation in my church as a social issue has rocked the church.  As of June of this year, 5,800 churches have left the United Methodist Church over the issue of LGBTQ+ participation in the church [conducting same-sex weddings and LGBTQ+ leadership].  This year alone, 4,172 congregations left the church. 

“Why can’t people live together in peace?”

Besides my wife, maybe Pastor Preston Sprinkle thinks this too, for the next post will be from his book People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. Sprinkle states that he is trying to bring peace and mutual understanding to this issue.

Peter Gomes was a homosexual pastor at Harvard University, and I have commented on his book The Good Book.  Kevin DeYoung is a straight pastor with a church in Matthews North Carolina.  DeYoung absolutely disagrees with Pastor Gomes.  I have commented on his book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality.

Sprinkle tries to “bridge the gap” between these two opposing views.  The next post will be from his book and I will focus on Chapter Three: “From Sex in the City to Law and Order.”

We will see if a gap gets “bridged.”

I have read the Book of Leviticus in The Bible several times.  It is a ponderous book.  I describe it that way because it is a detailed explanation of the holy rules of the Jewish faith.  Kevin DeYoung describes Leviticus thus: “Holiness is the book’s overarching theme….You have holy people (the priests), with holy clothes, in a holy land (Canaan) at a holy place (tabernacle) using holy utensils and holy objects, celebrating holy days, living by holy law, that they might be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” [DeYoung, 40].   After a great amount of detail on the holiness of everything involved with worship, the rest of Leviticus (from Chapter 17 onward) is all about The Holiness Code, rules for how the Israelites were to live as God’s holy people.

DeYoung entitles Chapter 3 of his book “Taking a Strange Book Seriously” referring to the book of Leviticus.

Why is Leviticus front and center in the debate about the role of homosexuality in the church?  It all boils down to two very direct verses: 18: 22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” and 20:13 “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Those verses seem very clear: do not practice same-sex sexual behavior.  You do so at your own peril.

The reason DeYoung calls Leviticus strange is that the book is so detailed in holy living that some of the regulations seem to be a bit too rigid.  Leviticus tells how much to charge a debtor for a loan.  You should not wear clothes of two kinds of fabric.  You should never eat bacon.  A man should never have sex with his wife during her menstrual cycle etc.  Surely today the verses about homosexual behavior are strange too.  Maybe they are so outdated that they are no longer relevant?

DeYoung says no, these verses are still very relevant.  In Genesis 2, God made the first woman as a complementary human being.  Men were designed to have sex with women and not to have sex with other men.  DeYoung addresses issues like homosexual rape, rape at the hands of a master, a conquering army or a mob.  In those instances, the aggressive person would be put to death but his view is that Moses is trying to do more than outlaw unwanted same-sex behavior.  His thinking is that holy behavior outlaws same-sex behavior of all kinds, most especially same-sex consensual behavior.  “God’s plan for sexual intimacy in the garden was one man and one woman—not close relatives, not the wife of another man, not a man and an animal and not two men or two women” [42].   Holiness means one man and one woman.

DeYoung is adamant in his view that homosexuality should not be accepted by the church.  First of all, some might argue that Jesus brings a whole new view to the Levitical laws.  With Jesus, food that has been declared off-limits is no long prohibited.  Holy days have been rendered optional.  The entire sacrificial system has been superseded by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  However DeYoung points out that Jesus spoke of fulfilling the Old Testament law, not abolishing it.  One cannot take verses like 18:22 and 20: 13 and just say that is Old Testament outdated instruction.  

Then there is the argument that Leviticus should be treated as “obscure.”  Jesus refers to Leviticus 19: 18 more than any other verse in the Old Testament and it shows up in the New Testament an additional ten times.  Peter and Paul quote Leviticus as they try to summon people to holiness (2 Corinthians 6: 16 and 1 Peter 1: 16).    Paul especially used Leviticus as his source as he implored people to uphold their moral obligations (e.g. 1 Timothy 1:8).  One would consider Leviticus an obscure book if it was not cited much in the New Testament but that is not the case.

Further evidence of the relevance of the abomination of same sex behavior comes from the Apostle Paul who had his own word for two men who had sex: “arsen (man) and koite (bed).  He took that term from Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Paul believed that homosexual behavior was an abomination [see Romans 1: 24].

DeYoung focuses on the term abomination in his argument for the relevance of banning homosexual acceptance in the church.  He states “the word signifies something the Lord despises.”  He points out that there are six things the Lord hates and seven things that are an abomination.  Revisionist theologians are quick to point out that sexual sins in Leviticus are lumped together as abominations, but there is only one sin that is singled out by itself as an abomination, male with male sex.  Added to the seriousness of this sin is the penalty: death.

The rules of uncleanness in the sex act begin in Leviticus with a call to not have sex with a menstruating woman and the admonitions continue from that to a ban on having sex with your neighbor’s wife, sex with another male etc.  Each sex act moves further away from God’s intentions for sex in the Garden of Eden.   DeYoung states “in the Old Testament, not all uncleanness was sin, but all sin made you unclean….Cleanness still matters in the New Testament, but it becomes more of a moral [cleanness] than a ritual [cleanness].” One could argue that moral cleanness may be even more important.

DeYoung does not have a cavalier attitude toward the “strange book” of Leviticus.  To use a cliché, he will not throw out the baby with the bath water.  Yes there may be unusual regulations about eating shellfish but that does not mean that the whole book should be discarded as irrelevant. 

He believes “Leviticus was part of the Bible that Jesus read, the Bible Jesus believed, and the Bible Jesus did not want to abolish.  We ought to take seriously how the Holiness codes reveals to us the holy character of God and the holy people we are supposed to be.

In DeYoung’s view [unlike Peter Gomes’] God’s moral law still matters.  For Gomes, his belief was that America had a moral imagination and that led to the idea that enslavement of human beings was wrong, even though there is support for slavery in the Bible.  DeYoung sees support for the idea that homosexuality should not be accepted in the church and no amount of “moral imagination” will allow him to turn his back on God’s moral law.  The Bibles’ stance against homosexuality may be a “hard text” but it exists and DeYoung refuses to ignore it.

*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality

In the previous post (The Need to be Affirmed, August 28, 2023), I commented on the notion of affirming and nonaffirming churches when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior.  Some churches are affirming and some are not.  Some theologians are affirming (e.g. Peter Gomes) and some are not (e.g. Kevin DeYoung).  Preston Sprinkle is a theologian who has studied scripture and he claims that he does not have any agenda.  He does admit that the Word of God has been used a lot to bash the LGBTQ+ community and he is not interested in doing that.  He has seen the pain that this causes.  However he also knows that The Bible is a powerful written source for all Christians because God has worked through people to produce a Divine Document that guides us in life.  His position “in a nutshell” is “I stand on truth and I stand on love” [9]*.

He has focused on Scripture from the Old Testament in the first part of Chapter Two of his book (entitled “Holy Otherness”).  He found some support for God’s preference for opposite sex marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 but not what I would describe as “overwhelming” strong support. 

Maybe nonaffirming Christians will be able to support their viewpoint with passages from the New Testament?  Sprinkle turns to Scripture from the book of Mark and parallel Scripture from Matthew.  He also turns to Ephesians and First Corinthians.

Mark 10: 2-9 and Matthew 19: 3-11 deal with Jesus being tested by the Pharisees.  They want to know His stand on the lawfulness of a man divorcing his wife.  Jesus refers to the Law of Moses.  Of course Jesus knows God’s word.  It is interesting that He argues for the permanency of marriage by referring to Genesis 1-2.  In particular He uses the “one flesh” metaphor to support the idea that man should not separate what God has joined together.  He also uses the Scripture that God “made them male and female.”  Nonaffirming Christians point to these Mark and Matthew Scriptures as evidence that sexual difference is a necessity in marriage, but Sprinkle does not agree.  He points out that Jesus is trying to make a point about divorce, not opposite-sex marriage.  “If Jesus didn’t think that sexual difference is essential for marriage, then His quotation of Genesis 1: 27 (which discusses sexual difference) is unnecessary and superfluous” [37].  So why does he include this reference in his argument supporting the permanency of marriage?  Sprinkle feels that the Jews of Jesus’ day probably felt superior to women, leaning heavily on the Genesis 1:27 “God created mankind in His own image”.  Jesus wanted to highlight the value of women by referring to the whole quote from Genesis 1: 27 “male and female He created them.”  This was not done to highlight the need for the difference of the sexes for an appropriate marriage.  It was done to show that women are equal to men.

Following this, Sprinkle turns to Ephesians 5: 21-32. The passage focuses on wives submitting to their husbands “as to the Lord”.  This passage of Scripture highlights relationships in marriage with the parallel being man’s relationship with Christ as the head of His church.  What makes this Scripture relevant to the same-sex issue is the discussion of male and female difference.  Even though men seem to have the “upper hand” with the controversial phrase “wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” Jesus goes on to say that women should be cherished.  That Scripture “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh” [from Genesis 2: 24] occurs in verse 31.  Does its use support opposite sex preference in marriage?  Sprinkle sheds doubt on that idea.  As explained in “The Need to Be Affirmed,” the emphasis is on leaving an established family unit and creating a new family unit rather than anatomical complementarity in the sex act.  Ephesians is thought of as a passage that focuses on the superiority of men, but in Bible times, this passage is considered ground breaking regarding equality of the sexes.  One should not look at it through 2023 eyes.  “Compared to other “marriage manuals” in Paul’s day, this passage is radically egalitarian….No one in Paul’s day would have read this passage and thought he was demeaning women.  They would have been shocked, actually, at the excessive demands of the husband” [38]. 

First Corinthians 11: 2-16 seems to be similar to Ephesians in that it refers to relationships within the church.  Much of this Scripture focuses on the role of the church in the lives of men and women.  Paul talks about hierarchy of Christ as the head of man and man as the head of woman.  Respectful behavior is discussed at length with many words of advice on the actual proper covering of the head.  There is so much opposite sex reference that one might infer that opposite sex behavior is surely forbidden.   Sprinkle writes “this passage is not clearly talking about marriage…. What is clear, and the only point I want to make, is that the equal-yet-different relationship between God the Father and God the Son parallels in some way the equal-yet-different relationship between men and women [38].  With all the writing about male and female, is Paul pointing to the need for opposite sex relations?  Sprinkle feels that nonaffirming Christians do not need to make Paul say more than he is saying.  If this passage is saying negative things about same-sex relations, it is obscure at best. 

Sprinkle says the focus on sexual difference in First Corinthians seems to be more about “showcasing” the unity and diversity of the Triune God than anything else.

By the time we get to the end of Chapter 2 of his book, do we have passages that provide solid support for nonaffirming Christians?  Sprinkle thinks not: “None of the texts we have looked at were written to refute same-sex relationships” [40]. ). 

As I stated in the first paragraph of this post, Preston Sprinkle is a theologian who has studied Scripture and he claims that he does not have any agenda.  He is not looking to affirm the practice of homosexuality.  He is also not looking for evidence to support a nonaffirming stance against homosexuality. 

He is trying to be a man in the middle.  He does not like using God’s word to condemn a group of people if the evidence is not there.  He does not like twisting God’s word to affirm a group of people if the evidence is not there. 

He does know the Word of God has been used a lot to bash the LGBTQ+ community and he is not interested in doing that.  He has seen the pain that this causes.  However he also knows that Christians are in an untenable position:  “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.  The second is this:  Love your neighbor as yourself.  There is no commandment greater than these.”

Can we truly do the Greatest Commandments if our neighbor is homosexual?

Truly?   It seems that Sprinkle has serious doubts that we can do that… 

*from his book People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue.