I have never juggled a discussion of three books at once on this blog before. I have discussed a simple book by John Stott [Basic Christianity] with a more complex book by John Stott [The Cross of Christ] but I have never bounced back and forth between three books at once.
From time to time, feel that I need to write a “Don’t Lose Sight” post just to keep anyone who is reading clear about where I am going.
I wrote “Sodom and Gomorrah and Revisionism” [August 17, 2023] about Kevin DeYoung’s chapter on Sodom and Gomorrah. DeYoung emphasizes that God intended to destroy those cities because they had a preponderance of same-sex activity within their population. DeYoung is a “traditional Christian” who feels that same-sex activity is a mortal sin. He also discusses revisionist Biblical critics who don’t see that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for that reason. Their views are designed to put forth the idea that arrogance was the real reason for God’s retribution and those homosexual men who come to Lot’s door wanted to have sex with angels, not ordinary men [that clears them of desire for same-sex human activity]. Revisionist criticism of the Bible is often opposed to traditional Biblical criticism. DeYoung discusses revisionism but does not defend it; in essence, he attacks it.
Now we are poised to move to the third book in this trifecta, Preston Sprinkle’s People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. Sprinkle’s title tells it all. While Peter Gomes and Kevin DeYoung present opposite sides of the issue of homosexuality and the church, Sprinkle tries to straddle the divide on this issue by focusing on the human element: that LGBTQ+ people are people to be loved, not just an issue to be debated.
We have already looked at male and female sexual difference as a bedrock for marriage. DeYoung says it is essential. What will Sprinkle say?
We will see, as he titles his Chapter 2 “Holy Otherness: Is Male and Female Sexual Difference Necessary for Marriage?”
Revisionism, a type of Biblical criticism that employs a critical and creative look at the meaning of Scripture…
Revisionist Biblical critics try to understand the Bible by using very untraditional methods, new evidence and various contemporary perspectives. Adherents of revisionism highlight interesting insights this type of study can bring forth in the understanding of the Bible. They feel that the dialogue that they stimulate about Scripture is never a bad thing; scholars with entrenched beliefs can free up their minds with revisionist interpretations and ordinary believers and nonbelievers can gain new insights as well.
In my previous post, I indicated that I had some childhood familiarity with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, my familiarity centered on Lot’s wife being turned into a pillar of salt. As a kid, I found that fascinating.
However as a child, I had no familiarity with the reason God rained down sulfur and fire on those cities, that reason being the sinful nature of those cities in the eye of God (a bit too serious for a child).
Kevin DeYoung in Chapter 2 of his book* entitled “Those Infamous Cities” deals with revisionist interpretations of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. For example, some revisionists do not focus on sexual sinfulness as the source of God’s wrath. They use the Book of Ezekiel to explain that the guilt of Sodom and her daughters is pride, not sharing food with the needy and so much prosperity that the people became indulgent.
Some point to the fact that the men of Sodom came to Lot’s door and they demanded to have sex with the two angels that were in Lot’s home. Lot did not allow that [he gave them his daughters to gang rape instead]. That of course is reprehensible but revisionists say that this proves the men did not want to have sex with other men; they wanted to have sex with angels. Therefore their sexual desires were not homosexual (after all, they also raped two virgins).
Accordingly, a lot of ink has been spilled on the revisionist interpretation of the word strange, which shows up in Jude 1: 7. That Scripture states that Sodom and Gomorrah were judged because of the implication that the people did not engage in “hetero” attractions: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire” [KJV]. Revisionist scholars say strange does not necessarily mean “different gender” or “different from the norm.”
Lastly, some charge that if one adheres to the idea that Genesis 19 does refer to homosexual rape what does that have to do with loving homosexual desire? There is a big difference between the violence of homosexual gang rape and homosexual love.
Kevin DeYoung addresses these views before he defends his traditional position that Sodom and Gomorrah deserved the punishment they received.
In the above discussion, in the reference to the book of Ezekiel, Sodom is seen as having the sin of pride more than sexual aberration. DeYoung has a different reading on that same scripture, focusing in on Ezekiel 16: 49 and the use of the word abomination. Abomination comes from the word to ‘ebah which is used in Leviticus 18: 22. To ‘ebah means “man lying with a man as with a woman.” Revisionist scholars ignore or deemphasize that word in favor of pride etc. DeYoung admits that Sodom had many sins and homosexual behavior was one of them [it cannot be ignored]. DeYoung writes that his interpretation is supported by other writings in the Second Century. Other writers refer to Sodom and Gomorrah as “departing from the order of nature.” Their punishment was pronounced on them like God’s curse of the flood. Sodom’s sexual transgressions were of a unique kind, “not merely fornication” but of “something more polluting.” Instead of sex with angels, the real sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is homosexual sex with human beings. To add fuel to the fire, actual graffiti depictions found in Pompeii provide visual and written evidence that same-sex activity happened in Sodom and Gomorrah.
Revisionists state that the book of Jude does not really refer to same-sex behavior, just because the word “strange” is used. DeYoung begs to differ: the phrase sarkos heteras or “strange” means men lying with men instead of women. That phrase is used to bolster the case that the men of Sodom did want to have sex with the angels in Lot’s home. The argument that they wanted to have sex with angels [which clears them of homosexual desire] is confounded by the idea that those men did not know Lot’s guests were actually angels. It is more likely that they just wanted to have sex with ordinary men. Sarkos heteras means other flesh and that translates into the sin of homosexual activity.
DeYoung writes, “The scene in Genesis 19 looks very different from two men and two women entering into a consensual and committed sexual relationship. The case against same-sex sexual intimacy is less obvious from the Sodom account than from the other passages we will consider [he is referring to future discussions in his book]. And yet, the destruction of these infamous cities is not irrelevant to the matter at hand….Sodom had a reputation for sexual sin in general and homosexual sin in particular” [38].
The effort to reinterpret the Bible according to contemporary viewpoints seems interesting but is it valid? Is there such a thing as the timeless nature of God’s word? Revisionists point to the common practice of slavery in Scripture; of course, it is good that that practice is not accepted today. Revisionists point to the common notion that women were not regarded as important members of society in Biblical Scripture; by today’s standards that attitude is outdated and that is good. But DeYoung argues that LGBTQ+ concerns should not be addressed by rewriting references that Sodom and Gomorrah’s residents indulged in same-sex activity. Ignore Isaiah 1: 9-10; 3:9; Jeremiah 23:14; Ezekiel 16: 44-58; Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 13: 19; Jeremiah 49:18, 50:40; Lamentations 4:6; Amos 4: 11; Zephaniah 2:9? Ignore the fact that Jesus referenced Sodom and less frequently Gomorrah in his efforts to warn people of God’s impending wrath?
DeYoung ends Chapter 2 with these telling words regarding these “infamous cities.” “Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of a great many sins; we don’t have to prove that homosexual practice was the only sin to show that it was one of them” [38].
*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
It is time to comment on another author, another book, another perspective on LGBTQ+ inclusion in the church.
It is time to go from an LGBTQ+ friendly author to an author who espouses the traditional view of marriage, that marriage is only one man and one woman. Homosexual behavior is a sin. Kevin DeYoung writes in his introduction* “I believe same sex sexual intimacy is a sin….I believe the Bible places homosexual behavior–no matter the level of commitment or mutual affection–in the category of sexual immorality” [17].
He continues his discussion of traditional Biblical values in Chapter 2 of his book entitled “Those Infamous Cities.”
I was raised in The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and one of the posters I saw on the wall of my Sunday school class was a depiction of Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. As I look back at that now, I think that was strange, a harsh thing for a kid to see every Sunday morning. But it did make me have questions about the story so I knew that God told the woman [not named] to have faith in His mercy and not look back at her city as He destroyed it. Of course she did look back and met a bizarre fate; God turned her into a pillar of salt. Angels warned Lot that this was going to happen and she knew the danger, but she disobeyed the command anyway.
Let me tell you what my Sunday school teacher did not tell me about as a kid: that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed because of sexual sin, homosexual sin in particular.
That is exactly what Kevin DeYoung will spend a chapter on, the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered that fate and God wanted to destroy those cities.
Sodom and Gomorrah would not be the focus of Peter Gomes but definitely something that a pastor with a traditional view of marriage and human sexuality should comment on. In the next day of so, we will consider Sodom and Gomorrah.
Does DeYoung keep an open mind on this topic? There is a lot of revisionist interpretation on this subject.
We shall see…
*What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?
“There are ‘hard texts’ regarding the use of strong drink. There are ‘hard texts’ regarding race. There are ‘hard texts’ regarding Anti-Semitism. There are ‘hard texts’ regarding the inclusion of women and there are ‘hard texts’ regarding LBBTQ inclusion in the church” [from St. John Studies July 30, 2023 “Hard Text # 1].
Gomes begins part two of The Good Book with a discussion of the hard text of strong drink. Gomes came from a Baptist upbringing with a history of preaching against the use of alcohol. Not only did he hear anti-alcohol sermons in his church but he also lived in a culture that promoted temperance [for a while]. Historians state that the height of the American temperance movement was the passage of the Volstead Act and the enforcement of the 18th Amendment. This legislation and enforcement began in 1914 and continued until 1933. In 1933, prohibition was repealed. Some point to the emergence of bootlegging, speakeasies, organized crime, and public discontent with prohibition as evidence that temperance did not change many minds about alcohol consumption.
Maybe this was a situation where temperance forces waged a war within a culture that was not totally accepting of the temperance message.
It was also a situation where temperance religious leaders tried to use the Bible as ammunition but the Bible did not offer much firepower. Why was this the case? Gomes points to the unfortunate use of alcohol by Noah in Genesis and the resultant horrible consequences that befell his son Ham. Other than that, “no doctrine against drink can be found by precept or example among the writers of the Old Testament” [Gomes 78].
In fact, Psalm 104 says God causes the grass to grow, plants to grow and food and wine come forth to “gladden the heart of man.” New Testament references do no help the temperance cause. Jesus turned water into wine at Cana [very good wine we are told]. As He ends His earthly life with a Passover Seder, it is impossible to think that Jesus and His Disciples celebrated with anything other than wine with the meal. Paul in giving advice to Timothy says “No longer drink water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” [1 Timothy 5: 23].
How did temperance believers and promoters bypass the anti-temperance cultural forces and Biblical skeptics? They employed what Gomes calls “ingenious interpretive and exegetical devices.” The gist of their arguments follows: we know much more about the moral decay that alcohol can cause than the people of Jesus’ day. If Jesus had known the whole story of hard drink He would have prohibited its use. After all, the Godly fathers practiced polygamy but that is no long approved. The Godly fathers required circumcision but that is no longer required for a believer. Today we know that some things that were common in Biblical times no longer work.
Another argument is the two wine theory. One type of wine in use in Jesus’ day was highly intoxicating and another was much less intoxicating. Noah drank the highly intoxicating wine and suffered severe problems. Jesus always drank the less intoxicating wine. This theory [considered by many as very weak] maintained the innocence of Jesus. Jesus drank grape juice.
Temperance leaders knew that there was great tension between the “ambiguity” of the Bible and their clear cultural admonition: do not drink alcohol. The cultural context needed a strong Biblical reason not to drink because people wanted to do it. There are problems with the argument that we know more today about the moral decay of alcohol because that argument inches toward a relative interpretation of the Bible, and literalists did not want that. The argument also highlights the cultural context so much that it seems to imply that contemporary cultural knowledge can trump the timeless wisdom of God’s word. People seeking a literal interpretation of the Bible believe the Bible’s message is timeless.
As mentioned previously, prohibition was repealed in 1933 and the idea of prohibiting alcohol from the American population became just another failed social experiment. Culture won and the church was defeated.
How could the church have won this war?
I find it interesting that Gomes provides the answer from the writing of theologian Roland Bainton. Bainton [writing in 1958*] states that Biblical principles indeed lead one to the conclusion that the Christian should practice total abstinence. The key word he used is “principle,” the idea that the spirit of God’s word is more important that literal precedent and the principles of the Bible are meant to guide Christian living.
In essence Bainton is taking a “big picture view” of Scripture. For example when Paul states that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, he is really saying that it should not be abused. Alcohol can certainly abuse the human body if it is not consumed in moderation. Another Pauline scripture states that the stronger believer should bear with the weaker and set an example for the weaker believer to follow [“it is not right to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble” Romans 14: 20-21]. Gomes writes “Bainton liberates us from a simpleminded bondage of texts whose context may be unrelated and unhelpful to our own. In other words, to be Biblical may well mean to move beyond the Bible itself to the larger principles that can be derived from the Christian faith of which the Bible is a part” [82].
This is the idea that the whole is larger than the sum of its parts. “the Bible must be understood not as a thing in and of itself but as a part of the whole teaching and practice of the Christian faith….To argue policy from Biblical situations requires a more demanding criterion: that we seek after the lively Christian principle that transcends the particularities of the Bible situation and with which we understand both those situations and our own” [Gomes, 82].
There are significant reasons why this theology does not work for many Christians. Many try to take the Bible literally and if the “map does not fit the ground,” they are not likely to say that the map is wrong. This is not to say that the “bigger picture” does not matter but that view should not dilute God’s word. Billy Graham believes “Truth is timeless and doesn’t differ from one age to another. Customs may change but the all-providing truth stands for eternity and is designed to bring about holy living.”
As Gomes tries to make his case for strong drink, he points out that Christians who frown on alcohol use do not have strong Biblical backing for their views. It did not matter; temperance advocates got nineteen years of prohibition in America without the strong Biblical evidence that was warranted.
When we return to Gomes, he will look at another “hard text”: the idea of the Bible and race.
In my life I have had moments of (I think) lucid thought, when I cut through all the distractions that this world throws at all of us and I felt like I was going somewhere, actually getting somewhere, where what I was doing was the correct thing for me to be doing. In those times, it felt like “I am being led to do something good.” Those special times make life worth living…
However, those times are rare. Too often life is absolutely full of distraction, whether I am being taken off course by someone in my life whose actions have caught my attention or if there is just too much “media” coming at me all at once and I am falling prey to the onslaught.
With this as a backdrop, I return to my plan to discuss the ideas of an advocate for the role of LGBTQ people in the church. I return to Peter Gomes, Pastor at Harvard from 1974 to 2010. Gomes [an openly gay pastor] wrote a book about the Bible called The Good Book: Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart. I have already discussed his thoughts through the first three chapters of his book [see posts from February 2, 2023 to April 28, 2023]. I am now ready to return to The Good Book and consider Chapter 4: “Hard Texts and Changing Times.”
The problem is this chapter is devoted to the topic of strong drink. That is his example of a “hard text.”
My, that seems to be “off course” from thoughts about how the church should treat LGBTQ Christians. Is Gomes trying to distract?
Or maybe not?
At first glance it may seem that discussing strong drink may be very different from what I wanted to focus on, but I believe Gomes has a plan. There are “hard texts” regarding the use of strong drink. There are “hard texts” regarding race. There are “hard texts” regarding Anti-Semitism. There are “hard texts” regarding the inclusion of women and there are “hard texts” regarding LBBTQ inclusion in the church.
I believe what he is doing is building the case that there is a need for grace in all these areas. Too often Christians think the Bible is a black and white, open and closed, good and bad guidebook but Gomes is saying “maybe not.” Maybe there is room for other interpretations, other understandings and more acceptance.
Maybe he is laying the groundwork for “The Bible and Homosexuality,” Chapter 8 where he calls the Christian attitude toward homosexuality “The Last Prejudice.”
The question I face as I write commentary about Gomes’ book is should I skip chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7?
I have decided not to do that because I think I can see what he is trying to do with his reasoning. He is building his case.
To date, I have discussed Gomes along with two other authors. Gomes is supportive of LGBTQ inclusion in the church. Kevin DeYoung is not supportive of LGBTQ inclusion and Preston Sprinkle is somewhere in between. Gomes’ book is longer, going more in depth with his thought. That does not make his book better [only longer] but I have to devote more posts to his work because he has more pages to understand.
He begins his Chapter with an intriguing quote from Psalm 137: 9: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock.” What is that doing in the Bible? What could it mean? Why is he commenting on that? This is an example of a hard text,” very hard to understand.
Gomes gives the Bible its due, commenting on the positive aspects of The Book for the Jewish people of God. God’s Word provided some order in a “rowdy assortment of individuals with private and personal agendas” [70]. The Torah became “the law” that guided God’s Chosen People. When Christianity became the special worldview eclipsing the power of Rome, the word of God became a guidepost for a “new heaven” on earth and the eventual Church at Rome. This eventually changed with the advent of Protestantism, The Book becoming more a part of every person’s life. The ability to print Bibles allowed The Book to be in every household, and individuals no longer looked to the priest with The Rare Book to interpret Scripture. They felt emboldened to find meaning on their own, after all The Holy Spirit is inside all of us for our guidance and elucidation.
Here is where Gomes begins to turn the discussion from the history of Christianity to “hard texts and changing times.” Readers of the Bible have difficulty because they are reading a Book that was not written for them, the time and place of the writing is foreign: “this task, always difficult, is made even more so when the biblical culture and the culture in which the Bible finds itself are far removed from one another” [73]. Some Christians like to point out that God is unchangeable; His truth is timeless and does not differ from one age to another. The human condition is timeless and does not vary from one age to another. So The Bible should be understandable.
Gomes finds a “loophole” in this argument. One can uphold God as unchangeable and the human condition as unchangeable but “circumstances of our history and culture” are certainly open to change. “Human beings may be universally and always flawed; and yet the expression and the context of those flaws are subject to the changing circumstances of our history and culture” [73].
In essence, what Gomes is saying is that it is extremely difficult to determine “original intent.” Without taking this too far afield and doubling the length of this post, he is saying that no one can really get into the mind of the author. When words full of meaning are placed on the page, they become open to interpretation and “hard texts” do not easily translate into contemporary life. “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” is just an example of Biblical passages that seem impossible to understand.
Is Gomes trying to distract us? Some would say yes, the Divine Word of God is not really that hard to understand. Is Gomes trying to build his case that The Bible has some room for interpretation? Some would say yes and that’s why we need to be more tolerant of those who have different points of view.
Will he convince us that The Bible is too hard on gay people, that they should be accepted in the church and Scriptures denouncing same-sex intimacy as a sin are no longer relevant?
We will see.
He begins his reasoning in Chapter 4 with “The Case for Drink.”
As I make the effort to comment on LGBTQ+ issues and the Christian church, it is time to return to the first author in this three-part commentary. Peter Gomes’s book entitled The Good Book is next up and I will be discussing his Chapter 4 “Hard Texts and Changing Times.”
Gomes was a pastor to Harvard University and was openly gay. Kevin DeYoung is a pastor who advocates for heterosexual, traditional marriage and the idea that same-sex intimacy is a sin. Preston Sprinkle is a pastor who wants to advocate for both sides in this “either-or” issue, a pastor who knows that love for all people is the true Christian way.
In last week’s post, I referred to Preston Sprinkle’s desire to focus on real people regarding LGBTQ life. Sprinkle has studied the Bible and human sexuality for many years, in his own words: “I have devoted countless hours to studying the Scriptures with an open mind. I have read piles of books and articles on the topic from both sides of the debate. I have researched the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman context in which the Bible was written. I have looked at the ever-evolving conclusions of psychologists, counselors and medical researchers. But studying the issue of homosexuality is not enough. Like flying an airplane with only one wing, reading about homosexuality is necessary—but dangerously insufficient” [People to Be Loved, 19].
Last week’s post was devoted to people, real people who have felt the sting of hatred because of their sexual preference. I entitled it “Tim, Jeremy, Julie, Wes or Lesli” because Sprinkle referenced those people in his chapter. These “real people” have reported harassment, bullying and physical harm. Some have reported a desire to commit suicide because their friends and families have been so cruel.
As I read chapter one of his book, I often wondered about Sprinkle’s approach to his subject. Is he using extreme examples of abuse? Is American society really that hard on gay people? He cites “Maddie” a young girl who was chained by her father to a toilet in the basement of her home when she was nine years old. He fed her scraps of food to keep her alive and raped her repeatedly over a four-year period. Now Maddie chooses to have relationships only with other women. Maddie states that she does not have any desire to be touched by a man. I have to ask, can you blame her?
That is extreme. Is Sprinkle citing examples that are too extreme to make his point? Is this fair or is this issue really “much ado about nothing.” Surely it’s not really that tough to be a gay person in America today.
Let’s pull back from individual cases of persecution in favor of a “big picture” point of view. Are there many attempts to persecute gay people through wide-spread governmental legislation? According to USA Today [April 5, 2023], 650 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced by legislatures across America. In this source entitled “War on LGBTQ Existence” a senior policy researcher states “the dramatic rise in political attacks clearly illustrates how emboldened anti-LGBTQ activists seem to feel…this moment is very different and frankly terrifying for many people.” The goal of all this legislation is to force LGBTQ people out of public life, to censor open discussion of LGBTQ issues out of the schools, to eliminate bullying and harassment protections, and to outlaw supportive school environments.
Maybe to quote Shakespeare is naïve on my part. Maybe it is getting harder to be gay in America? But what is the church to do about it. This past Sunday I taught from Luke 10: 29-37, the Parable of the Good Samaritan. A man is travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho on a dangerous stretch of road and robbers stop him and beat him. A priest passes by and ignores the victim. Then a Levite passes by and ignores the victim. A Samaritan passes the victim and he stops and helps the poor man. Two leaders of the Jewish faith don’t have anything to do with the poor victim but an “outcast” stops and saves the man’s life. Jesus tells the parable to make the point that when someone is suffering, others should take note and try to help in any way that they can.
It is too much of a stretch to say that when members of the LBGTQ community are being persecuted, Christians should give help and comfort? In the parable, Samaritans and orthodox Jews are sworn enemies, Jews stating that Samaritans were “half-breeds” for intermarrying after they were exiled. Did religious differences matter when a man’s life was at stake? The Samaritan does not see it that way; compassion for another human being does not require agreement on issues of lifestyle or approval of other’s behavior. Jesus says that we are to overcome evil with good, pure and simple. There are times when we must follow the rules but there are times when human compassion rules: “And [Jesus] answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?” [Luke 14: 5-6].
Too often Christians have let their stance against the LGBTQ community get in the way of behaving as Christians. The Bible condemns homosexuality but the Bible does not say that gay people are to be hated. The Bible does not say that the needs of persecuted people need to be ignored. The Bible [indeed Jesus in Luke 10] does not say that someone who needs help should not receive it.
“When the LGBTQ community is the victim of persecution, violence or other harms, Christians have a clear mandate from the Lord. Just as the Good Samaritan bound the wounds of a social and religious antagonist, we are to love our neighbors, whoever they are. For the Christian, there is only one proper response when those in the LGBTQ community are suffering persecution. We should come along beside them, show them mercy and demonstrate the love of Christ.”*
Are there LGBTQ people who have suffered grievous harm like those cited in Sprinkle’s book—yes there are some who have suffered grievous harm. Are there widespread attacks on this group of people from legislation designed to discriminate against them—yes that legislation does exist. In either case the proper response is not to say that all this is “much ado about nothing.”
That kind of response puts us in the category of the priest and the Levite in Jesus’ parable. I don’t know about you, but as a person who professes a belief in Jesus Christ, I don’t want to be someone who ignores suffering. If suffering is real, I need to feel compassion. I need to love my neighbor as myself.
Who inherits eternal life? The expert in the law who is questioning Jesus did not expect to get the Parable of the Good Samaritan as a reply to his question, but he does. At the end of the parable, Jesus asks “the expert” who will inherit eternal life in the story. The man says the one who had mercy on the victim. Jesus says it plain and simple:
“Go and do likewise.”
*From “How Should Christians react to persecution against the LGBTQ community?” from the Gotquestions.org website, accessed on July 19, 2023.
My wife asks me from time to time why I blog. Sometimes it is inconvenient when I know I should be doing other things, sometimes I wonder if I have any “real”* readers, sometimes I am not in the mood…but I do it anyway. I told her this morning the real reason why I blog. I like to learn. Blogging allows me to learn and then I get a chance to comment on what I learn.
As I begin Chapter One of Preston Sprinkle’s book People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue I am once again in a position of getting to learn new things. For example, I have learned that I have used the words homosexual or gay lifestyle in my writings recently and LGBTQ people would prefer that the word “lifestyle” not be used to describe “their life”. LGBTQ people have jobs, friends, favorite foods etc., all the things that everyone has but when lifestyle is used to describe how they live, it conjures up “gay sex”. Sexual intimacy is just one small part of a person’s life, not an overriding factor.
The word “homosexual” is not the preferred word for a person who is gay. Gay people prefer the word “gay” or “lesbian” rather than being referred to as a “homosexual”. Another reason that Sprinkle does not like the word homosexual is that it “is a broad term that has the potential of erasing the faces of real people with different stories.” The best way to refer to gay or lesbian people (when in doubt or when one needs a broad term) is LGBTQ people.
This is just a taste of the lessons that can be learned by reading PTBL. Although some may say it is too much trouble to be concerned about labels for people, I think about the labels that kids in my school applied to gay people in the sixties. The good Christian kids I ran around with used words like “faggot” and “homo” and had little concern for how those words hurt real human beings. Sprinkle references James 3: 6 when he relates that words like this are dehumanizing; they “stoke the fires of hell.”
As I think about my past and the cruelty of the words we used, Sprinkle tells real stories about real people. He tells about Eric Borges, the young man who grew up hearing the word “faggot” a lot. He wrote “I was physically, mentally, verbally and emotionally assaulted on a daily basis….I was stalked, spat on and ostracized.” Eric was assaulted in his classroom and no one intervened, not even the teacher who was in the room. Tim Otto found that he was attracted to other boys at a young age. Being the son of a Christian missionary, he tried not to act on his impulses. One day (as an adult) he was propositioned by an adult gay man and they had sex. Tim went into a tailspin, feeling like he had to kill himself for his sin. I found his comment so telling: ‘I wish that somehow rather than ending up in the arms of that anonymous man, I could have found myself in the arms of the church…I wish in the church I had found myself loved.’”
What does the church offer gay people who want spiritual help? Well obviously we don’t want to offer negative labels that just hurt people. Surely we can do better than that. Yet at times it is so easy to be negative about people who don’t have a heterosexual orientation [I just used a dehumanizing word for the rest of us]. Sprinkle writes “the Christian church has often played an unintended yet active role in pushing gay people away from Christ. Sometimes away from Christ and into the grave.” Here is a general truth about life; if anyone is different in any way, they just have trouble fitting in. If anyone is gay or lesbian, they quickly get the idea that church is not where they belong. Yet as we read the Bible, we see all kinds of people wanting to be close to Jesus: “broken people, sinful people, marginalized people, people who are clean and unclean, pure and impure. Some are befriended. Others are confronted. All of them are loved” [Sprinkle, 15]. I don’t know, but I have venture a guess that Jesus would not turn away a gay person who needed spiritual help, yet as Christians we do that very thing.
Sprinkle tells of a gay friend who leads a Bible study. I can imagine some Christians saying that gay people probably don’t feel like God’s word would be helpful, inspirational and valuable. Yet some do have a hunger to know more about God. They actively seek spiritual help from The Bible. The problem is that they report anxiety about attending Bible study in a church. Sprinkle’s friend used the words “too scared” to attend Bible study at church. They do not want to be harassed or humiliated by the treatment they feel they would receive from “regular” Christians. In my study of Jesus, the only people He got upset with on a regular basis were hypocrites, the people who declared they are Christian but did not act like they were Christians, people who have a Bible study and exclude folks who don’t fit in?
Sprinkle cannot forget the names of Tim, Jeremy, Julie, Wes or Lesli, all people who just happen to be gay, people who were humiliated, people who were shunned, people who found no place in a church anywhere. Sprinkle writes “I want to be ruthlessly Biblical in how we formulate our thoughts about homosexuality. It’s not an either the Bible or people question; it is both the Bible and people. Homosexuality is not about either truth or love; it’s about both truth and love, since truth is loving and love is truthful. Our God is both. There’s not room for false dichotomies here. We need to be thoroughly biblical because we desire to thoroughly love people” [21]. There’s a “broad term”—people. Aren’t we all people, created by God, seeking a relationship with Him?
Why do I blog?
I don’t want to be a Christian who dislikes a “group” of people. I don’t want to be a Christian who uses bad language to refer to a group of people. I don’t want to be a Christian who excludes people from my group because they are different from me.
I guess I am trying to learn, how not to be a hypocrite.
*apologies to my “real” readers but I am well aware of bots…
“I stand on truth and I stand on love.” Preston Sprinkle…
So far on this journey of trying to understand homosexuality and Christianity, I have spent many posts explaining Peter Gomes’ point of view as expressed in his book on the Bible, The Good Book. Gomes was a homosexual and a pastor. Then I spent many posts explaining Kevin DeYoung’s point of view as expressed in his book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? DeYoung is a pastor and he upholds the traditional heterosexual model for marriage [marriage between one man and one woman].
Now we turn to a third author, Preston Sprinkle. Sprinkle [or rather Dr. Sprinkle] holds a Ph.D. in New Testament studies from Aberdeen University in Scotland. He has taught theology at Nottingham University [in the U.K.], Cedarville University in Ohio and Eternity Bible College in California. He is the founder and president of the Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender. Besides being a New Testament scholar, he is a podcast host, a speaker and New York Times bestselling author. The book we will focus on deals with his approach to homosexual behavior (Christianity: People to Be Loved—Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue). Whereas Gomes advocates for the acceptance of homosexuals in all aspects of church life and Kevin DeYoung will not accept homosexual leaders in the church and same-sex marriage in the church, Preston Sprinkle advocates a third approach to this topic.
He states “The question of homosexuality defies simple answers so I refuse to give thin answers to thick questions.” He realizes that too many Christians have a knee-jerk response to this topic and he refuses that approach. He has a focus on Scripture but he does not use it to express an “us versus them” stance.
I find it interesting that Sprinkle chooses Wesley Hill to write the foreword of his book. Hill is a professor of Biblical studies at Trinity School in Pennsylvania. He has written a much discussed book Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality. Hill is a celibate gay Christian.
Hill describes Sprinkle’s book as a meeting of the minds, minds of other people who think differently, people who can gather around a table and express differing points of view without rancor. This is so rare in our culture today, to express, to listen, to not judge, to make an attempt to understand. Too often we castigate, we label, we hate and yes when it comes to how some Christians handle the issue of homosexuality, we hurt others “with our faith.”
How can Christians ignore Jesus’ call to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first and greatest commandment, and the second is like it: to love your neighbor as yourself” The first part shows up in Deuteronomy 6: 5 but the second part is added by Jesus in Mark 12: 31, but it has an Old Testament echo in Leviticus 19: 18. Here is the biggest question that Christians must answer. What if your neighbor is a homosexual? As Christians, here is where the “knee jerk” gets in the way. For some there is an automatic dismissal of human beings with a different lifestyle.
Sprinkle says he is “haunted by the pain that Christians have caused gay people” [9]. He believes in God’s word but when he reads it, he does not read passages that mention homosexuality without thinking about “real names, beautiful faces and complex stories.”
Sprinkle has been around the table with others and has achieved an understanding through the exchange of ideas. “I have tried to read the Bible as fairly as I know how with regard to homosexuality. I have listened to people on both sides of the debate, those who affirm same-sex relations and those who do not. To my surprise, I have made many friends with people who hold very different views of homosexuality. Perhaps it’s because, as you’ll see, I have discovered that the Bible challenges people on both sides of the question” [11].
I recently had someone ask me why I write a blog post every week and why would I try to tackle a topic as hard as “can a person be homosexual and be a Christian?” [from three points of view]. My response was I write so I can learn. I write so I can grow in my faith. This topic is not easy, but finding a way to work through it in faith is extremely worthwhile.
I have read writings which advocate that homosexuality is ok for devout Christian life and leadership in the Christian church. I have considered the argument that (on this issue) the Bible is “out of sync” with God’s will as we understand it today. Scripture is shaped by cultural norms. I am not sure that this perspective has convinced me. I have read writings which condemn homosexuality for devout Christian life and leadership in the Christian church. God declares homosexual behavior a sin and we should treat it as such. I have not read author’s comments that are hateful but I have heard individuals express hateful thoughts [Christian individuals]. I struggle with this form of expression [Mark 12: 30-31?]. This perspective easily leads to hurting others.
Now let’s turn to an author who says “I stand on truth and I stand on love.”
Is he capable of finding a middle ground on this topic?
Kevin DeYoung did not write What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality to please the general American population. This month of June is “pride month” when the world’s LGBTQ+ communities come together to celebrate the freedom to be themselves. The level of support for accepting gay and lesbian people in America has hit a new peak of 62%. Support for gay marriage is at an all-time high of 70%. As anyone who has been reading this blog knows, the United Methodist Church has been dealing with UM Churches that are disaffiliating over this issue. DeYoung is defending traditional marriage in chapter one of his book and he knows that his book is not “mainstream,” that many readers will never pick it up and if they do, they will react with frustration and hatred because he is not supporting the homosexual lifestyle.
So far he has presented three reasons that the “traditional” approach to marriage should be upheld. I discussed number one on May 27, 2023 when I summarized the idea that women were made to be men’s companions, men’s helpers and second in line in God’s human creation process. This does not mean that woman is “less than” as much as a woman complements man in God’s divine plan for life. On June 10th, I got very direct about male and female physical makeup regarding sexual intimacy; a man and a woman fit together, not so for same sex intimacy. On June 17, the topic was procreation and DeYoung believes God intended that male and female sex is all about having a family, which is not possible for same sex couples without turning to surrogacy.
We are now ready for reason four and five regarding traditional marriage. DeYoung points to the support Jesus gives for traditional marriage in Genesis. Lastly, the “redemptive-historical significance” of marriage as a divine symbol only works if the married couple is a complementary pair.
Divorce is a major debate in the Jewish faith, and Jesus was asked what he believed about the permissibility of divorce as a sexual sin, essentially if it destroys the marriage covenant. DeYoung writes that Jesus’ position supports the Shammi school of thought on this issue. I am not familiar with this “school” of Jewish thought, but it is ultra conservative regarding the interpretation of Jewish Law. Jesus reminds His audience that in Genesis, God made “them” male and female. One must go back to the “beginning” to see that God created marriage as a lifelong union between man and woman.
What Jesus is preaching is really monogamy, that it only makes sense in a traditional marriage between two people of opposite sex. DeYoung is quick to point out that he is not arguing that polygamy is acceptable for same-sex relationships, because he is aware that traditional marriage advocates have been attacked on that front. He is open-minded enough to state “If marriage is simply the formation of a kinship bond between those who are committed wholly to one another, there is no reason why multiple persons or groups or people cannot commit themselves wholly to one another.” However, if we are to follow God’s Divine plan [God making the woman from the man and also for the man] the complementarity of His plan makes sense in traditional marriage. Same sex marriage does not fill the need for complementary opposite sex relations.
For the fifth reason we look at the symbolic nature of marriage as a divine symbol. “God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). And not only that, but within this cosmic pairing, we find other ‘couples’: the sun and the moon, morning and evening, day and night, the sea and dry land, plants and animals, and finally, at the apex of creation, the man and his wife” [DeYoung, 32]. In each pairing, each part belongs to the other, but neither is interchangeable. “Marriage is to be a symbol of this divine design: two differentiated entities uniquely fitted for one another” [32].
DeYoung argues from the beginning in Genesis to the end of the Bible in Revelation, we see the concept of marriage illustrated by two parts belonging to the other but neither interchangeable. This is what I call “big picture” conceptualization or what others call metanarrative. If God had wanted interchangeable partners for marriage He would have given us that conceptualization in the creation narrative. “Homosexuality simply does not fit with the created order of Genesis 1 and 2. And with these two chapters as the foundation upon which the rest of the redemptive-historical story is built, we’ll see that homosexual behavior does not fit the rest of the Bible either.
As I opened this post, I referred to the increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ+ way of life. I also referred to the idea that same sex marriage is being accepted at record levels by Americans. Yet I am discussing Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons that traditional marriage should be upheld and DeYoung has already said that homosexuality is a mortal sin.
I am not an “expert” on this topic. I am also not a person who reads DeYoung’s book with frustration and anger because he is attacking a lifestyle I wholeheartedly support. I have an open mind on this issue, preferring to have an opinion that I will not express unless I am pressed.
I am just trying to learn.
I have attended a contentious church meeting where three groups of people defended their support of gay clergy in the church and their support of same sex marriage in the church. The three trains of thought were not adequate. “I have lots of gay friends and they should be allowed to minister and perform same-sex marriages. I have gay family members and they should be allowed to minister and perform same sex marriages”. Lastly, the support centered on discrimination, that “LGBTQ+ people are being discriminated against by the attitude that they cannot become ministers and cannot perform same sex marriages”. The man who stated this compared homosexual people to slaves before the American Civil War. I am not sure that ancestors of slaves today would agree with that comparison.
As we consider Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons for upholding traditional marriage, I have to admit that there is some significant support that he is providing, much better than friends, family and discrimination regrets. I have already looked at the first three chapters of Peter Gomes book entitled The Good Book and now we have introduced Kevin DeYoung’s book which does not support LGBTQ+ living and same-sex marriage.
Next, we turn to Preston Sprinkle’s book People to Be Loved for a different point of view.
St. John Studies 