We are now ready to return to “hard texts.” On August 5th, I wrote my comments on the second part of Peter Gomes hard text of the Bible regarding strong drink. His argument is that the Bible does not literally support the idea that alcohol use should be totally prohibited.
Then we moved on to Kevin DeYoung’s discussion of Sodom and Gomorrah [August 17] , scripture that is used by “nonaffirming” Christians to support their case that there is something very wrong with LGBTQ+ individuals.
From there Preston Sprinkle looked for evidence in Scripture that opposite sex relationships are necessary for God-ordained marriage. He did not find what he would call “rock solid” evidence.
Now we are ready to return to Peter Gomes, who will discuss the “hard text” of Christian attitudes toward race relations.
Is this confusing?
Two authors [DeYoung and Sprinkle] zero in on homosexuality in the Bible and Gomes talks race?
The reason I believe he does this is that he is taking a long view. The essence of his strategy is “look how the Bible does not support the prohibition of hard drink, look how the Bible does not support negative attitudes toward race, look how the Bible does not support Anti-Semitism.” Then he will make the argument: look how the Bible also does not support LGBTQ+ discrimination.
This is where we are going next—the idea that Scripture does not support the idea that one man is better than another just because one person’s skin color is white and another person’s skin color is black.
Today many people say they accept this and can they can claim that racism is over? I don’t think so. Today all people will say that slavery is a practice of the past but the fact that many who practiced it used God’s word to justify the practice needs to be understood. Gomes will take us there, to that awkward discussion.
But do not lose sight: he will eventually lead us to the idea that the most heinous discrimination today is against LGBTQ+ people.
As I move from one book to another it is easy to get confused. Maybe we need a “scorecard.”
My long view is a fair and balanced discussion of the issue that is at the forefront of Christianity today: the LGBTQ+ community and the church.
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.
I am learning so much as I continue to blog on three books, three different viewpoints on the same subject—homosexuality in the church.
As I begin to post on an author who tries to bridge the gap between Christians who are accepting of same-sex pastors and same-sex marriages in the church to an author who does not accept either, I find that he uses a word that I have heard before.
I have a very close pastor friend who has always spoken against same-sex expression in the church and years ago, he said he knew the problem in a nutshell: same-sex people want to be affirmed. They want to be told that they are ok.
In Chapter Two of Preston Sprinkle’s book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue he uses the word “affirming and nonaffirming” regarding churches. Some churches and Christians are affirming and some churches and Christians are nonaffirming.
Sprinkle tries to understand both views regarding this issue, trying to be fair in his interpretation of Scripture. He has done extensive study of the Bible regarding homosexual behavior in the church and has founded The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, a collaboration of Christian pastors, leaders and theologians who desire to be a trusted source of sound Biblical teaching and practical guidance on questions related to sexuality and gender.
In this blog, I have already commented on Kevin DeYoung’s view of same-sex marriage, that he thinks it is not a part of God’s plan for man and woman.*
Now Sprinkle takes parts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and opens those Scriptures up to possibilities. “Nonaffirming” Christians see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as clear evidence that homosexual marriage was not meant to be. God created man and woman in the Garden and they got married and had children. This sets the acceptable pattern for marriage from creation to today; it must be man and woman. Affirming Christians don’t see Genesis 1 this way. Opposite-sex marriages in Genesis don’t necessarily rule out homosexual marriages. Sprinkle goes on to say that same-sex marriage was not an option in the ancient world. Homosexual activity did occur but not within a marriage context. The bottom line on this issue is this: is heterosexuality a necessity for marriage.
Let’s look at the idea of man and woman coming together to become one flesh. Many just assume that means anatomical complementarity or two people of opposite sex having intercourse. Sprinkle has studied the idea of “one flesh” extensively and concludes that the phrase means forming a new family. A man leaves his father and mother and forms a new family unit (one flesh united). Can sexual union be a part of that? It can, but the primary emphasis of one flesh means “kinship bond”; therefore there is not an emphasis on male-female intercourse. Becoming one flesh does not necessarily mean sexual union and it does not rule out same sex unions. For nonaffirming Christians that statement is just not plausible.**
Genesis 2: 18 is a verse that gives further evidence for the creation of the first woman. By today’s standards, to explain that God created woman for man to have someone to have sex with may be intolerable for many, but there had to be some plan for procreation. Explaining that woman had to be created for man to leave his mother and his father may be a bit better, but Genesis 2:18 is really a problematic Scripture for many women today. “It is not good for man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Helper implies an inferior role for women. Sprinkle looks at God’s plan for the wild animals of the world. He brought them to man to name them. Man gave names to livestock and the birds of the sky. But in Genesis 2: 21 “for Adam, no suitable helper was found.” Adam needed a helper and no helper is suitable in the animal world.
At this point Sprinkle introduces the word kenegdo which is the Hebrew word for suitable [used in Genesis 2: 18 and 2: 20]. He breaks the word down as ke which means like or as, neged which means opposite. It is a complicated word which explains how Eve qualifies for a perfect partner for Adam. She is human which makes her like Adam, but she is female which makes her different. This seems to support the need for heterosexuality and diminishes support for homosexuality.
Some interpret kenegdo as the difference of Adam and Eve may be due to a difference of Eve’s personality. Regarding that, Sprinkle writes “Quite frankly this is a stretch.” The “difference” of Eve is due to her biological sex.
At this point, Sprinkle seems to be trying to open interpretation of the need for heterosexuality in marriage with his thoughts on “one flesh” but he seems to be limiting the interpretation of homosexuality in marriage with his thoughts on “suitable helper.”
In the examination of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 he admits that sexual difference seems to be necessary for marriage, but in a rush to judgement, too many nonaffirming Christians make what he calls “hasty conclusions.”
Are there other Scriptures where we can look for evidence that God prefers male and female marriage over same-sex marriage?
Sprinkle will turn to references in the New Testament to examine the issue further. The big question about this is the following: Is he going to have affirming conclusions about same-sex behavior or nonaffirming conclusions? One must remember his is trying to “bridge the gap” between two extreme views. How does one do that? Is his position plausible?
We will see…
*see “Sticking Your Finger in Someone’s Ear” June 10, 2023 St. John Studies and “God’s Purpose for Marriage” June 17, 2023 St. John Studies.
**see “A Christian School Apologized After a Guest Speaker Wasn’t Anti-LGBTQ Enough” Friendly Atheist March 29, 2021. [The speaker was Preston Sprinkle].
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.
St. John Studies 