St. John Studies

“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 18^th 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  In 1933, prohibition was repealed.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 the Protestant journal “Christianity Today”

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.

This week we return to Gomes…

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…

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 10^th, 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.

On Monday night June 19th, my family lost a member in a motorcycle accident. His name was Stephen Floyd, the son of my sister-in-law Debbie Carter.

It has been a difficult week for my whole family. My brother practically raised the young man and my 93 year old Mother [I am her closest caretaker] was shaken by the event. She lost a son in a drowning accident many years ago. I had to break the news to my Mom this week and she was not even sure she could attend the funeral yesterday, June 23rd. She lives close to my home in an assisted living facility now and going back to her hometown was a serious concern for her. She likes her new home but also lived at her old residence for 60 years. Her transition to a new life has been difficult.

My post this week is delayed. For any readers, I am sorry. I has been a tough week.

Stephen’s Obituary:

Stephen Floyd, 50, of Marion, KY passed away June 19, 2023 at Mercy Health Lourdes in Paducah, KY. He attended Lola Missionary Church.

Survivors include his wife, Elizabeth Floyd of Marion, KY; son, Blake Floyd of Marion, KY; parents, Debbie (Larry) Carter; brothers, Brett Carter of Marion, KY and Mason (Tiffany) Carter of Nashville, TN; aunts, Missy Drake, Marcia Floyd and Barbara Floyd; uncle, Danny Drake and several cousins.

He was preceded in death by his father, Randy Floyd; grandparents, Anna and Buddy Drake and Ralph and Erma Floyd.

Services are scheduled for 2:00 PM Friday June 23, 2023 at Gilbert Funeral Home in Marion, KY with interment in Mapleview Cemetery. The family will receive visitors from 10:00 AM until service time at the funeral home.

My prayer is that life will settle down soon…

God only knows…

Last week’s post was dedicated to Kevin DeYoung’s second reason that Godly marriage requires one man and one woman, that the way men and women are designed presupposes two persons joined together in the human sex act.  At the end of that post, I mentioned today’s topic, that procreation adds further support to DeYoung’s argument.  By design, same sex couples cannot have children.  Of course that means that God designed opposite sex couples for procreation.

In this post, I will explore DeYoung’s ideas further.

The crux of his argument is founded upon the idea that there is a purpose for marriage and that purpose is to create offspring.  God says in Genesis that He intends for everything He created to multiply:  vegetation, trees, fish, birds, and every living creature “according to their kind.”  Likewise, God created man and woman deliberately so they could be fruitful and multiply.  Detractors might say that procreation is not mentioned in an explicit manner in Genesis but it is commanded [says DeYoung] “in Genesis 1 and specifically mentioned as affected by the fall in Genesis 3.”    DeYoung cites the Hebrew words for man and woman to bolster his case.  The Hebrew for “man” is ish and “woman” is ishah, the two intended to fit together to produce offspring from a Godly union.  DeYoung is willing to admit that all might not go right in every case [as everyone knows].  Some married men and women are not capable of having children because of some biological dysfunction.  Does that mean they don’t fulfill their purpose for marriage?  Of course as humans age, heterosexual couples must find new purposes for marriage, but DeYoung states “if all the plumbing is working properly—children can be conceived.”  And God is pleased.

Of course, procreation is important.  Practically, if people failed to procreate, humanity would eventually cease to exist.  Spiritually, one can turn to Psalm 127: 3-5 to read of the rewards of having children:  “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from Him.  Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth.  Blessed is the man whose quiver if full of them.”

Procreation says DeYoung “is the natural outworking of the marriage covenant.”   Procreation in a Christian family gives parents the privilege of raising their own flesh and blood.  Ephesians 6: 4 says “fathers bear the primary responsibility to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”  The “ideal” among Christian parents is that teaching children the ways of Christ is an honor and a privilege. 

All this sounds perfect as Christians point to procreation as a sign that marriage is a Godly covenant.  Some argue that inability to procreate is a sign that same-sex unions are not blessed by God.  Of course gay couples point out that they can procreate but not as a couple, having to use artificial insemination and surrogacy.  In addition, same-sex couples can adopt.  But Christians will counter that biological children from a heterosexual couple are given better care than adopted children and nothing can bond a couple more than the birth of a biological child.  All these statements are so general, with notable exceptions abounding; some heterosexual Christian couples are disastrous parents and some gay couples are wonderful parents [to surrogate children or adopted children].  It all hinges on the idea that Christians feel they know what is ordained by God: He is on their side.

For Christians, the one man and one woman marriage blessed by God is the best scenario for the family and some think it is the only acceptable scenario.   In that setting, people in the family can grow in righteousness and serve the Lord. 

For individuals who want to pursue same-sex relationships and want to have children, their concerns might not even be the pursuit of righteous living and serving God.   Maybe they are just pursuing love, friendship and companionship within a different context.  Are Christians willing to admit that or would we rather judge?

When DeYoung writes “only two persons of the opposite sex can fulfill the procreative purposes of marriage” he is stating what he prefers.  But he is doing more; he is stating what he believes God prefers.  He is trying to mirror the word of God in the Holy Bible.  As Christians we need to be careful not to be overly zealous in our condemnation of others who do not choose to live within the bounds of Christian values, especially when it comes to the pursuit of meaningful relationships.

Marriage has many functions across all kinds of people and just because a Christian pursues marriage in a “faith framework” does not negate the value of marriage for others.  Marriage provides life structure for people [regardless of faith].  Marriage provides sexual gratification for people [in a faith context or out of a faith context].  Marriage can provide a way to divide labor among couples or divide mutual expenses [regardless of faith].   Marriage can be an opportunity to grow together as a couple into maturity, to learn to work as partners in life [regardless of faith].  What many Christians have problems with is admitting that same-sex couples can do all of this and they value the opportunity to do so.  They can love another person sacrificially. They can serve their partner.  They can fulfill their needs for affection and companionship [regardless of faith].

My personal note is that I am troubled by Christians who think that the Christian faith framework is the only way for any relationship to thrive.  In my way of thinking, it is not.  We are discussing personal needs and it does not bode well for Christians to condemn others and put themselves up as self-righteous role models.

Is DeYoung right as he argues that two persons of the opposite sex can fulfill the procreative purposes of marriage? Of course he is right.  Is he wrong if he says that God ordained it this way and other options are wrong?  We can think this, we can believe this, but we must be careful when we say that the standard of procreative ability negates companionship, love and mutual support that all people feel for each other. 

The Christian faith framework is my personal choice for my life and my marriage and I am so happy to be a father of a son by my wife, but I am not going to say that personal private feelings that another person may have for someone else are invalid.  Nor am I willing to say that a relationship is invalid because procreation cannot happen.

This is a different standard from the idea that God created woman as a complement to man (Genesis 2: 18-22).  This is a different standard from the idea that God created man and woman to become “one flesh” in the act of human sex.  This standard presumes that same-sex couples cannot find happiness because procreation must be the purpose of their relationship.

Recently many Christians were saddened by the death of Pat Robertson, a great man of God who was a media mogul, religious broadcaster, political commentator, presidential candidate and Southern Baptist minister.  Robertson did great good in this world in the name of Jesus Christ but at times he also went too far in his expression of ideas.  I recall a time in the 1980’s when he commented that “AIDS is God’s way of weeding His garden.”  I cringed when I heard this, that a major Christian leader could express something so hurtful.

As Christians, we don’t want to be hurtful in the expression of our ideas. 

That can happen when we make broad declarations like the purpose for marriage is procreation.

Last week my post was entitled “Let Us Not Lose Sight” and it was not devoted to commenting on Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does The Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality.  It was devoted to my feelings about how the United Methodist Church has handled the issue of LGBTQ+ participation in that denomination.  It was devoted to my feelings about my specific church having to choose between cultural acceptance of the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and God’s word.  For many, cultural values and Christian values are not compatible.  Before I posted my personal comments, I was working on DeYoung’s five reasons that many Christians are right to think that Genesis 1-2 establishes God’s design for marriage.  I had discussed the idea of male and female complementarity in “Companion, Helper and Second in Line,” that God made woman to help man, to be equal to man, but also man’s opposite [May 27, St. John Studies].  Now it is time to move onto reason number two, “the nature of the one flesh union presupposes two persons of the opposite sex” [DeYoung, 27].

In preparing for this post,  I have been amused by adult writers who struggle to directly address this one flesh issue.  “One flesh” does not have to always refer to sexual intercourse, but in one sense it does.  Like many words, “one flesh” means many things and that it why it is used; it helps with the uncomfortable discussion of a private matter.

Let’s get the uncomfortableness out of the way.  “One flesh” refers to the sexual bond a man and a woman have.  He use of words one flesh “presupposes two persons of an opposite sex.”   What does he really mean?  The biological fit of sex organs emphasizes that marriage is really between a male and female.  The argument here is the male’s penis fits into the female’s vagina, which some would say is an observable fact that God designed man and woman for intercourse.  DeYoung does state this: “The act of sexual intercourse brings a man and a woman together as one relationally and organically. The sameness of the parts in same-sex activity does not allow for the two to become one in the same way.” 

Ok there are those who would say that Jesus never really said anything against homosexuality, but one can point to Matthew 19: 4-6 and say that He had some significant words about marriage.  Let’s look carefully at the Scripture: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”  This is a common Scripture used in many traditional marriage ceremonies and one can say it implies a joining together of male and female in marriage, in relationship and in sexual intimacy.

I get amused by DeYoung writing about sexual contact.  I can tell he is squirming when he writes “Mere physical contact—like holding hands or sticking your finger in someone’s ear—does not unite two people in an organic union, not does it bring them together as a single subject to fulfill a biological function.”  DeYoung seems to be trying to write that physical contact between the sexes cannot bring the same result that sexual union between a man and a woman can, but any honest adult knows that some forms of contact can bring sexual pleasure.

Is it the same kind of pleasure that a husband can enjoy with a wife?  Defenders of traditional marriage would say no, but we have to admit that sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure [I have lapsed into full-on vague language mode]. 

Defenders of traditional marriage would like for all marriage to be the arena where God produces a “higher calling” for two Christians joined together in matrimony.  They can serve Christ together as a unit and raise their children to serve God.  As a couple pursues living for Christ, the joy of the Holy Spirit can fill their marriage. 

Let us not get too naïve about this subject.  Some marriages never fulfill the Godly plan for marriage.  Too often people in marriage fall into the worldly idea that marriage is all about what feels good for me and the idea of pleasing one’s spouse goes away.  What we are talking about is the idea of self-centeredness.  After the honey-moon is over, one spouse can become too focused on self-needs and they forget the idea that meeting the needs of their partner is one of the foundations of marriage.

Some marriages fail because one’s sexual needs become too important and cannot be fulfilled within a marriage.  The Apostle Paul writes about straying outside of marriage in First Corinthians 6: 16: “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh’”.  This comes right after Paul writes “your bodies are members of Christ Himself.  Shall I take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”  In today’s world the temptation is to fulfill sexual needs any way you can; any method is acceptable.  However in God’s word it says “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.  In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” [First Corinthians 7: 3-4].  Paul write a lot about self-control in these scriptures; when that is lost, Satan will tempt with sexual desires. 

Lest we forget, many, many Christians focus on procreation as the end result of the sexual act in marriage.  The feeling is that offspring from a heterosexual relationship can be the best situation for children.  Stephen Holmes writes in his book Two Views on Homosexuality: The Bible and the Church that “procreation is the proper end of marriage.  A relationship that is not ordered toward procreation may be good and right and holy, but it is not a marriage.”  Same sex couples cannot have children but they can adopt children and some argue that this parenting situation is outside God’s design for marriage.  God’s design is for a married man and woman to be father and mother to a child.

Let me close this  post on the thoughts that even though “traditional marriage Christians” want to see a man and a woman in marriage having heterosexual sex, producing children within the marriage framework, there is a growing acceptance that sexual activity outside God’s design has become common is society today.  Traditional marriage Christians may not approve but they are not willing to turn their backs on people who are what they call “sexually broken.”  There is dogged determination to get the word to the world that Christianity is about forgiveness and wholeness in Jesus Christ.  The ideas of grace, patience and love are available to all those who seek to follow Jesus.

No matter what you have done in the past, it is impossible to rewrite your beginning but it is not impossible to begin to write your ending. 

It can start right now…

With Jesus Christ…