At $5.28 for the Kindle version, it seemed like a steal. But Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, by editor Preston Sprinkle, and contributors William R. G Loader, Wesley Hill, Stephen R Holmes, and Megan K DeFranza, part of the Counterpoints: Bible and Theology series, published under the evangelical imprint Zondervan, Grand Rapids (2016), fails to give a well-rounded picture of the debate. This book aims to offer the academically inclined Christian a useful introduction to this hot-button issue, thus it appears “timely.” The book has had a fairly positive reception.[1] One reviewer called it a “helpful summary of the current state of evangelical views on homosexuality.”[2] Unfortunately, the book represents the “traditional” position as holding that homosexual activity is merely impermissible, without the notion that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour resulting from mental illness or a problem of faith, as many traditionalists claim (Rom 1:26-27). We will return to this position, call it “standard,” since traditional has been co-opted. The reader is left trying to fill in blanks left by this omission, as the contributors barely acknowledge such a position or act as if the idea is merely an artifact of bygone thinking that the modern era has put behind us.

This book has timed the market well, by publishing on a very contentious issue in the church today.[3] The Counterpoints Series typically brings a number of highly regarded experts in on an issue of concern to Christians. Each of the four contributors here writes a chapter, which is then responded to by each of the other contributors briefly, followed by a short rejoinder to their arguments by the chapter’s author. These four sections are bookended with an introductory and concluding chapter by the editor Preston Sprinkle. His introduction profiles each of the authors and briefly outlines their arguments. His concluding chapter points the discussion forward to issues that remain unresolved or require clarification. Sprinkle correctly identifies homosexuality as “one of the most pressing ethical questions facing the church today.”[4]

Two contributors, Dr. William Loader, and Dr. Megan DeFranza, represent the “affirming position,” with Loader supplying the biblical studies perspective and Defranza offering a theological approach. They believe “that consensual, monogamous, same-sex relations can be blessed by God and fully included in the life of the church,” because “these relations are not inherently sinful.” Drs. Wesley Hill and Stephen Holmes argue for the “traditional” position from the biblical and theological point of view respectively. The traditional view is summarized by Sprinkle as, “all forms of same-sex sexual behavior are prohibited by Scripture and Christian theology.” He notes, “Holmes and Hill do not simply adopt a ‘traditional’ view of marriage or same-sex orientation,” but in fact hold views which “may be deemed untraditional” (emphasis in original).[5]

Loader’s argument for the affirming view begins with the traditional biblical teaching that same-sex relations are unequivocally forbidden in scripture. He uses a deft analysis of the most important biblical texts (Gen 1:26-8; 2:15-24; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27), the Jewish intertestamental writings, and the opinions of Jewish authors Philo and Josephus.[6] In his view, the OT writers and Paul would not even recognize the “orientation” of homosexuality but would see the behaviour as against nature and therefore a grave sin. Against this view, Loader cites modern science and the testimony of gay Christians and their families.[7] For Loader, Paul did not fully understand human sexuality, just as he did not understand the now widely accepted equal status of women, or the supposed age of the earth. The traditional position on homosexuality is an area of biblical teaching that is simply outdated and should be supplemented using our greater understanding in the modern era.[8]

DeFranza previously held to a traditional, non-affirming view, but her research into the place of intersex people in Christian theology led her to a more nuanced interpretation.[9] She argues that the Genesis 1-2 story of human sexual differentiation is not a comprehensive model of human sexual morphology. Just as the previous creation accounts of air, sea, and land animals did not account for amphibious species, the creation of male and female was not intended to be an exhaustive description of all human sexual diversity.[10] DeFranza points intriguingly to Christ’s comments “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb…” (Matt 19:12), arguing passionately that intersex people are understood as a distinct sexual identity in the Kingdom.[11] DeFranza’s analysis of the prohibition passages (Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1:26-27) interprets them not as referring to consensual homosexual intercourse, but to human trafficking, sexual slavery, and other practices common in the ancient world among pagan populations.[12]

The first proponent of the traditional position is Dr. Wesley Hill a theologian and a gay Christian. Hill bases his argument on a study of the biblical material and an Augustinian understanding of marriage. Following his testimony as a gay Christian resisting temptation and being celibate, Hill bases most of his discussion on the prohibition passages, outlining a strong argument that the scriptural proscription against homosexuality is an absolute biblical truth. He follows this up with a response to Anglican theological ethicist Robert Song’s argument for the inclusion of homosexuals, refuting Song’s Augustinian argument by appealing to Augustine’s three “goods of marriage.” Hill then offers an intriguing alternative to marriage for the gay Christian: committed, monogamous, platonic friendships between gay men. His proposal may raise a few eyebrows, but he enlists some historical support in the example of the 12th-century abbot of Rievaulx, Aelred, a character worth learning about no matter what you think of his argument.

Holmes takes an Augustinian approach as well, the rationale being that Augustine’s theology of marriage is so influential in Western Protestant Christianity that it should be taken seriously as the biblical model of marriage. Based on Augustine’s elevation of procreation to the highest virtue of marriage, Holmes argues that the scriptures do not support same-sex marriage. Many modern churches hold homosexuals to a higher standard than they do heterosexuals, making pastoral accommodation for remarriage after divorce. Another accommodation he notes is sub-Saharan African men with multiple wives who then convert to Christianity. At first, missionaries would insist that the men divorce all but their first wife, but this was seen to leave a lot of women and children out in the cold. To curb the damage to families done by this regulation, most churches began allowing multiple wives.[13] If Christians are willing to allow sub-Saharan Africans practice polygamy, is it so wrong to let homosexuals marry? If we are willing to bend to one cultural context, why not bend to another?

The book is full of interesting ideas and research by these eminent scholars. The arguments presented are well worded and erudite if a bit poorly thought out. They would be logical if we were all starting from the same assumptions, but therein lies the rub. We are not all starting from the same assumptions because the editor has chosen to exclude a position held by many of the largest Christian organizations in the world. And why, might we speculate, would he do that? Perhaps because this book is more political than educational and our editor has an agenda? But he may tip his hand when he says, “it wasn’t until I got to know and love gay and lesbian people that I started to understand the ‘topic’ of homosexuality.”[14] The editor made friends with some professing Christians who identify as gay and lesbian, then he had an epiphany, to “start to understand.” As Peterson’s review concludes, “the proverbial deck was stacked against a traditional view of marriage.”[15] While the various contributors’ research is fascinating to read, the book simply fails in its stated goal of producing a “full-bodied understanding” of the debate around homosexuality and the Bible.[16] While the arguments for these positions are interesting in themselves, with detailed expositions on the relevant texts and issues, the responses and the book as a whole read as if something is missing. I was forced to do additional research on my own in order to get the introduction to basic issues that this book promises. For that reason, I do not recommend this book.

What I found in my research suggests that Sprinkle and Zondervan have much they do not want to talk about. For example, the major source for the notion that homosexuality is healthy and normal is the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association. These bodies claim that there is significant empirical evidence supporting the claim that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual attraction as opposed to a mental disorder. Homosexuality had previously been considered a mental disorder and it remains so in many countries, but since the 1970s the major medical associations in the U.S. have reversed this position based on what they claim is “scientific evidence.”[17] This is mostly antiquated and often ludicrously bad data, such as the infamously inflated statistic by entomologist-turned-sexologist Alfred Kinsey, who claimed that homosexuals represented 10% of the population (statisticians now put it around 1- 4%).[18] Kinsey’s statistical methods were roundly criticized in his day.[19] His use of extremely controversial methods is still the target of significant criticism and accusations of criminality, including collecting data from pedophiles on the responses of their victims.[20] Other evidence for the supposed normality of homosexuality includes Freud’s single attempt to “cure” a woman of lesbianism, which convinced him it was likely impossible, almost a hundred years ago. Another problem is the amorphous terminology used in the discussion of homosexuality’s “normalcy.” Homosexuality is said to be normal (i.e. not pathological) because they exhibit the same level of “adjustment” or “adaptability” (two nebulous terms which are regularly used interchangeably).[21] But the serious flaws in this method have been discussed by psychiatrists for some time,[22] and even if it could be shown that homosexuals are equally well-adjusted, this would not eliminate the possibility of mental illness as numerous mental illnesses are known to exhibit very high-functionality and adaptability.[23] Much more could be said about the high levels of drug abuse, suicide, sexually transmitted infections, and most tellingly, mental illness among the LGBTQ community.[24] Or there is the significant problem, related to the debates in this book around “complementarity,” of inescapable injury, damage, and health problems resulting from anal sex (this is before we engage the discussion of homosexuals’ highly elevated rates of STIs).[25] Suffice it to say, there is much to be said from the standard position, but the publishers and the editor do not want you to hear it. We should ask whether sexual orientation is a legitimate category of human sexual response or merely a modern construction. Were the majority of ancient Greece and Rome “bisexual”? Perhaps human sexual arousal and attraction are much more malleable than we think, much more psychological and spiritual than biological. The only biological reason we have for sex is procreation, which supports the argument against homosexuality from God’s design, as LGBTQ behaviour reduces fertility.

Dennis, Kreider, and Basset offer depressingly wooden regurgitations of the contributors’ arguments, along with ebullient praise for the book, so it was a breath of fresh air to read Peterson’s more substantive engagement with the text. Basset does not reveal his position, but he concludes his review by saying the book has not changed it, although he “deeply appreciated the attitude and style of the book.”[26] This locates Basset’s position significantly left of the standard position. Kreider gives a robotic rendering of the various arguments, punctuated by extended quotations but very little analysis. He highly recommends the book, of course.[27] Dennis explicitly supports the exclusion of the standard position, negatively characterizing its adherents as populist rubes, “this is a timely volume, and one that indicates the nature of the current debate about same-sex relationships in significant parts of the Church in the UK and the United States. It has moved beyond condemnation and rejection, beyond crass slogans such as ‘Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve’, is no longer concerned with how gays and lesbians might be ‘cured’, and is now about whether or not Christians, and evangelicals in particular, can truly embrace (forgive the pun) gay marriage.”[28] While Dennis and Sprinkle may wish to outline the Overton window of this debate to exclude positions on the right, there are still a few Christians who do hold to truly traditional positions, including some of the largest Christian institutions in the world, such as the Southern Baptist Convention and the Catholic Church. Other groups are deeply divided on the issue such as the Anglican, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches.[29] All the reviews except for Peterson’s contain multiple platitudes about the authors’ exceedingly polite tone and civility, a point of pride in Sprinkle’s introduction.[30] But a debate that is contained within politically correct parameters will tend not to offend. I found it a bit boring.

_______________________________________________________________

[1] 3 out of 4 peer-reviewed book reviews surveyed for this paper were positive. Dennis, Kreider, and Basset all adored it. Peterson had reservations similar to my own, but while he decried the way that “The proverbial deck was stacked against a traditional view of marriage,” he does not address the question of whether homosexuality is disordered, pathological, or the result of some crisis of faith or spiritual predicament. On Amazon the book has earned 4.0 out of 5 stars, which roughly matches the 75% observed in my survey, with some uninteresting reviews in the comments except for one. This essay’s main thrust is summarized well by Amazon customer reviewer Tim Spear, “This book was a great disappointment. Typically, with the Zondervan Views book, they present the major differing positions. These positions range from two to five different views. At the least in the past, they have presented two views at the polar opposite ends of the spectrum of any given debate. However, it is not the case in this instance. The two views are a pro-homosexual view and a very “moderate against homosexuality generally but acceptance in the church” view. Meaning, for the latter, that although the writers do not condone the sin, they still argue that they should allow homosexuals in the church. I understand that there are many caveats and that this could be considered a reductionistic summary. This review is not meant to critique or agree with any of the positions. It is to say that this book does not present to the reader the “major” views within the church. That is to say, it does not have a robust defense for homosexuality and a robust defense against homosexuality. This leads unsuspecting readers to think that the positions being presented represent the two majority views. This is not the case in the church as a whole. This book does have limited benefit and thus the reason that I gave it two stars. But, readers must be aware that it is only a subset within the homosexual debate.”; “This Book Does Not Present the Full Picture of the Homosexual Debate in the Church: For or Against,” accessed November 12, 2018, https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R126YM6F9XBHS4/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0310528631.

[2] Glenn R. Kreider, “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,” Criswell Theological Review 15, no. 1 (Fall 2017): 103–5.

[3] “Scripture and Homosexuality,” The Anglican Church of Canada, accessed November 12, 2018, http://www.anglican.ca/faith/focus/hs/ssbh/scripture-and-homosexuality/; “Christian College Restores Ban on Homosexual Relationships after Backlash,” LifeSiteNews, accessed November 12, 2018, https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evangelical-college-restores-ban-on-homosexual-relationships-after-controve.

[4] Sprinkle, Preston M, William R. G Loader, Wesley Hill, Stephen R Holmes, and Megan K DeFranza. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 2016. https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=1F6BB8F4-B08A-4D9F-8906-B8CFBF174D60, 9.

[5] Sprinkle et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 15.

[6] Peterson, “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,” 2.

[7] Sprinkle et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 43.

[8] Ibid., 47.

[9] Ibid, 69.

[10] Ibid, 70ff..

[11] Though it seems doubtful “eunuchs” were considered a third gender rather than merely an emasculated or impotent man.; Karen Randolph Joines, “Eunuch,” in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Watson E. Mills and Roger Aubrey Bullard (Macon, Ga: Mercer University Press, 1990), 271.

[12] Ibid, 69.

[13] Ibid, 190ff..

[14] Sprinkle et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 9.

[15] Peterson, Brian Neil. “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 3 (September 2017): 669–74.

[16] Sprinkle et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 9.

[17] Robert L. Kinney, “Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence: On Suspect Anecdotes, Antiquated Data, and Broad Generalizations,” The Linacre Quarterly 82, no. 4 (November 2015): 364–90, https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000002.

[18] Jack Drescher, “Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality,” Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4 (December 4, 2015): 565–75, https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565.

[19] Time Inc, “LIFE,” August 2, 1948, https://books.google.ca/books?id=10cEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA87&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false; A. H. Maslow and James M. Sakoda, “Volunteer-Error in the Kinsey Study,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47, no. 2 (1952): 259–62, https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054411; William G Cochran et al., Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: A Report of the American Statistical Association Committee to Advise the National Research Council, Committee for Research in Problems of Sex (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1970).

[20] “Judith Reisman, Ph.D. - The Kinsey Coverup - Institute for Media Education,” accessed November 12, 2018, http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html.

[21] Kinney, “Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence.”

[22] Robert L Spitzer, “DSM-IV Diagnostic Criterion for Clinical Significance: Does It Help Solve the False Positives Problem?,” Am J Psychiatry, 1999, 9, https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.156.12.1856.

[23] Kinney, “Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence.”

[24] “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Queer Identified People and Mental Health | CMHA Ontario,” accessed November 12, 2018, https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-queer-identified-people-and-mental-health/.

[25] Anonymous Medical Student, “Objections to Dr. Kinney’s Article,” The Linacre Quarterly 81, no. 3 (August 2014): 199–203, https://doi.org/10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000077.

[26] Rod Bassett, “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 36, no. 4 (Wint 2017): 349–50.

[27] Glenn R. Kreider, “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,” Criswell Theological Review 15, no. 1 (Fall 2017): 103–5, https://ezproxy.mytyndale.ca:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAi5IE180220001883&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

[28] Zondervan et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church, 12.

[29] “Christian Views of Homosexuality,” ReligionFacts, accessed November 12, 2018, http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/homosexuality; Matt Slick, “Christianity and Homosexuality | The Church and Homosexuality | Homosexuality and Tolerance,” Text, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, November 25, 2008, https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality; “Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Sixth Commandment,” accessed November 12, 2018, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm, #2357.

[30] Sprinkle et al., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church,





Bibliography

Bassett, Rod. “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.” Journal of Psychology and Christianity 36, no. 4 (Wint 2017): 349–50.

“Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Sixth Commandment.” Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm.

“Christian College Restores Ban on Homosexual Relationships after Backlash.” LifeSiteNews. Accessed November 12, 2018. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/evangelical-college-restores-ban-on-homosexual-relationships-after-controve.

“Christian Views of Homosexuality.” ReligionFacts. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/homosexuality.

Cochran, William G, Frederick Mosteller, John W Tukey, American Statistical Association, National Research Council (U.S.), and Committee for Research in Problems of Sex. Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male: A Report of the American Statistical Association Committee to Advise the National Research Council, Committee for Research in Problems of Sex. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1970.

Drescher, Jack. “Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality.” Behavioral Sciences 5, no. 4 (December 4, 2015): 565–75. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5040565.

“EBSCOhost.” Accessed November 12, 2018. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.mytyndale.ca:2048/ehost/delivery?sid=7d0e6ba3-b3fa-41b6-85ef-a40eb7b8dcc3%40sessionmgr104&vid=1&ReturnUrl=http%3a%2f%2fweb.b.ebscohost.com%2fehost%2fdetail%2fdetail%3fvid%3d0%26sid%3d7d0e6ba3-b3fa-41b6-85ef-a40eb7b8dcc3%2540sessionmgr104%26bdata%3dJnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl.

Editors, C. T. “Surprise! A Conference for Gay Christians Has Sparked Controversy.” ChristianityToday.com. Accessed November 12, 2018. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/july-web-only/revoice-conference-gay-lgbt-christians-sin-temptation.html.

Inc, Time. “LIFE,” August 2, 1948. https://books.google.ca/books?id=10cEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA87&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false.

Jennings, Theodore W. “Same-Sex Relations in the Biblical World.” In The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender. Oxford University Press, 2014. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199664153.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199664153-e-004.

“Judith Reisman, Ph.D. - The Kinsey Coverup - Institute for Media Education.” Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.drjudithreisman.com/the_kinsey_coverup.html.

Kinney, Robert L. “Homosexuality and Scientific Evidence: On Suspect Anecdotes, Antiquated Data, and Broad Generalizations.” The Linacre Quarterly 82, no. 4 (November 2015): 364–90. https://doi.org/10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000002.

Kreider, Glenn R. “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.” Criswell Theological Review 15, no. 1 (Fall 2017): 103–5. https://ezproxy.mytyndale.ca:2443/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLAi5IE180220001883&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

“Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Queer Identified People and Mental Health | CMHA Ontario.” Accessed November 12, 2018. https://ontario.cmha.ca/documents/lesbian-gay-bisexual-trans-queer-identified-people-and-mental-health/.

Maslow, A. H., and James M. Sakoda. “Volunteer-Error in the Kinsey Study.” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 47, no. 2 (1952): 259–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054411.

Medical Student, Anonymous. “Objections to Dr. Kinney’s Article.” The Linacre Quarterly 81, no. 3 (August 2014): 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1179/0024363914Z.00000000077.

Peterson, Brian Neil. “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 3 (September 2017): 669–74.

“Scripture and Homosexuality.” The Anglican Church of Canada. Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.anglican.ca/faith/focus/hs/ssbh/scripture-and-homosexuality/.

Slick, Matt. “Christianity and Homosexuality | The Church and Homosexuality | Homosexuality and Tolerance.” Text. Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, November 25, 2008. https://carm.org/christianity-and-homosexuality.

Spitzer, Robert L. “DSM-IV Diagnostic Criterion for Clinical Significance: Does It Help Solve the False Positives Problem?” Am J Psychiatry, 1999, 9. https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/ajp.156.12.1856.

“The Evangelical Christian Church and Homosexuality.” Accessed November 12, 2018. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_eccdc.htm.

“This Book Does Not Present the Full Picture of the Homosexual Debate in the Church: For or Against.” Accessed November 12, 2018. https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R126YM6F9XBHS4/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0310528631.

Trevor, Dennis. “Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church.” Theology 121, no. 1 (February 2018): 74–75.

Zondervan, Stanley N. Gundry, William Loader, Megan K. DeFranza, Wesley Hill, and Stephen R. Holmes. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. Edited by Preston Sprinkle. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016.