Tag Archives: homosexuality

September 11, 2024

Telling the Truth about Same-Sex Attraction, Marriage, … and One Another

By Clarke Morledge

I am taking a break from my two-part book review of Bart Ehrman’s Armageddon to address some significant news in the evangelical world. It involves biblical scholar Richard B. Hays on one side, and popular author Rosaria Butterfield on the other. This is probably the one blog post I have made this year, which I really did not want to write. But sadly I find it necessary.

As I wrote about late in the spring of this year, it was announced that a new book by a prominent New Testament scholar would come out this fall that would shake up a lot of people, particular evangelical thought leaders and teachers: “Most Christians probably have no clue who Richard B. Hays is. But when it comes to the Bible, Hays is big news. Think the Tim Tebow of the National League Football, or the Caitlin Clark of women’s basketball, or the Taylor Swift of pop-music, ….. or the John Piper of evangelical pastors. Richard B. Hays is THAT big when it comes to New Testament studies. He is a rock star.” I would urge you to go back and read that post for further context for this blog post.

Richard B. Hays is the rough American equivalent to the British New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright. His son, Christopher, teaches Old Testament at my alma mater, Fuller Theological Seminary. Yesterday, the elder Hays and the younger Hays released The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story. What is remarkable about this book is that it marks a reversal in Richard B. Hays’ position in the 1990s, where he then concluded (at least tentatively) that the New Testament does not allow for any concept of affirming same-sex marriage as a legitimate option for the Christian. The elder Hay’s book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics, was the touchstone for many in what is often described as a “Side B” approach to same-sex attraction.

A definition at this point is vitally important.

At the risk of being too brief, a “Side B” approach to same-sex attraction is that it acknowledges that some people experience a kind of sexual attraction to members of the same-sex, in which at least some (if not many) who experience this same-sex attraction find it difficult to completely shake off.  Though quite debatable in “Side B” circles, some, if not many, or perhaps even most in this category, live with this condition their entire lives. Understood this way, “same-sex attraction” is not an identity, as though “same-sex attraction” competes with one’s identity as a Christian. Neither is it equivalent to sexual lust, though it could lead to same-sex lust, which is described as sin in the Bible. Rather, “same-sex attraction” as an “identity” is simply an acknowledgment of one’s experience in contrast with heterosexuals who never experience same-sex attraction. It does not automatically imply that someone is actively involved in some kind of sexual activity with a member of the same sex.

I recommend an extensive resource page on Veracity with more in-depth analysis regarding issues concerning same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage, and the 2018 controversy regarding the first year of the Revoice conference. The Revoice conference arose from the ashes of the “Ex-Gay” movement after Exodus International, then the world’s largest “Ex-Gay” ministry disbanded. The Revoice conference has been an attempt to find a space between the overturning of the historic Christian sexual ethic regarding same-sex relations on the one side, and the failures of the “Ex-Gay” movement on the other.

Richard B. Hays. One of the top New Testament scholars on the planet. Has he changed his mind on what the Bible teaches about human sexuality?? A new book suggests he has, but his argument is complicated.

 

Richard B. Hays (Father) and Christopher Hays (Son) on Christian Sexual Ethics

Reviews are starting to come out taking a hard look at the new book, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story.  As many reviewers have indicated, Richard B. Hays has changed his mind regarding the legitimate, biblical boundaries for sexual behavior, a viewpoint which his son, Christopher, also supports.  A couple of reviews favorable to the conclusions made by the Hays can be found here:

However, there are three other reviews which are critical of the new, changed position published in the new book:

All five reviews are worth reading, particularly as preparation for someone who wishes to read the new Hays and Hays book. However, the most detailed and engaging review is the last one by Preston Sprinkle. The conclusion Sprinkle makes is worth quoting in full:

I have to admit, the scholarly side of me was excited when this book was first announced. Some Christians immediately trashed the book on social media—something no thoughtful Christian should ever do with books they haven’t read—but I was genuinely excited to read it. Richard is a brilliant scholar (I wasn’t familiar with Christopher’s work), and his article on Romans 1 in particular was one of the most thorough and exegetically responsible treatments of this tough passage. I was deeply curious how he was going to refute his previous argument. I also wondered if The Widening of God’s Mercy would tease out a fresh argument for same-sex marriage that hadn’t yet been made. 

To my surprise, the book did neither. Instead, it simply repackaged an old trajectory argument to make a questionable logical leap: since God welcomes foreigners, eunuchs, tax collectors, and sinners, therefore sex difference is no longer part of what marriage is.

At the risk of oversimplifying, all of these reviews suggest that the exegetical work Richard B. Hays did in the 1980s and 1990s, which demonstrates that the New Testament does not affirm same-sex marriage, is interestingly still intact. In a nutshell, the New Testament affirms marriage as being between one man and one woman, thereby indicating that a marriage between two men, or between two women, can not qualify as within the boundaries of what constitutes a biblical marriage.

However, the message of the new book suggests that God can, and indeed, has changed his mind. While same-sex marriage has been rightly condemned as outside of accepted historic, orthodox Christian understanding for almost 2,000 years, God has in the 21st century moved through the action of the Holy Spirit to now affirm a broader perspective on marriage. This is equivalent to what is often known as a “Side A” approach to same-sex attraction and marriage.

The idea that God can and has changed his mind is provocative. It is also an argument that can act like a wild tiger which can not be tamed, or like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

Some might suggest something like the wearing of head coverings as an example of God changing his mind, in that few Western Christians today adopt the practice.  In a recent 1-hour long video interview, the senior Hays and his son Christopher adopt this rationale.

 

How Do You Know When God Changes His Mind… After the New Testament Has Been Completed?

But the argument can easily go in directions which will surprise Christians and non-Christians alike. The rise of the Enlightenment in the late 18th century suggested that we can essentially dispense with the concept of the supernatural. Why? Because perhaps God has changed his mind.

Follow this thought experiment: Back in the New Testament era, people were naive enough to believe in things like miracles, so God used the belief in the resurrection as a way of convincing premodern people to accept the Christian message. However, now we live in the modern (even post-modern) era, where science tends to reign supreme. We can give up on the whole concept of the supernatural as essential because God has basically changed his mind. No one needs to make any decisions based on supernatural beliefs anymore because the secularization process of society has made those supernatural beliefs irrelevant.

If this argument sounds strange, you should go read something like Harvey Cox’s The Secular City from the 1960s. Cox’s argument has been a sophisticated way of saying God has changed his mind and rejected the importance of supernatural beliefs in a secular world. But if Cox’ theological argument is true, it is difficult to believe that certain fundamental truth claims of the faith, like the Virgin Birth or the Second Coming of Christ, hold any particular meaning now in the 21st century.

This is effectively what the Hays father and son team have done. There is nothing new here.

One might then argue that both secularization and new understandings of marriage in the civil sphere are inevitable results of the trajectory of contemporary Western culture, and could have potential advantages. Perhaps there is some good after all if the ethical framework of Christendom takes a backseat culturally. But theologically, these new supposed “movements of the Holy Spirit” are a disaster for the church. Where can the justification that God has revealed a change of mind be found? In the writings of a pair of United Methodist biblical scholars?

Richard B. Hays has in the past, and even now, ultimately told us the truth about the what Bible says about same-sex attraction and marriage, but in this new book with his son Christopher it would appear that what the Bible says really does not matter. Because God has changed his mind.

The father and son Hays team would probably push back against this. They might say that the Christian ethic of love supersedes the ethical teachings of the New Testament written in the first century. They might say in the sovereignty of God, God has every right to change directions ethically in the 21st century, even at the expense of what we read in Scripture. But as an evangelical Protestant who looks at the Bible as the final authority for faith and practice, it is really difficult to square the contention made by the father and son Hays team that the Bible condemns all same-sex erotic relations as going against Scripture, while simultaneously saying that 2,000 years later this no longer applies, simply because God has since changed his mind.

On the one hand, I appreciate the efforts by Richard B. Hays and Christopher Hays to look for a compassionate way to accept LGBTQ people as people who are genuinely loved by God, thereby rejecting the ways that the church has condemned such persons in the past, simply because they experience some form of same-sex attraction, whether they act on it or not.

But the main problem is not simply their conclusion, but rather, it is the method by which they arrive at their conclusion. In the end, for the Hays, it is not Scripture which remains ultimately authoritative for determining Christian ethics. Instead, it is human experience which trumps Scripture. But in making this argument, Hays and Hays are adopting a kind of progressive Christianity that goes beyond simply affirming same-sex marriage. They are undermining the basis for determining what faithful Christian discipleship and theology has looked like for 2,000 years.

For if the Bible teaches that same-sex marriage is permissible, then that would be one thing. Instead, they argue that Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers got the doctrine of marriage wrong.  In their argument, we need new revelation today to fix what Paul and the other apostles messed up.

I do not doubt the Christian commitment of either the senior or younger Hays. Yet as far as I am concerned, it just seems like it would be a whole lot more honest to say that Christianity got some stuff so fundamentally and horribly wrong, that it would be wiser to reject Christianity as purely wishful thinking and leave it at that. To think that the Christian church for nearly 20 centuries got the fundamental doctrine of marriage wrong is a really big “OOPSIE!!!”

Perhaps we could just preserve the supposedly good parts of what the Bible teaches, and safely discard the rest. Perhaps a kind of “cultural Christianity” is all we can really hope for. Perhaps we could set up a committee to try to negotiate through acceptable versus unacceptable moral claims in the Bible. But who gets the authority to carve those things out and make such decisions?

Is this really about telling the truth about same-sex attraction, marriage, and one another?

It would be better to be an atheist, an agnostic, or generic theist instead of trying to stuff the square peg of Richard B. and Christopher Hays version of Christianity into the round hole of 2,000 years of historic orthodox Christianity. But as I believe that the central core claim of Christianity, that Jesus rose from the dead, is indeed true, I am driven to conclude that there must be a better way to describe what Christianity looks like than what the father and son Hays team would have us believe. Even if the Bible teaches something I do not fully understand, I still need to learn to trust that God knows what he is doing, and not try to pretend that twenty centuries after the Incarnation, that I suddenly know better.

I hope to at some point read The Wideness of God’s Mercy, to make sure I have not misrepresented the authors, but for now I would suggest reading some of the reviews that have come out, to whet your appetite for wrestling with the arguments of the book. If you are not much of a reader, you should consider watching or listening to a YouTube video by Preston Sprinkle, where he goes into some detail into what he agrees with about the book and ultimately disagrees with about the book. In a world where the traditional Christian doctrine of marriage has come under relentless attack from the culture, it is refreshing when you have someone telling the truth about what Scripture is saying, and doing so in a respectful way that honors the best of intentions that others possess.

——————————————
An Addendum…. About Rosaria Butterfield’s Fives Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age….And A Plea for Speaking the Truth

This final part of the blog post addresses the other side of the conversation taking place in evangelical spaces in the church today.

I highlight Preston Sprinkle’s video because near the beginning of the video Preston urges Christians to do their best to accurately understand the arguments presented by someone who fundamentally disagrees with you. For if a Christian fails to faithfully represent what someone else believes or says, that Christian is breaking the Ninth Commandment not to bear false witness against one’s neighbor. Lying about what someone actually believes is an immoral act. Christians who lie about others in this way need to repent of such behavior.

Sadly, such breaking of the Ninth Commandment has become fashionable in a number of Christian circles. This commandment breaking is given too much of a free pass today.

For example, I was intrigued and interested to read Rosaria Butterfield’s recent book Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age. Rosaria Butterfield was involved in a lesbian relationship for years, and she was an extremely active anti-Christian activist before Jesus got hold of her life. Several of her earlier books are very good, including her phenomenal The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, a book I reviewed 11 years ago briefly at Veracity. I only read parts of her next book Openness Unhindered, but that was helpful, too.

In The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert tells of her “train wreck” conversion story, and how simple acts of Christian hospitality drew her to read the Bible slowly and carefully over a few years, assisted by caring, non-judgmental Christian friends, who welcomed her into their lives. Rosaria’s story is gripping and encouraging. I highly recommend learning about her testimony.

Rosaria Butterfield – An unlikely convert to Christian faith, touched by the art of hospitality…. What has happened to her since?

 

The Good Stuff in Rosaria Butterfield’s Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age

At first I found much to learn from in Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age.  Rosaria effectively summarizes the five lies being aimed against Christianity today:

  • Lie #1: Homosexuality is normal.
  • Lie #2: Being a spiritual person is kinder than being a biblical Christian.
  • Lie #3: Feminism is good for the world and the church.
  • Lie #4: Transgenderism is normal.
  • Lie #5: Modesty is an outdated burden that serves male dominance and holds women back

She also has some excellent advice about distinguishing between sympathy and empathy, which encouraged me to keep reading.  Rosaria even had a helpful critique of certain aspects of the “Side B” movement, where some have advocated a controversial idea of certain kinds of “spiritual friendships” where such relationships function a lot like marriage without the sex part. That does sound a bit fuzzy.

This has raised a number of questions in my mind, and in my earlier analysis of the Revoice movement, it was not clear as to who associated with Revoice supports that way of thinking and who does not, and what they actually mean by “spiritual friendship.”

I have come to see that Rosaria Butterfield is correct to call out a particular definition of “spiritual friendship” as unbiblical , when such “friendships” mimic marriage. At the very least, this is confusing and unhealthy. Friendship is one thing. Marriage is different. This appears to be her strongest objection to the Revoice movement  (Butterfield, Five Lies, p. 59). In many ways, some of this critique is correct, at least in the early years of the Revoice conference.

Hopefully, Revoice is doing a better job now to rein in some of these extreme views on the fringe of the “Side B” movement. If the Revoice statement of “Beliefs” regarding “Sexual Ethics & Christian Obedience” available on their website is an accurate reflection of what they teach, then it would appear that some of the concerns that Rosaria has have been addressed by the leadership of the Revoice conference. This paragraph I find particularly helpful:

We believe that all Christians have the capacity for both sinful (i.e., fleshly) and holy (i.e., Spiritual) desire for relationship with other people; that intimate friendship between believers can be a means of sanctification; and that the Holy Spirit can direct and shape affection for other image-bearers in ways that honor their dignity and celebrate their unique personhood. We believe that Christians should seek wisdom and prudence when entering any relationship marked by greater intimacy, and that believers must exercise care and resolve to avoid all forms of temptation. We believe that Christians must actively resist and turn away from every thought, action, desire, or behavior that does not align with God’s revealed intentions for human sexuality, since we are not our own, but belong—body and soul, both in life and in death—to our faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. (Rom. 8:12–13; Col. 3:5)

If someone has questions about “intimate friendship,” then the phrasing towards the end urging believers to “actively resist and turn away from” anything that “does not align with God’s revealed intentions for human sexuality,” sounds pretty orthodox to me. I do wonder if Rosaria has read this page from Revoice’s website.

The Not-So-Good in Five Lies

I agree that all five of the lies Rosaria outlines are indeed impacting the church in negative ways. The problem with Five Lies comes down to some of the details Rosaria articulates in her book, and how she interacts with other authors writing in this area.

First, it would appear that not everyone defines all “spiritual friendships” in the manner Rosaria puts it. People can live without sex, but they can not live without friends. Even early on in the book, Rosaria makes multiple statements that simply do not resonate with what I know about so-called “Side B” understandings of same-sex attraction:

“Side A rejects the Bible as inerrant, infallible, sufficient, and authoritative, while Side B rejects the biblical doctrines of sin, repentance, and sanctification” (Butterfield, p.67).

“Side B errs on its handling of matters of salvation and sin, forgetting that the first word of salvation is repent—“Repent,” declares Jesus, echoing John the Baptist, “for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Side B redefines gay sin merely as sexual action and denies that sin acts with affections, feelings, attractions, and desire. Both Sides A and B believe that homosexuality is fixed and that the gospel might change people in smaller ways but never in the deep matters of sexual desire ” (Butterfield, p. 74)

Confusion regarding the alphabet soup of what is meant by “side A,” “side B,” and what others regard as “side X,” or even “side Y” comes across strong here. Nowhere in Fives Lies does Rosaria even define “side X” or “side Y.” She never mentions either term. I have looked for them.

The logic here resulting from a confusion of terminology and their definitions is difficult to follow: Rosaria rejects both “side A” and “side B” in favor of what might be called “side X,” but it could be instead that she is advocating “side Y,” supposedly somewhere in between “side B” and “side X.” As some define it, “side X” conflates “same-sex attraction” together with lust for the same sex, something which is sinful and needs to be repented from, as opposed to a temptation which is to be resisted, or otherwise something someone should flee from, as when Joseph ran away from Potiphar’s wife, when she propositioned him. Is what I define as “side B” really “side Y” instead? According to GotQuestions.org, perhaps my “side B” is really “side Y.” Are you confused yet?

Rosaria is correct to say that that “side A” believes homosexuality as an orientation to be “fixed,” but not everyone in the “side B” camp would agree with that. It would appear that Rosaria Butterfield defines “sexual attraction” as being equivalent with sexual lust, which is not at all what I have read is consistent with what advocates of a “Side B” approach take.

Even if Rosaria is correct, I do not see the evidence for her position demonstrated in her book. Rosaria Butterfield operates with her own definitions of terms like “sexual attraction,” “side B,” and “sexual orientation” that do not align with how other authors use that terminology. As a result, these different definitions of key terms and ideas distorts her readings of other writers.

For example, in Greg Johnson’s book, Still Time to Care, which I have reviewed on Veracity, he argues that both same-sex attraction and opposite-sex attraction have disordered elements to them, this side of Adam’s fall. Not only is same-sex attraction, in the most sexual sense, disordered, on the opposite-sex attraction side, polygamy is a sign of disorder as well. However, in her review of Johnson’s book, Rosaria Butterfield responds:

Because Johnson rejects the natural and good pattern of heterosexuality, he believes that there is no point or hope in striving for it. Johnson writes, “There is no reason to believe that the ordinary progress of spiritual growth would involve the replacement of sinful homosexual temptation with sinful heterosexual temptation.” (Butterfield, p. 71).

But this misrepresents the argument with Greg Johnson is making in his book. For one thing, for Johnson, the desire on the part of someone who experiences same-sex attraction to want to become opposite-sex attracted is quite natural (contra Rosaria), but it is not the same thing as sanctification; that is, “spiritual growth” from this quote. Johnson’s point is also to say that those who experience opposite-sex attraction can experience temptation and sin just as much as those who experience same-sex attraction, just in different ways.

Exchanging one form of temptation to sin for another form of temptation to sin is not a sign of progress in one’s sanctification. Regardless of the temptation, or the sin such temptation tries to move us towards, we are called to flee from all temptation and repent of all sin.

Go read that book for yourself, and you will see that Greg does talk about the idea of the mortification of the flesh in dealing with disordered sexual desires, whether they be driven by same-sex or opposite-sex attraction.  Greg Johnson’s Still Time To Care has received a qualified, but fairly positive endorsement from reviewers at The Gospel Coalition.

Rosaria’s argument as I read her implies that part of Christian sanctification is seeking the transfer of same-sex temptation in someone’s experience over to opposite-sex temptation in their experience. Does this really mean that a same-sex attracted person should strive after a different kind of temptation, that of heterosexual temptation? How about not striving after any kind of temptation at all? What ever happened to that phrase from the Lord’s Prayer, “lead us not into temptation?”

The irony is that in Rosaria’s own writings and interviews she has given acknowledges that she still experiences same-sex attraction at times. How this squares with her view of Christian sanctification is not made clear in her book. Rosaria also agrees with her fellow author, Christopher Yuan, that the object of Christian sanctification is holiness and not heterosexuality, which appears to be in complete contradiction with what she says about Greg Johnson’s book. Again, Greg Johnson’s book emphatically argues that the goal of Christian sanctification for a same-sex attracted person is holiness, not heterosexuality.

The logical disconnect here is incredibly frustrating. Rosaria’s misreading of Greg Johnson’s book is not the first time this happens in Five Lies. This happens several other times with other authors with whom she interacts. If I am wrong about this, I would like to be corrected.

Continually running into roadblocks like this in Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age, over and over again, has proved to be very discouraging, making the reading of Rosaria’s book to be more of a slog than a spiritually encouraging process, despite some of the genuinely helpful places in her book where I actually agree with her. The final straw for me came in how she treats author Preston Sprinkle.

Rosaria offers a review of one of Preston Sprinkle’s books, where Preston talks about the kind of close, intimate friendship that David and Jonathan had in the Old Testament. Many on “side A” of the discussion believe that David and Jonathan were in fact gay lovers in the most sexual sense. But Preston Sprinkle takes a different approach. Preston relates the story of David and Jonathan using the initials “K.D.” to refer to King David and using the name “John” to refer to Jonathan.  Rosaria’s take on Preston’s reading of the story is odd to say the least:

Sprinkle is casting King David (“K.D.”) as an effeminate poet and Jonathan (“John”) as his unrequited love. In keeping with postmodernism, Sprinkle tips his hat to the false claim that David and Jonathan were probably gay. Playing with the Bible in this way is meant, I suppose, to make it friendlier to sexual minorities (Butterfield, p. 240).

However, if she had read Preston’s book more carefully, she would have read the explicit statement made by Preston Sprinkle on the previous page, “the Bible gives no evidence that David and Jonathan were in a sexual relationship.” (Preston Sprinkle, Embodied, p. 78).  If she had bothered to read an earlier book or a later book by Preston Sprinkle, she would have read even more explicit statements as to the nature of David and Jonathan’s friendship:

David and Jonathan weren’t gay. But they did experience deep-seated, same-sex affection, and nonsexual intimacy toward each other. Same-sex oriented Christians experience similar desires only to a greater degree. (Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, p. 146).

David does say that Jonathan’s love was “more wonderful than that of women” (2 Sam. 1:26), but this doesn’t mean their relationship was sexual, since the ancients didn’t automatically equate “love” to “sex,” unlike many modern westerners. (Sprinkle, Does the Bible Support Same-Sex Marriage?: 21 Conversations from a Historically Christian View,  p. 63).

For Preston Sprinkle, the kind of “same-sex affection” David and Jonathan had for one another is not identical with “same-sex attraction” in the erotic sense.  David and Jonathan instead shared a deep, non-sexual friendship bond with one another. What possessed Rosaria Butterfield to read Preston Sprinkle so badly?

But what took the cake for me was Rosaria Butterfield’s convocation address at Liberty University in the fall of 2023. In her address she names Revoice, Preston Sprinkle and his “heretical” Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, and finally CRU (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ as advancing some of the five lies she outlines in her book. In this and other podcast interviews, Rosaria Butterfield continued to tell this story about Preston Sprinkle.

For those not familiar with the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, you might want to review their quick facts sheet, which addresses the claims that Rosaria made in her Liberty University convocation address. I have found many of the educational materials very helpful at the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, particularly for young people who wrestle with LGBTQ issues, and their parents. The Center also has endorsements from several evangelical leaders, such Francis Chan, Matt Chandler,  and Karen Swallow Prior, just to name a few. So, if someone can tell me what is “heretical” in this quick facts sheet, I would very much be interested to learn and understand what is heretical here.

In a November 29, 2023 blog entry at the Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, Preston Sprinkle addressed four of the beliefs that Rosaria claimed are “lies” and “heresy,” which she believes Preston Sprinkle holds. The irony of Rosaria’s claims is that in that blog post Preston Sprinkle responds by saying that he holds none of the false claims which she makes about him.

Yet the most alarming thing is that Rosaria has refused to engage with Preston in a conversation to sort out the matter. From Preston’s blog post:

I also wish I could be having this conversation directly with Butterfield. In fact, I reached out her via email to invite her to have a private, good-faith conversation about these matters. (Not a debate; just a clarifying conversation.) Her husband, Kent, who is also one of her pastors, responded with an email he and his co-pastor had written, declining on her behalf. When I asked for permission to quote publicly from their reply, Kent requested that I not do so and provided me with this public statement: “Rosaria’s pastors stated there is a difference in understanding of the gospel and therefore see no basis for discussion.”

The final public statement made by Rosaria’s elders is disturbing as it is inconsistent with the actual data. All of us make mistakes, get things wrong, misunderstand people, etc. I do it quite often, and try to do my best to repent of such sinful errors when I can. But when someone publicly makes a claim about what someone else believes or says, which turns out to be false, and then refuses to discuss or even acknowledge the error, then this is a violation of the Ninth Commandment, which forbids a follower of our Lord to bear false witness against one’s neighbor.

Perhaps what Rosaria is saying is true about her own experience. But when it comes to telling the truth about same-sex attraction, marriage, and one another more generally, something appears to be amiss.

I do hope and pray that Rosaria will rethink her posture, write a letter or email, and make some effort to clear up the matter. For the sake of honoring the Ninth Commandment, she should do so. But to date, Rosaria has done no such thing. This is all very troubling.

Ditching What I Was Hoping Would Be an Edifying Book

That pretty much did it for me.

I finally decided to give up on trying to finish Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age. The work required to try to constantly reframe how she defines terms like “sexual attraction,” “side B,” “sexual orientation”, and others and try to mesh them into how other authors uses those same terms was just exhausting. I really wanted to like this book, considering a number of positive reviews from others whom I respect, but I just got worn out by all of the mental gymnastics and contortions.

It made me long for wanting the “old” Rosaria of The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convertback from 11 years ago. I miss that Rosaria. Back then, Rosaria was more the compassionate voice who prized hospitality as the gateway for allowing God to work and change lives, as opposed to the full-on culture warrior posture she now takes in Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age.

Mike Hosier at the ThinkTheology blog gives Rosaria a more positive review of Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age than I can. Fair enough. Perhaps I will pick the book back up again, once she makes some amends with those she criticizes.

In her favor, I still marvel at the courage that Rosaria Butterfield had in giving up her lesbian relationship, and the very social world that supported her and simultaneously isolated her from Christian community, in order to give her all-in-all to follow Jesus, no matter what the cost. Rosaria is truly a model for radical, Christ-loving discipleship. But for some reason, her tendency towards radicalism has caused her to slip into yet another deadly sin, that of bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. I pray that the Lord will open her eyes so that she might do the right thing some day, and return to telling the truth about others.

The Unfortunate Tie Which Unites Richard B. and Christopher Hays with Rosaria Butterfield

Circling back around to the Richard B. Hays and Christopher Hays book The Wideness of God’s Mercy, it would appear that their book is meant to be kind of a strong pushback to the rather militant culture warrior posture of a Rosaria Butterfield’s Fives Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age.  I pray that Hays and Hays would see the error of their posture, but I doubt that such a move will happen anytime soon.

The unfortunate tie which unites Richard B. and Christopher Hays with Rosaria Butterfield is the notion that same-sex attraction inevitably leads to the acceptance of same-sex marriage, forming a symbiotic relationship between the two. For the Hays, this notion is viewed positively. Same-sex attraction is a gift from God which paves the way for God to honor same-sex marriage. The trajectory that starts with same-sex attraction eventually works to redefine marriage. Why? Because God has changed his mind.

For Rosaria Butterfield, this notion is viewed negatively. Same-sex attraction is not merely a temptation, it is the embodiment of a kind of sin itself. There is no difference between temptation and the sin that might result from giving into that temptation. Same-sex attraction is just as much a morally-culpable sin as same-sex marriage is. For Rosaria, same-sex attraction does not merely entail a potential temptation to be resisted, but rather it is a sin to be repented from.

In Rosaria’s anthropology, the trajectory associated with the same-sex marriage movement in the wider culture works in the opposite direction. Because same-sex marriage is a sin that has been normalized, the only way to fight the trajectory is to fully assign same-sex attraction itself into the category of sin as well. Since same-sex marriage is sin, then anything that has the possibility of leading to that sin must be dealt with as sinful itself. Anything short of this radical categorization of same-sex attraction is a concession towards sin which can only be addressed through repentance. Any acknowledgment of a “same sexual orientation” that might never change in a person’s life is simply believing at least one of the “five lies.”

What we are witnessing in our current cultural moment is a “hardening of the categories,” as a top-of-the-line New Testament scholar moves against an historically orthodox Christian ethical position, while a heroic former-lesbian-activist turned evangelical Christian now issues takedowns of other fellow believers who do not follow her exact mindset. Like a “hardening of the arteries,” which endangers the health of the physical body, a “hardening of the categories” pits the timelessness of God’s moral standards against the call to love with compassion and mercy, which endangers the health of the Body of Christ.

Neither side appears to leave much room for a third-way mediating position that seeks to uphold the Christian virtues of hospitality, listening well, and not telling lies about other people, while also upholding an historic, orthodox Christian ethic regarding sexual ethics, and the doctrine of Christian marriage as being between one man and one woman. This is a sad state of affairs. There is a whole generation of LGBTQ+ folk who long to hear the Christian message of both love and truth expressed to them in a way that they can understand.

It is time that we as Christians learn to do a better job in telling the truth about same-sex attraction, marriage, and one another.

UPDATE Monday, September 23, 2024:

Less than two weeks after I published this blog post, Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites sat down with Rebecca McLaughlin to discuss the controversy regarding the new Hays & Hays book on human sexuality.

7 Comments   |  tags: , , , , , , , , | posted in Apologetics

November 13, 2021

Still Time to Care: Moving from Cure to Care for Those with Unwanted Same-Sex Attraction

By Clarke Morledge

When did Christians move from an ethic of care to an ethic of cure of unwanted, same-sex attraction persons? And what can Christians do to move back towards an ethic of care?

These are the central questions addressed in pastor Greg Johnson’s Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality. Before the aftermath of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, talk about “homosexuality” was largely a taboo subject. But in Johnson’s book, he chronicles numerous anecdotes of Christian leaders caring for persons who experience unwanted, same-sex attraction, in those years.

 

How Christians A Few Decades Ago Cared For Same-Sex Attracted Persons

One of C.S. Lewis’ childhood friends, Arthur Greeves, would have then probably classified himself as a “homosexual.” Lewis, perhaps the most well-known English speaking Christian apologist of all time, greatly treasured his friendship with Greeves, above all others. When Lewis became a believer in Jesus, Lewis first entrusted his story of conversion to Christianity with Greeves. Even though Lewis fully supported the Bible’s teaching on sexuality, and Greeves never experienced a change in his sexual orientation, Lewis never wavered in his friendship with Arthur Greeves.

When Francis Schaeffer first entertained guests at L’Abri in the 1950s, many seekers of truth who struggled with unwanted same-sex attraction were welcomed at the famous Swiss Christian study center. Schaeffer’s focus was on engaging seekers with their larger faith questions, as opposed to singling out issues regarding sexuality. When a high-profile member of President Lyndon Johnson’s administration was outed out of the closet as being a homosexual, Reverend Billy Graham urged Johnson to have compassion on the man as a human being, as opposed to categorically rejecting him out of condemnation.

These are all examples that author Greg Johnson has in his book of Christian leaders, who while upholding the biblical teaching that reserves marriage as being between one man and one woman for one lifetime, nevertheless modeled how other Christians can serve others by choosing to care for those who experience unwanted same-sex attraction.

This all seemed to change by the late 1970s, when such efforts to care for others were replaced by efforts to cure homosexuality, by offering the promise to make homosexuals into becoming heterosexual.  The so-called “Ex-Gay” movement was born.

 

How the “Ex-Gay” Movement Changed the Popular Narrative for Christians… and How It Eventually Failed

At the head of the “Ex-Gay” movement was Exodus International, an umbrella organization encompassing many smaller ministries that sent the message that “change is possible,” suggesting that certain techniques could be followed that could change someone’s sexual orientation. Exodus International was dissolved in 2013, when its then president, Alan Chambers, publicly stated that Exodus had oversold its claim that “change is possible.”

What led to the rise and then ultimate fall of Exodus International? As the story unfolds in Still Time to Care, groups like Exodus International were using reparative therapy (what others call conversion therapy) to try to change someone’s sexual orientation. Reparative therapy is based on a controversial application of Freudian psychology, based on the assumption that homosexuality is a correctable mental health ailment. In 2012 however, Chambers had declared, after years of Exodus trying to use reparative therapy, that “the majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation.” Popular media outlets, like with Netflix’ 2021 documentary Pray Away, features interviews with other former Exodus leaders coming to the same conclusion as Chambers (Unfamiliar with the documentary? Preston Sprinkle interviews Tony Scarcello about it on YouTube).

Author Greg Johnson uses the analogy of a “Potemkin Village” to describe what Exodus had tried and failed to achieve. In 1787, Grigory Potemkin was a provincial political authority in Crimea and a love interest in the Russian Empress, Catherine the Great. When Catherine the Great toured Crimea via boat along the Dnieper River, Potemkin sought to impress the Empress by dressing up peasants as wealthy merchants and setting up temporary village facades alongside the riverbanks, giving the illusion that the area was experiencing prosperity, despite the actual desperate poverty of the region. Once Catherine’s entourage left one of these temporary villages, Potemkin had his hired peasants breakdown the village facades and move them down the river ahead of Catherine, and then reassemble the same village in another location, in an effort to continue to impress Catherine as she resumed her river tour.

Exodus International, collaborating with other ministries like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, had for years paraded individuals at fund-raising events and conferences as examples of those whose orientation had changed from gay to straight. In many if not most of these cases, those same individuals would later renounce their “conversions” as yet mere facades, repeated examples of a Potemkin Village. Tragically, Johnson also documents other former Exodus leaders who committed suicide, to further hide the shame of such facade conversions to heterosexuality.

The meteoric rise and fall of many Exodus leaders and the rebound effect throughout the larger culture has been nothing short of spectacular, particularly over the last decade. For example, when President Obama first took office in 2009, he was publicly committed to honoring traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman. But by the end of Obama’s second term, the broader cultural views about marriage had dramatically shifted, along with the President’s. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage, at the federal level, were declared unconstitutional. The language of “LGBTQ” was no longer a taboo in polite, civil conversation, becoming an accepted dimension of post-modern culture. All of this happened during those waning years of Exodus International’s dissolution.

Estimates vary, but Johnson notes that about 700,000 persons over a near 50 year period went through some sort of reparative therapy. Various studies over that period indicate that despite recorded claims of high-success rates, the actual success rate for changing one’s sexual orientation has been extremely low, perhaps as low as 2%. That means that some 98% of those 700,000 persons have walked away from reparative therapy with an extremely disillusioned, if not outright angry attitude towards the “Ex-Gay” movement.

 

Changing the Emphasis From “Becoming Heterosexual” to “Becoming Holy”

Pastor Greg Johnson laments the once well-intended yet ultimate failure of reparative therapy organizations. But he is hopeful that Christians can and are returning to an ethic of care, as opposed to an ethic of cure. The goal for ministry with those who experience unwanted sexual attraction should not be to try to “pray the gay away,” and convert someone from being a homosexual to becoming heterosexual. Rather, the emphasis should be on becoming holy.

What makes Still Time to Care so invaluable a resource is that pastor Greg Johnson himself is one of those persons who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction. However, instead of following the cultural trend affirming same-sex marriage, Johnson still believes in the traditional, Christian sexual ethic of marriage being between a man and a woman, for a lifetime. For those like Johnson, this might mean a life of celibacy, surrounded by supportive friends. For others, it might mean living in a mixed-orientation marriage, where one spouse is heterosexual and the other is not.

Johnson believes that even those like himself can flourish as Christians and human beings, while seeking to mortify the flesh against the spiritually devastating effects of sin, and by resisting temptation. However, the key to doing this is by being a part of Christian communities that offer emotional and spiritual support along that journey towards sanctification and holiness. In other words, one can live without sex but you can not live without friends.

While many churches wrestle with the wider cultural trends to affirm same-sex marriage, and entire denominations are splitting over the issue, Still Time to Care offers a vision for historically, orthodox Christians to return to an ethic of care, inviting people to share their stories and be a part of authentic Christian community.

Greg Johnson’s Still Time to Care offers a history of how the “Ex-Gay” movement created a Potemkin Village for almost 50 years, a great facade to look at, but not much really behind it.

Sadly, too many Christians still get hung up over terminology. Granted, most sensitive thinkers tend to shy away from terminology like “homosexual,” as that term sounds too clinical and impersonal. However, when it comes to historically orthodox-minded believers in the midst of the struggle, should such persons be called “celibate gay Christians,” “single gay Christians,” or “Christians who experience same-sex attraction?”

There are some who argue that any of the above language is somehow still a concession to worldliness, and therefore inappropriate for Christians to use about themselves. Thankfully, there are newer Christian ministries, like Revoice, that are trying to help Christians move past such debates over terminology and towards providing supportive communities for believers at all stages along the journey. Greg Johnson’s message is hopeful: Yes, there is still time to care!

 

Moving From a “Sexual Prosperity Gospel” to a Gospel of Care

Lest someone think that books like Still Time to Care represent some type of “trojan horse,” a harmful ideology being injected subversively into the church, one should note that Greg Johnson includes a whole chapter carefully dismantling the revisionist arguments presented by those like Western Seminary’s James Brownson, in his Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, and Karen Keen’s Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. For example, Brownson borrows from William Webb’s “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” argument to make his case for same-sex marriage. Keen states in her book “The biblical authors don’t write about the morality of consensual same-sex relationships as we know them today…. To say that the biblical authors object to prostitution or pederasty is not to say that the authors object to monogamous, covenanted relationships.”  Sadly, a wide range of evangelicals, including former Christianity Today editor David Neff, author Tony Campolo, the late Rachel Held Evans, and MOPS speaker Jen Hatmaker have embraced such revisionist arguments, thus undermining an historically orthodox sexual ethic. That chapter alone is worth the price of the book.  (See this short essay by Johnson summarizing his critique of this form of revisionism).

Christians, who desire to uphold the historic Scriptural teaching on marriage, may still find themselves at a loss in terms of how to care for persons, experiencing such sexual attractions, who either embrace revisionist views on Christian marriage, or who reject Christianity outright. The old Christian adage of “loving the sinner, and yet hating the sin,” can ring very hollow in the ears of those disillusioned by the unthoughtful efforts of Christians to try to change them. However, one can still have a positive relationship with someone else, even if there is no agreement on the definition of marriage. Learning to care about others does not necessarily entail having perfect agreement on these matters. Rather, caring does require learning how to listen to others, and empathizing with their story.

Is change still possible, for altering someone’s same-sex orientation? I would not want to preclude the idea that God performs miracles (I believe God does), but we must very careful here: My conclusion from reading Still Time to Care is that yes, it might be possible, but not likely. That might sound pessimistic, but it is better to be realistic than misleading people with a false hope, however well-intentioned it is. We can not try to “force God’s hand” to do something which does not appear to be within his sovereign plan and purpose. Furthermore, even if some do claim a radical transformation, in terms of sexual orientation change, it is wholly inappropriate to promise that everyone will have such an experience.

Just as the “prosperity gospel” offers a false hope that any and everyone who follows Jesus will have the best health, the best career, the best automobile, and the best marriage, and so on, so it is with a “sexual prosperity gospel” associated with the “Ex-Gay” movement, that promises that following some religious formula will automatically lead to a sexual orientation change. An inappropriate emphasis on seeking after such change can be a setup for future failure, in a person’s walk with Jesus.

Though some still cling to the optimistic aspirations of the “Ex-Gay” movement, focusing on sexual orientation change, like Andrew Comiskey’s Desert Stream Ministries, Andrew Rodriguez’ PyschoBible, and Stephen Black’s First Stone Ministries, and others affiliated with the Restored Hope Network, the personal failures left in the wake of Exodus International’s demise have left a negative taste in the mouth of thousands and thousands of people, a tragic situation which is difficult to ignore. Admittedly, even those in the Restored Hope Network are shying away from reparative therapy these days, while still pursuing other possible avenues for change. The sad tales that Still Time to Care documents continues to serve as warnings for us all.

On the other hand, efforts like pastor Greg Johnson to promote care, as opposed to cure, are welcomed by those disillusioned with the “Ex-Gay” movement. A renewed emphasis on listening, community, and encouraging friendships is deeply needed, particularly as hostility towards historically orthodox Christians views on marriage increase in our culture. We need a new generation of C.S. Lewis’, Francis Schaeffer’s, and Billy Graham’s who can demonstrate what it really means to care for others in the name of Jesus.

Look here for more information about Greg Johnson’s book, Still Time to Care. I listened to the audio version of the book, but  the print and Kindle versions of the book should be released in December, 2021.

For more posts on this topic, please consider the following blog entries at Veracity:

Looking for more help if you struggle with unwanted same-sex attraction, or if someone you love has that struggle?

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , | posted in Topics

October 11, 2019

Is the Word “Homosexual” in the Bible?

By Clarke Morledge

October 11, in a number of circles, is known as “National Coming Out Day.” Many Christians are confused, as to how to engage with others about this. A good place to start is to consider the following question: Is the word “homosexual” in the Bible? Well, the answer is “yes” and “no,” and the reason for this is really, super important.

Merriam-Webster actually lists two different definitions for the word “homosexual,” which could be an adjective or a noun:

1: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex: GAY// a homosexual man, was involved in a homosexual relationship
2: of, relating to, or involving sexual activity between persons of the same sex // homosexual acts

Those two definitions can be overlapping, but technically, they are not the same.

Actually, this distinction is profound, having a major ramification on how Christians can best love their neighbor with the Gospel.

How do we go about having helpful conversations about “LGBTQ” questions, in evangelical, Bible-believing churches, who desire to hold to a traditional view of marriage, while trying to figure out how to better love others? Perhaps we should start by talking about what IS and what is NOT in the Bible. (credit: Christianity Today).

Now, before I jump in any further, it bears emphasizing that when it comes to the topic of homosexuality, we are not simply quibbling over the meaning of words. Ultimately, we are talking about real people, with real lives, with real stories, that need to be heard. Yet part of hearing those stories about real people includes understanding what people mean when they use certain words. So, it really becomes important that we do not front load incorrect thoughts into our minds when we let people tell their stories, when they use certain words.

That being said, let us dig deeper into this….

On the Meaning of the Word “Homosexual,” and How it is Used in the Bible

In that Merriam Webster definition, they go onto say that the word homosexual entered the English vocabulary, in about 1891, in the sense of definition number 1. Definition number 1 refers to what we might call “same-sex attraction” today. It did not specifically mean someone who acted on their same-sex attraction, in the sense of actually being sexually active with another person of the same sex, which is the second sense of the word. However, it could mean that. But it does not necessarily imply definition number 2.

That definition number 2, or the second sense of the word, came later in English usage, eventually carrying the sense of embracing a particular identity, being actively involved in some type of sexual relationship. In other words, it is more than just “same-sex attraction.” It means acting upon that attraction, in terms of behavior. Today, the meaning has expanded, assuming that sexual activity with someone of the same sex is within a morally justifiable category.

Furthermore, definition number 1 could mean actively engaging in lustful fantasy, for another person of the same-sex. But it does not necessarily mean that.

Think about the alternative word, heterosexual, that appeared in the English language, at the same time homosexual did. Do heterosexuals engage in lustful fantasies, for members of the opposite sex? Sometimes, yes. But not 24×7.

In the language of modern psychology, someone is a heterosexual, even if they are sound asleep, or mentally absorbed in a baseball game. To be heterosexual does not implicitly mean that such a person is always acting on their opposite-sex attraction, in the sense of having a sexual relationship, or lusting after someone.

Likewise, the word homosexual, as in definition number 1, generally refers to having a “same-sex attraction,” but it does not require the idea of actually acting upon that desire, whether that be physically, or just mentally. In other words, a homosexual has a “same-sex attraction,” 24×7, everyday of the week, but they do not always act on that attraction, either physically or mentally.

The lateness of the word entering the English vocabulary explains why the King James Version of the Bible, translated in 1611, does not have the word homosexual, in its text. Following on from a previous post on this topic, let us consider 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (KJV)

All of the moral categories that the Apostle Pauls mentions, such as fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, etc., all refer to repeated, unrepentant patterns of sinful human behavior. These are not mere inclinations, dispositions, or orientations, that suggest some potential or possibility of sinning, brought on by situations where such temptations arise. We all have these, to varying degrees. Rather, in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul has in mind those sinful, unrepentant patterns of human activity that are unbecoming of truly committed followers of Jesus Christ.

The highlighted phrase above, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind , goes back to two interesting Greek words, malakoi, which the KJV takes to be “effeminate,” or the one who is the passive partner in a same-sex, male sexual relationship, and arsenokoitai, which the KJV renders as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” or a man who beds with another man. Technically, malakoi means “soft,” by itself, but it was also used in the Greek language in the same-sex partnered sense, in the manner that the KJV most probably alludes to.

 

People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue, by Preston Sprinkle. I highly recommend this book for those who wrestle with same-sex attraction themselves, or who have loved ones who wrestle with such questions.

Digging Into Bible Translations, About “Homosexuality”

The point here is that the Apostle Paul is designating an actively engaged upon sexual activity, with respect to homosexuality. In the words of the Apostle Paul, in the Bible, there is no strict parallel to “same-sex attraction,” as a type of orientation, inclination, or internal disposition, which originally led to the coining of the word homosexual, in the late 19th century, by the psychologists of the day.

This distinction is vitally important, in how we read Scripture. Simply put, this non-behavioral sense of homosexuality, commonly described today as having a “same-sex attraction,” has no direct correlation to any particular word that we can find in the Bible. In other words, Paul’s teaching here in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is reflective of other related passages of Scripture, refers to a behavior, not an orientation or inclination.

Some might find the notion of homosexuality, as an orientation or inclination to be objectionable, as it is not found in the Bible. Such critics contend that this psychological category of “same-sex attraction,” should be rejected by Christians, as a result.

But we have terms that Christians use all of the time, that do not find a direct correlation in Scripture. Take just one example, where we use the word “Trinity” to describe the nature of the Godhead, “one God in three persons.” Few Christians realize that the term “Trinity,” never appears in the Bible. Nevertheless, describing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as distinct persons within the singular Godhead is an incredibly significant theological concept, that most Christians take for granted.

You can do tons of research on the concepts of same-sex attraction or same-sex relations in the Bible yourself, to verify, but technically, there is no mention of homosexual in the Bible, as it was originally introduced into the English vocabulary.

Nevertheless, the meaning of words changes over time. What typically happens in this situation, a confusion of terminology often results. When the translators of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible sought to update the language of the KJV, in 1946, the old KJV phrase “nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ,” was replaced with the word, “homosexual.”

That Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible essentially became the “de facto” accepted translation of the Bible, used throughout hundreds of English-speaking, Protestant mainline churches, during the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, the confused use of the word homosexual became ingrained in the minds of many, among multiple generations of Bible readers.

Critics of a traditional Christian view of marriage, as being between a man and a woman, contend (rightly) that the word homosexual was therefore never originally in the Bible.

But the conclusion that is often drawn from this goes beyond what the meaning of the Scriptural text can bear. Therefore, such critics argue, the traditional Christian sexual ethic was and is too restrictive, implying that sexual relations between members of the same-sex, should be allowed to be morally permissible, among followers of Jesus. But this oversimplified approach to the Bible is highly misleading, and ignores a more complex, albeit intricate story.

The RSV was later updated to read as:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.(RSV)

This substituted the previous 1946 RSV translation of homosexual(s) with sexual perverts, in the 1970s update to the RSV. But the trend towards using the word homosexual, in a more explicitly behavioral manner, was underway.

When we get to The Living Bible, in 1971, we see the word appear again:

Don’t you know that those doing such things have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who live immoral lives, who are idol worshipers, adulterers or homosexuals—will have no share in his Kingdom. Neither will thieves or greedy people, drunkards, slanderers, or robbers.(TLB)

The popular New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, in 1984, sought to be a bit more accurate here, but still comes up short:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.(NIV 1984)

Rendering the phrase as homosexual offenders (prepended with male prostitutes) was an improvement over what the RSV did in the late 1940s. By describing such homosexuals as offenders, it implied that some distinction could be made between homosexuality as an orientation, and homosexuality as a repeated, unrepentant form of behavior. But it was still confusing for some readers.

Here is the difficulty: Is the offense actually limited to being a type of sinful behavior? Or is it possibly that possessing a same-sex attraction, not acted upon, is nevertheless, still a type of offense before God?

Let us frame the difficulty this way: Is a celibate homosexual still a type of offender before God? Is such a homosexual, … who day after day seeks to mortify the flesh, and say “NO” to such sexual temptation, who resists putting themselves in situations that might cause them to give into temptation, … still, somehow, nevertheless, continues to exist as an offender, … a mere stench in God’s nostrils?

The ambiguity of the NIV 1984 translation is wholly intolerable today, in an age when same-sex relations and same-sex marriage in particular, occupy a large percentage of the public, cultural conversation.

Thankfully, when the NIV translators worked on the most recent update, in 2011, they made the distinction much clearer, and more precise, in terms specifying that the Apostle Paul had an activity, or behavior, in mind:

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.(NIV 2011)

The English Standard Version (ESV) of the Bible, as of the last update in 2016, renders these verses like this:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (ESV 2016)

Here the ESV more accurately associates homosexuality with its practice, not with the mere presence of a disposition or orientation, thus showing that Paul had a behavior in mind, in this passage. Both the NIV 2011 and ESV have the following footnote, regarding this phrase in the Bible:

The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.

The 2017 Christian Standard Bible (CSB), likewise, is very careful:

Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom (CSB 2017)

 

How You Read Your Bible Translation Matters

Why bother with parsing through these various translations so carefully?

Because it makes a difference. Three points are in order:

First, as briefly noted above, it demonstrates that the Apostle Paul had behaviors in mind, patterns of repeated, sinful activity, that are not becoming of a disciple of Jesus Christ. With respect to homosexuality, this follows the same pattern as idolaters, adulterers, thieves, greedy people, etc.

Despite the great debate today going on in the wider culture, this has been the historic teaching of the Christian church for 2,000 years. Attempts by those to revise or dispose of a traditional sexual ethic, regarding God’s intent and purpose for marriage, by allowing for active, same-sex relations, whether that be in a “same-sex marriage,” or otherwise, have a serious obstacle in dealing with the Apostle Paul, in the New Testament.

Secondly, traditionally minded Christians need to rethink the importance of making a subtle, yet ultimately highly significant differentiation between homosexuality as a behavior (including lust), and homosexuality as an inward disposition or orientation of some sort, that is not necessarily acted upon.

Thirdly, it is important to drill down on the difference between homosexuality as a disposition or orientation, and homosexuality as lust. The two are not identical. This may sound controversial, but it need not be.

Think of it as the difference between noticing an attractive member of the opposite sex, for a heterosexual, and actually lusting after that person. The latter is the sin. The former is not sinful, for if it were, then it would be a sin for a man to compliment a woman on the nice dress she is wearing. Even more absurd, it would be like a mother complimenting her son on how handsome he looks, and then somehow treating even that as sin. Confusing noticing an attractive person, together with actual lust, creates a rather absurd view of sin.

Likewise, for a homosexual, noticing an attractive member of the same sex, is not the same as actually lusting after that person. True, having a homosexual orientation is an indicator that something is not right, a consequence of the Fall of humanity. But the same-sex orientation is no more sinful than for a single, heterosexual person, who notices an attractive member of the opposite sex, or a married, heterosexual person, who notices an attractive member of the opposite sex, who is not their spouse.

I am not aware of any contemporary, modern English translation that fails to provide some linguistic framework, for making a distinction between homosexuality as a behavior, and homosexuality as disposition or orientation.

Questions about sexuality and gender are the most theologically provocative issues of our day, just as the very nature of the Triune Godhead threatened to split the Christian church, in the great controversies over Jesus’ divinity and humanity, in the 4th through 5th centuries of the Christian movement.

So, on “National Coming Out Day,” having conversations about what the Bible does NOT say, and what the Bible actually DOES say, is really important. With all of the talk today in 2019 about Christians in “hate groups,” reparative therapy, and the like, it would behoove Christians to take a closer look at how Bible translations, over the years, have created confusion. Thankfully, most modern Bible translations are more accurate these days. Christians who love their Bible, and who seek to love others, as Christ loves us, would do well to follow their Bibles in guiding how they carefully think about this most sensitive and difficult topic.

For more information of this topic, I highly recommend Preston Sprinkle’s People To Be Loved. For other posts on this topic see “Is the Temptation to Sin, Itself a Sin?,” “Single, Gay and Christian: A Review of the Book and Its Criticism,” “What Was the Sin of Sodom? (Taking a Closer Look),” “Statements: What Does Nashville Have to Do With Chicago?,” and “Such Were Some of You: The Language of Christian Identity.“

11 Comments   |  tags: , | posted in Topics

June 16, 2018

What Was the Sin of Sodom?… (Taking A Closer Look)

By Clarke Morledge

Colorado cake artist, Jack Phillips, who recently won a Supreme Court case, in a United States freedom of religion case, that opponents say legitimizes discrimination against gay persons. (credit: Sam Brasch, Colorado Public Radio)

To bake the cake, or not bake the wedding cake?

Nothing gets a group of Christians animated like the topic of same-sex marriage. Go ahead. Try it. The next time you are in a Bible study, or share a meal with believers, just mention “same-sex marriage.” I guarantee you that for the next twenty minutes, the conversation will be anything but boring.

Ever since the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, that legalized same-sex marriage, many Christians have besieged themselves with questions as to how to reach gay and lesbian people, while still affirming the Bible’s teaching that God created marriage between only a man and a woman.

Some say that Christians have focused too much on the issue of same-sex marriage. Others are concerned that the church is gradually capitulating to the culture, in accommodating “the sin of Sodom.”  A recent Pew survey even suggests that among younger evangelicals, there is an increased acceptance of gay marriage, at least in terms of its legality, in the wider culture, if not also, in the church.

Many say that the church needs to “preach the Word.” Specifically, we should preach against “the sin of Sodom.” Every Christian should surely agree with that.

However, the problem is that we often fail to understand what “the sin of Sodom” really is. Is “the sin of Sodom” gay marriage? Would this include a society’s increased acceptance of gay marriage as normal? What really is “the sin of Sodom?”

Let us take a closer look at the biblical text, and see if the common, traditional understanding of “the sin of Sodom” actually matches what the Bible teaches. Continue reading

2 Comments   |  tags: , , , | posted in Apologetics

June 27, 2013

Rosaria Butterfield – Hospitality and the Unlikely Convert

By Clarke Morledge
Rosaria Butterfield - An unlikely convert to Christian faith, touched by the art of hospitality.

Rosaria Butterfield – An unlikely convert to Christian faith, touched by the art of hospitality.

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past fifteen years, you probably know that American public opinion has been shifting dramatically within the past few years to support same-sex marriage.

Given the current cultural trajectory, many observers remark that it is inevitable that gay and lesbian marriages will become widely accepted, at least legally, across large sections of America. Many critics of a traditional reading of Scripture regarding homosexuality argue that  finally “the train has left the station” regarding same-sex marriage. Many would say that Evangelical Christians should join in and affirm the trend as a matter of promoting civil rights, as was the case with racial issues in the 1950’s and 1960’s. How does someone who holds to a high view of the authority of Scripture respond to these challenges in a Christ-like way?

Enter in Rosario Butterfield. She was a lesbian professor at Syracuse University, who was for years convinced that Christians publicly supporting an exclusive approach to traditional marriage were a threat to democracy and human rights.  She was an activist who was horrified by what she saw as “homophobia” and worked aggressively to try to stamp it out. But something unlikely happened along the way.
Continue reading

1 Comment   |  tags: , , , , , | posted in Witnesses