Stanton L. Jones
MEL WHITE’S
A Study Guide and Response to:
What the
Bible Says—
and Doesn’t Say—
About Homosexuality
A Study Guide and Response to
Mel White’s
What the Bible Says
—
and Doesn’t Say—
About Homosexuality
by Stanton L. Jones
The
Study Guide and Response was written by Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D., © 2006.
The moral stance of Wheaton College is expressed in its Community Covenant (the
Covenant is available at https://www.wheaton.edu/about-wheaton/community-
covenant/), but the views expressed here are those of the author and not of
Wheaton College. The author is deeply grateful for the helpful comments and
criticisms offered by several reviewers, and is solely responsible for its remaining
deficiencies. Published by Wheaton College,Wheaton, Illinois.
STANTON L. JONES is Provost of Wheaton College. Before his appointment as
Provost in 1996, he was Professor of Psychology and Chairperson of the Psychology
Department. He has been a Research Fellow of the Pew Evangelical Scholars Program,
and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Chicago and the University of Cambridge.
He served a three-year term (1999-2001) as a member of the Council of
Representatives of the American Psychological Association, the central governing body
of the APA. His recent scholarly work includes Psychology and Christianity: Four Views
(InterVarsity), described in the
Christian Scholar’s Review as the most important book
on psychology and Christianity published in the last 15 years, and Homosexuality:The
Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate
(InterVarsity), which is being
widely discussed in church debates about homosexuality. Dr. Jones holds a B.S. in
Psychology from Texas A&M University, and an M.A.and Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology
from Arizona State University.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Comments to the Reader
The Perspective of this Study Guide and Response
The Perspective of Soulforce
White’s Eight Premises
Commentary on and Response to What the Bible Says—and Doesn’t Say—
About Homosexuality
by Mel White
Introduction
“I take the Bible seriously. . . .”
First Premise
“Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to
condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.”
Second Premise
“Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed,
and death.”
Third Premise
“We must be open to new truth from Scripture.”
Fourth Premise
“The Bible is a book about God—not a book about human sexuality.”
Fifth Premise
“We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time debating
what they say about sex.”
Sixth Premise
“The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today.They
neither approve it nor condemn it.”
Seventh Premise
“Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about homosexual
orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one thing: As we search for
truth, we are to ‘love one another.’”
Eighth Premise
“Whatev
er some people believ
e the Bib
le says about homosexuality, they must not use
that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights.To discriminate against sexual or
gender minorities is unjust and un-American.”
Conclusion
Recommendations for Further Study on Homosexuality; Endnotes
5
12
12
13
15
17
18
21
29
31
33
36
38
Stanton L. Jones
5
Introduction
Comments to the Reader
T
he question of the moral status of homosexual acts is tearing the Christian
church apart in Western society.That question has now come in a new and
forceful way to Wheaton College with the announced arrival of Soulforce’s
“Equality Ride” this spring term.This event presents us the opportunity to reex-
amine why we as an institution take the stance we do toward homosexual con-
duct and the persons who engage in it.The visit also presents us with the oppor-
tunity to respond to our visitors in a distinctly Christian way, manifesting sincere
love even as we stand firmly on biblical truth. This document is written to
Wheaton College students who will be thinking through these issues as a result
of Soulforce’s visit.
This document, however, is not your best general introduction to the difficult
topic of the moral status of homosexual conduct and the persons who engage in
it.Why? Because this document is necessarily
reactive. It is written in response to
the argument of another, thus giving priority to that other argument. If this is
your first engagement with this issue, you need broader background and need to
hear a more positive and powerful presentation of the complete traditional
Christian perspective on these matters.
The traditional Christian understanding of homosexual conduct is but a small
portion of a broader understanding of
sexual morality, which in turn is imbedded
in a broader understanding of
human sexuality, which in turn is imbedded in a
broader understanding of what it means
to be human, which in turn is imbedded
in a broader understanding of
humanity in relationship with the Sovereign God of the
universe.
If you rely on this reactive document to understand the classical, historic
understanding of the Christian church of homosexual conduct, sexuality and the
human condition,
you will necessarily have a stunted and distorted understanding of
that classic view, because this response has to be structured in response to the mistaken
arguments contained in White’s booklet.
One student reviewer of this manuscript reminded me that those training to
recognize counterfeit currency spend less time studying fake money and much
mor
e time studying the real thing, because the best way to recognize a fake is to
kno
w the r
eal thing intimately
.You will better recognize the errors in a bad argu-
ment when you have steeped yourself in truth.Thus, we strongly urge that you
Stanton L. Jones
6
first (before reading these materials) read the key scriptural passages dealing with
this issue in their surrounding context. Read:
• Genesis 1-3 on the human condition
• Genesis 18:20 through chapter 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, along
with the other passages of Scripture that reference it: Isaiah
1:7-17
, Ezekiel
16 (whole chapter, but particularly verses
49-50
), Jude
5-7
, and
2
Peter
2
.
• Leviticus
18:22
and
20:13
, and surrounding passages
•
Matthew
5:27-32; 19:1-22
; and related passages to hear Jesus on sexual purity
• Romans 1-3, but particularly 1:18-32
• 1 Corinthians 5-8, and particularly 6:9-20
• 1 Timothy 1:1-11
We then suggest you read one or more presentations of the traditional or clas-
sic Christian view on homosexual morality. On our campus, we have made wide-
ly available two such resources:
John Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships?: A Christian Perspective (Revell/Baker, 1998)
Stanton L. Jones, The Gay Debate (InterVarsity Press Booklet, 1994)
These readings will give you the broader context, the positive context, for the tra-
ditional teaching of the Christian church on human sexuality.
As you prepare yourself to understand this issue, I urge you also to recognize,
on the authority of Scripture itself, that settling questions of morality is serious
business indeed. Difficult moral questions like these are not merely intellectual,
but are spiritual at their very core because God links faith and obedience. In
Matthew 16:24-26, our Lord said:“If anyone would come after me, let him deny
himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will
lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a
man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give
in return for his life?” (
ESV).We must be conscious of grappling with these issues
not just as an intellectual puzzle, but as a matter of faithfulness to the Lord of the
universe and our Savior.
Jesus spoke on the centrality of our submission to God in deciding matters of
morality when he stated,“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the
one who lo
ves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will
love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21,
NIV); the Apostle John, remem-
bering those words at the end of his life, wrote in 1 John 2:4,“The man who says,
‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not
in him.”To understand how the apostles understood the linkage of true faithful-
ness and moral purity, read such passages as 2 Timothy 3:1-14, where Paul speaks
to Christians in future generations who would be facing false teaching and moral
confusion, or read Jude 1-23 on the same subject.
7
The Perspective of this Study Guide and Response
The Christian church and contemporary American society are consumed with
the question of homosexuality. Is it normal? Is homosexual behavior morally
acceptable? Should persons who embrace “gay identity” be accepted fully in the
Christian church? Can homosexual persons change? Doesn’t Christian charity
demand inclusion, acceptance, tolerance, and embracing of gay, lesbian, bisexual,
and transgender peoples? These and the many related questions present all of us
today with perplexing choices.
We are engaged in a task of evaluation:We each must examine the competing
claims of those arguing all sides of this question, sincerely asking that God would
speak to us in that search.This document seeks to engage and evaluate a specific
“artifact” of this debate, Dr.White’s document, which is evaluating and challeng-
ing the traditional stance of the Christian church toward the morality of homo-
sexual conduct.
All human evaluation is done from a “perspective.” To stand in evaluation of
the work or thought of another, one must be clear about one’s own position, and
also seek fairly and clearly to understand the views of the other.The following is
my tentative summary of the classic position of the Christian church on sexuali-
ty and sexual morality, which is the perspective from which I offer this evaluation:
Christians have believed that God the Father and Creator made humanity as phys-
ical and sexual beings, male and female equally in God’s image. He made us so
that one man and one woman could be blessed to form an exclusive and life-long
marital union in which to experience the joy of sexual and personal union, and pos-
sibly the gift of children. Indeed, Christian marriage serves as an earthly model of
Christ’s love for his Bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:25-33).
We have also believed that all of humanity is fractured by the reality of sin, such
that we experience many desires and inclinations that are not in accord with how God
made us. In fact, we are even distorted in our thinking, such that we have difficulty
recognizing the true, the pure, the good. Because of this reality, we celebrate that God
spoke to his people through prophets and apostles in words preserved faithfully in the
Bible to diagnose our brokenness and to reveal to us how he desires us to live.
At the very core of our faith, we proclaim and celebrate that God gave his own
Son to die for us and to rise to live again in conquest of death itself that we might
be forgiven by his mercy for our brokenness. He gave us his Word in the Bible to
guide us in how to live a life pleasing to him.We further proclaim and celebrate that
he gave us the Holy Spirit to come into our hearts and accompany and empower us
to live that life.With his Word as a guide and the power of the Holy Spirit with-
in, we experience not just forgiveness, but we are able to begin to experience the
fruits of transformation in our personal lives as we grow in faith in him.We believe
we can and will exper
ience healing and growth from brokenness of all kinds tow
ar
d
wholeness and Chr
istlikeness in this life
.
Stanton L. Jones
8
Christians believe they are called to follow Jesus Christ as their Lord (Acts
2:36; 1 Peter 3:15). Jesus stated,“Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he
is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too
will love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21,
NIV
). Sexual purity is one
way in which Christians are to show their love for their Lord—we are to conduct
ourselves in accord with God’s “rules” as revealed in the entire Bible. Obedience (a
word Americans do not often use today) is the best way that we, the recipients of
God’s great gifts, can show our love for him, thank him with our lives for the gifts
given, and best use those gifts.
The Bible consistently affirms the blessedness of sexual union between a man
and woman married to each other, and urges us to restrain ourselves from all sexu-
al intimacies outside that blessed union.
1
That this is a hard calling is suggested by
the fact that the apostles often had to urge early Christians to pursue sexual puri-
ty and avoid sexual immorality. Adultery, fornication (or sexual impurity between
unmarried people), rape, incest, sex with animals, and homosexual conduct are
among those behaviors explicitly named in Scripture as contrary to God’s will.
2
Homosexual conduct is not a major preoccupation of Scripture, but whenever it is
mentioned in the Bible, it is condemned unequivocally and forcefully. And what a
glorious declaration we have in 1 Corinthians 6 when the Apostle Paul, after list-
ing a wide array of sins in which believers had once been ensnared, including homo-
sexual sin, declares, “And that is what some of you
were!” (1 Corinthians 6:11,
NIV). Freedom from a life of slavery to sin is possible in Christ.
What is the relationship of Wheaton College’s position on sexual morality to this
historic perspective?
3
We seek to be in conformity with this historic stance and
to remain faithful to it.Wheaton College, top to bottom, is a voluntary commu-
nity of like-minded Christians in the Protestant evangelical tradition. We affirm
the complete truthfulness of the Bible and seek to live lives (including our sexu-
al lives) in accord with its teaching. In the words of our Community Covenant,
this “involves practicing those attitudes and actions the Bible portrays as virtues
and avoiding those the Bible portrays as sinful.”We are explicit and clear that we
cherish “chastity among the unmarried (1 Corinthians 6:18) and the sanctity of
marriage between a man and woman (Hebrews 13:4)” and that we see as incon-
sistent with our Lord’s teachings all “sexual immorality, such as the use of pornog-
raphy (Matthew 5:27-28), pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexual behavior, and all
other sexual r
elations outside the bounds of marriage between a man and woman
(Romans 1:21-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Genesis 2:24; Ephesians 5:31).”
See John Stott’s coverage of this general topic in Same-Sex Partnerships,
Chapter 1 (pp. 9-15), Chapter 3 (pp. 31-40), and Chapter 6 (pp. 69-72).
The members of the Wheaton College community affirm the right of others to
disagree with us.We welcome free discussion with all, and view it as our calling
9
to engage respectfully those who disagree with all or part of the views that define
our community. We seek to be a place where people who recognize their bro-
kenness come to grow and minister. It is thus a good thing to have among us
those who experience same-sex attraction and who live chastely in accord with
our moral commitments. We seek to be a community of love, acceptance, and
encouragement to those struggling with God’s call on their sexual lives in this
area and others. We acknowledge that we are imperfect: Some who experience
same-sex attraction among us have been hurt by unloving attitudes and actions
by some of us; for this we seek forgiveness and growth in love. Some in our com-
munity violate their word freely offered in affirmation of our Community
Covenant.We also recognize that some have left our community and embraced
other views of sexual morality; we respect their right to disagree with us but
respectfully disagree with their choices.We are privileged to live in a country that
recognizes our God-given right to freely exercise our religious beliefs and to
establish institutions, like our College, that reflect those beliefs.We recognize and
grieve over violence and injustices perpetrated against persons because of their
sexual orientation; we repudiate all such violence and injustice even while we
affirm the continuing validity of our faith’s moral teachings and deny any causal
connection between those teachings and such violence and injustice.
That is the perspective of this response.What of the position or perspective of
Dr. White and Soulforce, the position or perspective from which they are cri-
tiquing the traditional teachings of the Church? In evaluating this document
speaking to Christians about the meaning of the biblical text, we must inquire
after the religious commitments that form the framework of this document pro-
moted by Soulforce.
The Perspective of Soulforce
Let’s begin with the purposes of Soulforce. The purposes of Soulforce as an
organization are clearly articulated on their website:
4
“The purpose of Soulforce is freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless
nonviolent resistance.”
Wherever you are on your journey of faith,
Whatever your sexual orientation or gender identity,
Whatever your religion, race, age, ability, color, or creed,
You are welcome to join us in learning, teaching, and applying
the ‘soul force’ principles of relentless nonviolent resistance
as taught by Gandhi and King
as we work together to stop spiritual violence
Stanton L. Jones
10
against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people
that flows out of the teachings and actions
of religious leaders and their communities of faith.
—The People of Soulforce
Clearly Soulforce is a broad, inclusive organization that welcomes diverse reli-
gious beliefs. A review of the website also produces the closest expression of a
creed or faith-statement for the Soulforce organization:
5
Six Soulforce Beliefs About Myself
1. I am a child of a loving Creator, a daughter or a son of the Soulforce at the
center of the universe.*
2. I am loved by my Creator exactly as I am. My sexual orientation is not a
sickness to be healed nor a sin to be forgiven. My sexual orientation is a gift from
my Creator to be accepted, celebrated, and lived with integrity.
3. I am not an accident. I have a purpose. I was shaped by my Creator to love God
and to assist in God’s eternal struggle to win justice for all Her children who suf-
fer injustice.
4. I will not discover my purpose nor realize my power (my own soulforce) until I
join my Creator in doing justice (making things fair for all.)
5. When I join my Creator in doing justice, my own life will be renewed,
empowered, and made more meaningful.
6. In serving others, it is as much my moral obligation to refuse to cooperate with
evil as it is to cooperate with good.
* Neither Gandhi nor King required sectarian allegiance to any one statement of
faith or religious practice. Soulforce is an interfaith and ecumenical movement.
Wherever you are on your own faith journey, you are welcome to do justice with us.
What are we to make of this perspective? Rev. Dr. Philip Turner (former Dean
of the Episcopal Berkeley Divinity School at Yale) has been observing and
attempting to influence the theological developments in one mainline denomi-
nation, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., a denomination that has
grown increasingly accepting and inclusive of gays and lesbians. His analysis is that
the growing acceptance of “sexual minorities” in many churches is based not on
some minor adjustment of moral standards, but rather on a
radical shift in theolog-
ical foundations:
We must say this clearly: The Episcopal Church’s current working theology
depends on the obliteration of God’s difficult, redemptive love in the name of
a new revelation. The message, even when it comes from the mouths of its
more sophisticated exponents, amounts to inclusion
without qualification...
[This] working theology [of the Episcopal Church is] one which most
Anglicans in the rest of the world no longer recognize as Christian.
6
11
The “Soulforce Credo About Myself ” is a creed typical of the type of inclusive
theology about which Turner is commenting.The Soulforce theology simply and
directly says, “God accepts us as we are without qualification.” Traditional
Christian theology, in contrast, affirms God’s righteousness, justice and sovereign-
ty; human sinfulness and depravity; Christ’s divinity and costly death and resur-
rection; our need for justification before God by Christ’s atoning death; the call
to follow Christ in obedience as our Lord; and the Holy Spirit’s work not only
of applying the blood of the Lamb of God that we might be justified, but also of
living in our hearts that we might be freed from sin. Our inclusion in God’s fam-
ily, then,
does involve “qualification” (if we can put it that way): without the death
of Christ on the cross we would be lost, without God’s Spirit moving our hearts
to repentance we would be lost, without our acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord
and Savior we would be lost.We are
not acceptable as we are. God asks something
of us—he asks us to die to ourselves and to be born again.
The Soulforce theology as expressed is theistic rather than Christian—it
affirms a loving and accepting God
and stops there, rather than affirming a loving
and completely righteous and just God who pursues sinful people by offering his
own Son to die for us and rise in triumph over death. The only mention by
Soulforce of anything like redemption of human life is associated with human
effort directed at establishing justice
(“I will not discover my purpose nor realize my
power [my own soulforce] until I join my Creator in doing justice [making things fair for
all.];When I join m
y Creator in doing justice, my own life will be renewed”)
without
mention of the Christian belief in the sufficiency of God’s work on our behalf.
In this theology, there is no room for sin, no need of costly redemption, and no
call to follow Christ as Lord sacrificially.
I note in conclusion that though Dr.White is the founder of Soulforce, these
core distinctives of Soulforce as an organization may or may not reflect his per-
sonal theological views. His document, though, is offered as a Soulforce docu-
ment, and so the commitments of the organization are relevant.You will also see
in reading White that he does more deconstructing of the traditional view than
he does constructing or clarifying his own views and the basis for them.
Questions for Reflection
1. Compare the “Soulforce Credo About Myself” to the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed; reflect
on similarities and differences.
2.
Earlier we said that all evaluation is done from a “perspective.” How will the theology
of Soulforce affect its critique of the teachings of the Bible and of the Christian church?
Stanton L. Jones
12
White’s Eight Premises
Commentary on and response to What the Bible Says—
and Doesn’t Say—About Homosexuality
by Mel White
Introduction
Mel White—“I take the Bible seriously. . . .”
It is a good thing to take the Bible seriously. The person who does not take it
seriously is unlikely to interpret it rightly. Seriousness may well be a
necessary
condition for proper biblical interpretation. But is it sufficient?
No.Taking the Bible seriously is no guarantee of interpreting it rightly. Most
of the heretical movements that have troubled the Church throughout its life
have been started by those claiming to take the Bible seriously. Marcion claimed
to be taking the Bible seriously when he counterposed the angry god of the Old
Testament against the loving God of the New, and hence urged the dismissal of
the Old Testament from the canon for Christians. Arius, claiming to take the
Scriptures seriously, redefined and qualified the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ
such that he was judged to have denied the Trinitarian nature of God as Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. Pelagius, claiming to take the Scriptures seriously, denied
the doctrine of original sin and taught salvation through human effort at keep-
ing God’s law.
7
Each of these leaders and their movements were declared hereti-
cal by the Church, which, following the teaching of the Scriptures and of the
apostles, clung to the “pattern of Christian truth”
8
which they had learned from
their spiritual parents.
One of the most disconcerting aspects of conflict in the Church (conflict
which is ongoing and multifaceted) is the way that all sides typically claim to be
faithful to biblical authority. Further, all sides claim seriousness in their engage-
ment with Scripture or sincerity in the views offered. Clearly there are some
aspects of the biblical witness that are difficult to interpret and around which
well-meaning Christians can and do disagree. After all, major denominations still
have differences with each other. But it is equally clear that if the Scriptures can
mean
anything then ultimately they must mean nothing.
9
As Wheaton students
enter church leadership, they will have to confront repeatedly the question of
how to understand the Scriptures rightly, truthfully, even when incompatible
inter
pr
etations are offered with all seriousness and sincerity. So the question is,
What does the Bible teach?
Dr.White concludes his first premise by citing 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Test all
things and hold fast to that which is good.” He is absolutely right; this is our call-
ing.
But hear the w
ords of Jude in Jude 17-23 as he expounds this theme at
greater length:
But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord
Jesus Christ.They said to you,“In the last time there will be scoffers, following
13
their own ungodly passions.” It is these who cause divisions, worldly people,
devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, build yourselves up in your most holy
faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting for the
mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on
those who doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show
mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh. (
ESV)
Questions for Reflection
1. Do all persons who take the Bible seriously understand it rightly?
2. What conditions other than seriousness must be in place to lead to proper understand-
ing of and response to the meaning of the Bible?
White’s First Premise
“Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts
often used to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.”
True. But let’s think about this claim carefully. It is true that many have not them-
selves personally researched this matter, but then many have not themselves per-
sonally researched other doctrines that they accept and trust, such as the doctrines
of the Trinity, the Incarnation, or of the authority of Scripture. Many have not
personally and deeply studied various moral beliefs that they take to be true, such
as Just War or Pacifist teachings, or the immorality of abortion. But responsible,
trusted leaders in the Church
have researched the teaching of the Bible on such
issues, including the matter of sexual morality.They have in fact reflected on these
matters exhaustively, for centuries, and during this time the teaching of the
Church has remained essentially stable until very recently. Even now, as a few
American and European mainline denominations teeter on this matter, the
worldwide Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, and the conservative
Protestant denominations in America and around the world, remain firm: homo-
sexual conduct is always judged immoral. The critical mass of Christians in the
world today continue to accept the traditional moral teachings of the Church.
Are Christians unwise today to trust the historic teaching of the Bible and the
Church? Put differently, are the individual judgments of a handful of advocates
and chur
ch leaders (including many committed to the conduct that is itself in dis-
pute) a fir
m basis on which to r
eject the Chur
ch’
s reading of the seemingly clear
message of Scr
iptur
e for almost 3,000 y
ear
s?
Several of White’s claims in this section are misleading or fail to bear up under
close scrutiny. Take the issue that “Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.”
What are we to make of this? Does Jesus’ silence communicate either that he was
neutral toward the behavior or approving of it?
Note that if Jesus’ silence connotes toleration, neutrality or approval, then
Stanton L. Jones
14
Jesus must also be understood as having that same stance of toleration or approval
toward other behaviors condemned in the Old Testament on which he is equal-
ly silent. Jesus (as recorded in Scripture) did not speak explicitly to homosexual
conduct, but neither did he speak of rape, incest, or sex with animals. Does Jesus’
silence suggest indifference toward or approval of these patterns?
Make no mistake about it; some theologians do interpret Jesus’ silence as fully
permissive. Gay Episcopalian New Testament scholar L.William Countryman, for
example, concludes that “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and
of themselves: . . . bestiality [sex with animals], polygamy, homosexual acts,” or
“pornography.” On such matters, he argues, we are not free to “impose our codes
on others.”
10
So in this vision of the freedom “in the Gospel,” sex with animals,
pornography, and polygamy are legitimate expressions of freedom.
But far from being a lax sexual libertarian,
Jesus was tough on sexual morality.
When the topic of adultery comes up, he tightens the standards to include a con-
demnation even of what goes on in our minds (lust; Matthew 5:28).When the
topic of divorce arises, he so tightens the standards for the dissolution of marriage
(by disempowering husbands to put away their wives at will) that his disciples
exclaim, “It is better not to marry!” (Matthew 19:1-12). In this context, it bog-
gles the mind to think that the lack of a recorded word from Jesus himself should
be interpreted as sexual liberty. It is much more likely that his silence connoted
approval and endorsement of the moral condemnations of the Old Testament; his
was the silence of agreement, the silence of that which did not need to be stated
because it was taken for granted.
One other matter deserves explicit mention:What are we to make of the lack
of complete uniformity in the teaching of the Church? When we say “the
Church has always taught that homosexual conduct is wrong,” what are we real-
ly claiming? Are we claiming complete uniformity, that there has never been a
confused or contrary voice raised? Of course not. Throughout its history, the
Church has struggled to remain faithful to the faith taught by the prophets, apos-
tles, and by the Lord Jesus himself, even while discordant voices within its bounds
claimed new understandings and new revelations that contradicted established
teaching. (Remember our earlier mention of Marcion,Arius, and Pelagius.) If the
requirement to accept a teaching of the Church is a complete absence of anyone
who has ever uttered an alternative view, then there would be no church teach-
ing at all.
11
Questions for Reflection
1. When should the established teaching of the Church be questioned or challenged, and
when accepted? What will be our standards for deciding what is “true”?
2. Should the teachings of the Bible itself ever be questioned or challenged?
15
White’s Second Premise
“Historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering,
bloodshed, and death.”
We must state it emphatically: Unjust violence against homosexual persons is
wrong and repugnant to God. Christians everywhere should condemn such vio-
lence and condemn the application of biblical or church teachings to justify such.
And some of this violence inflicted on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender peo-
ple has been committed with an expression of religious justification, which we
must emphatically renounce and condemn.
Now, what about this statement as a premise for White’s argument? It is no
mistake that this is White’s second premise.Through history, the Church has con-
sistently approached the Scriptures asking
first, “What has God said?” Other con-
sequences and issues follow after. White approaches this differently. After estab-
lishing that few have themselves studied the issue, he then sets up
as a foundation
for the remaining study
the perception that the teachings of the Bible—as classical-
ly understood—have been a source of violence and death for gays and lesbians.
It seems to me that he does this for two reasons.The first is rhetorical: Many have
argued that the best way to advance the cause of gay acceptance is to elicit sym-
pathy for gays and lesbians by two key moves—“portray gays as victims, not as
aggressive challengers” and “make victimizers look bad.”
12
Students engaging this
issue must be aware and reflective about the emotional power of such stories of
victimization. Stories are powerful, but are we hearing the full stories and the
right stories?
Secondly, if we approach the teachings of the Bible with a presupposition that
“The traditional teaching of the Church has been the cause of violence and
death,
and therefore that teac
hing m
ust be wrong
” then we are predetermined to
move away from that traditional teaching. Yes, some have misapplied the
Scriptures to evil ends, and these failings need to be acknowledged. For example,
in recent years a great failing of the evangelical church has been our failure to
recognize and act on racial injustice in our society.The lack of evangelical sup-
port for the civil rights movement and of the continuing fight against racism in
America and around the world is appalling.When we recognize errors, we must,
in submission to God, seek to do right.
Yes, some biblical teachings have been wrongly applied. But the teachings of
the Scriptures have also been
rightly applied by the Church to counter evil: to
seek to stop the excesses of the Crusades (including pogroms against Jews), to
bring an end to slavery, to oppose Nazi fascism, and so forth.Yes,“even the devil
can cite Scripture for his purpose,” but God still uses Scripture for his purposes,
and we are only in the right when we are aligned with those purposes.
Here is the central issue:White says, “We’d like to believe that no person of
good will w
ould misuse the Bib
le to suppor
t his or her prejudice.”We agree. But
clearly
White is making an implied claim that the Bib
le does not condemn
Stanton L. Jones
16
homosexual behavior, but only appears to do so when someone misuses it to sup-
port his prejudices. But this argument falls apart if it can be shown that
the Bible
really does teach that homosexual conduct is wrong.
If the Bible actually does teach
this view, then it is not prejudice to accept and proclaim that teaching.
1
3
One final set of reflections on the use, throughout this booklet, of tragic
stories where persons spouting various expressions of God’s judgment engage in
heinous acts of violence or threaten violence.These are genuinely tragic as pre-
sented.Again, violence of this sort has no role in Christian life. Such acts must be
labeled for what they are:
appalling acts of evil. It is our hope that the Christian
church will ever be active in preventing any such acts in the future.
But life is complex, and it is hard to know when we have heard the full story.
There have been many misrepresentations in the media as stories have been put
to political ends. Many will remember the media-saturation coverage of the
Matthew Shepard case several years ago. Shepard was brutally pistol-whipped and
left to die strapped to a rural fence in Wyoming in the bitter cold. His death was
widely declared a hate crime against gays, an act presumed to have been motivat-
ed by raw hatred of and disgust with gays.The murder was used to denounce the
historic teachings of the Bible and to denounce the Church as the source of such
hate (just as White does here). Such hatred of homosexual persons and any acts
of violence against homosexual persons, it is argued, must be grounded in and
fueled by the Christian teaching that homosexual conduct is immoral.The moral
teachings of the Bible and the Church are guilty by presumed association.
But years later, Matthew Shepard’s murder now appears to have had nothing
to do with homophobia, but rather to have been a complicated instance of a
drug-frenzied robbery gone bad.
14
After years of the Shepherd case being used as
a prime example of homophobic hate, it is now reasonably clear that Christian
moral teachings and hatred of gays had nothing to do with this tragedy. The
Shepard murder was a tragedy, true, but what implications does it have now for
our deliberations? What assurance do we have that we have all of the facts in the
cases cited by White here?
Further, we live in a moment in time when the media coverage of such sup-
posed hate crimes against gays is intense, but there is little coverage of the oppo-
site sort of story. Consider the murder of Mary Stachowicz, a faithful conserva-
tive Catholic, who was murdered by 19-year-old Nicholas Gutierrez.
15
Gutierrez
stabbed and strangled Mrs. Stachowicz, and then hid her body.Why? Because she
expressed her Christian views to him that his homosexual lifestyle was sinful, and
told him of the possibility of finding new life in Christian faith.This story hard-
ly created a ripple in the media. How many more such stories are there out there?
More importantly, what difference do such stories make?
Our stance must be first, on the basis of the Christian moral teaching itself, to
repudiate all such violence and hatred. Second, we must insist that we consider
b
y itself the truth of the moral and factual claims of the Bible.We should do so
without pr
ior constraints fr
om the supposed consequences of those claims.
17
Without such a stance, any view taught by the Bible that is claimed to have neg-
ative consequences (such as “people who believe in the deity of Jesus become
Jew-killers” or “people who believe in the sanctity of all human life become fun-
damentalist terrorists like the abortion bomber”) can be dismissed without seri-
ous consideration as to whether it is
true.
Questions for Reflection
1.What is the relationship between the truthfulness of a particular moral or theological view
and the possible consequences of those views?
2. If we accept the basic argument that judging people to be acting immorally leads to hatred
of and violence toward those people, then can any moral judgments be made? In other
words, does White’s argument here, taken to its logical end, make it impossible to ever
judge any action immoral since such a judgment might lead to hate?
3. Can we make moral judgments about the behavior of real people without hating them
or condoning violence toward them?
White’s Third Premise
“We must be open to new truth from Scripture.”
Many are likely to respond positively (at some level) to this claim, precisely
because it is widely understood that it is every Christian’s responsibility to lis-
ten—every day, every minute—for God to speak anew from the Scriptures and
to take us yet one step further in our journey toward becoming like Christ.There
is an element of truth here.
But what if White really means that we must be open to the overthrow of the
established teaching of the Bible itself and of the Church on a significant matter
of sexual morality that has been a settled matter since the time of Moses? Should
we be open to the “new truth” that
“My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator
to be accepted, celebrated, and lived with integrity” (from the “Soulforce Credo About
Myself ”)? Should we be open to the “new truth” that Paul was simply wrong in
repeatedly reiterating that homosexual conduct is considered wickedness by
God? In the past, the kinds of new truth that have been welcomed in the Church
have typically been those where Scripture presents a complex and (at first) con-
fusing patter
n of teaching. But in the case of homosexual conduct, the testimo-
ny of Scripture is unanimous, straightforward, and unilaterally negative.
Some have argued that the Protestant Reformation was an instance of
Christians asserting “new truth” from Scripture, that by questioning or challeng-
ing the teachings of the Roman Church on such matters as justification by faith,
indulgences, and clerical celibacy, the Reformers were calling for new truth to be
recognized by the Church in contrast to established teaching. But this is a flawed
reading: First, the Reformers viewed their work as that of clearing away the false
Stanton L. Jones
18
“new truths” that had crept into church teaching in favor of a return to the “old
truth,” the established truth of Scripture. Second, in doing so,
their standard was the
clear teaching of Scripture itself.
They recognized that they could not challenge the
established teaching of the Church without themselves being open to being chal-
lenged on whether they were themselves remaining faithful to the Scriptures.
And so they formalized the teaching that the Church was to be
continually reform-
ing,
to be continually open to being brought into ever closer conformity to the
teaching of Scripture itself (the old truth). They also formulated the rule that
Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture; specifically, that any ambigu-
ous aspects of scriptural teaching should be understood in light of the clear and
explicit teachings of Scripture. And so we ask, Is moral condemnation of homo-
sexual conduct clear in Scripture?
Here we must also ask about who is in the right place to bring us such new
truth.White is calling for readers to accept his teaching about the meaning of the
biblical texts. He seems to be questioning the integrity of past interpreters as he
brings up prejudice and the like. But is White himself the best teacher for the
reader to trust? Many of those pushing for acceptance of homosexual persons in
the Church argue that the best person to properly interpret of the biblical teach-
ings about sexual morality is someone who is himself gay. But can you find bib-
lical precedent for that? (Read, for example, 1 Timothy 3 or Jude.) The apostles
would not proclaim that the best person to interpret matters of sexual morality
is the very person immersed in the behavior pattern in question.
See John Stott’s coverage of the general topic of the arguments for revising
our understanding of the biblical teaching in Same-Sex Partnerships, Chapter 4 (pp. 41-59).
Questions for Reflection
1. How are we to recognize “new truth” from Scripture, and what should be its relation-
ship to established truth?
2. How would the biblical writers view the teaching authority of a person calling for accept-
ance of sexual immorality who is living the very lifestyle in question?
White’s Fourth Premise
“The Bible is a book about God—not a book about human sexuality
.”
According to White, the Bible “was never intended to be a book about human
sexuality. Certainly, you will agree.”White seeks to establish his point by glossing
the teachings of the Bible as incoherent and patently unacceptable. He claims “the
Bible accepts sexual practices we condemn and condemns sexual practices that
we accept,” and then seems to presume that this obviously shows that the Bible
must be in error.There is, of course, an alternative view:That the Bible actually
19
presents a coherent and powerful sexual ethic, that Dr.White presents a distorted
view of the Bible’s teachings when he argues that its teachings are incoherent, and
finally that when there is a gap between the biblical teaching and our behavior,
it is we (and not the Bible) who are wrong and in need of correction.
White makes quite a number of false claims in this section:
• divorce is
not strictly forbidden as he claims (citing Mark 10); rather, the
Bible presents a complex picture for interpreters where divorce is con-
demned for some reasons but grudgingly allowed for other reasons
16
• the Bible does not “say clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the
husband but not for the wife”; rather, the Bible condemns sexual unfaithful-
ness in all forms
17
and yet reports descriptively the various sexual infidelities
of several major characters in the Bible (as it does their other failings as well)
• polygamy is
not “acceptable” in the Bible, but rather from the first mention
of sexuality and marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 we are taught that marriage is
to be between one man and one woman; polygamy, like prostitution, is
reported descriptively as something that “happened,”
18
and clearly not every-
thing that “happened” in the biblical narrative is meant to be approved
(think of King David’s adultery with Bathsheba and indirect murder of her
husband; 2 Samuel 12)
• there are
no strict prohibitions in the Bible against “interracial marriage” as
White claims; rather, marriage outside the Jewish
faith was condemned;
inclusion in the community of Israel was never racial, as members of any
tribe and people on the earth were invited to become one of the covenant
people (and hence become candidates for marriage to other Jews)
• there are
no strict prohibitions in the Bible against “birth control,” though
the Roman Catholic Church and some Protestant groups believe this is a
legitimate inference from Scripture.
This leaves, though, a number of issues that White raises that
are challenging (e.g.,
capital punishment for various sexual sins, the prohibition of sex during menstru-
ation, and the like). It would take too long to develop detailed responses to all of
these.The classic understanding for handling these issues has been the conceptu-
al separation in Old Testament law of moral, ceremonial and civil laws; this dis-
tinction is reflected in several Reformation confessional statements.
Moral laws
(lik
e “Thou shall not commit adultery”) are presumed to be universally applica-
ble and eternally enduring; they apply in all places at all times, for the Christian
church as for the people of Israel.The
ceremonial laws (like the ban on sexual
intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period, the ceremonial uncleanness
that a man would experience if he had a “wet dream,”
19
or the many dietary
and cleanliness restrictions on the Jewish people) were grounded in creating a
distinctive culture for the covenantal people of God so that they might have a
clear sense of identity apart from the pagan people surrounding them. It was these
Stanton L. Jones
20
ceremonial laws that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, often set aside, and it was these
rules that the early apostles agreed not to lay upon the Gentile converts to faith
in Christ.
20
Finally, the Old Testament contains numerous civil regulations. The
Hebrew people, after all, were not just a religious body but were also a nation.
Hence you find in the Old Testament regulations such as civil punishments for
moral crimes (e.g., the civil death penalty for the immoral act of adultery), as well
as rules for many things from sanitation to building codes.
21
Some of these regu-
lations and penalties seem puzzling or even barbaric to modern readers, but often
careful study can help to put these harsh penalties into context.
But back to White’s big point: Is the Bible a book about God, or a book about
human sexuality? Answer: It does not have to be either/or; the Bible is both
about God and about our sexuality, and about much more besides.The Bible is
certainly more than a book about God. It is a book about God
and about us, a
book about how God relates to us and about how we relate to him. And it is as
clear in Scripture as it is in the day-to-day lived reality of our lives that if we are
to understand ourselves, we desperately need to understand our sexuality since it
is such a central and vital part of us (and surely White would agree). We must
understand our sexuality as a gift from God, understand it in its ideal form as he
intended for us to experience it, understand how profoundly broken and distort-
ed our sexuality is (for all of us, not just or principally for homosexual persons),
understand how our sexuality might be redeemed along with our whole person-
hood, and understand how God wills us to behave in the area of sexuality.
A few final comments by Dr.White in this section merit response:
• White claims that “organizations representing 1.5 million U.S. health profes-
sionals . . . have stated definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural
as heterosexual orientation.”This is actually false.The professional organiza-
tions have acted to
remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders,
but declaring something to
not be a mental illness or disease is not the same as
stating “definitively that homosexual orientation is as natural as heterosexu-
al orientation.”
• White further claims that these same organizations have stated that “it is dan-
gerous or inappropriate to tell a homosexual that he or she could or should
attempt to change his or her sexual orientation.” This is misleading. Under
the leadership of gay activists within these organizations, concerns have been
expr
essed and warnings have been sounded, but little proof has been offered
to date that change is impossible or that the attempt to change is danger-
ous.
22
Change attempts are not (yet) considered unethical or to be malprac-
tice in any of the professional organizations.
• White claims that the experience of millions of gays living “productive and
deeply spiritual lives . . . demands that we at least consider whether the pas-
sages cited to condemn homosexual behavior should be reconsidered.”
Evangelical Christians must think about this challenge carefully. Applying
21
the same logic to other cases will help to make the problems clear: Millions
of people cohabit before marriage (what Christians have historically called
fornication) and yet live productive lives. Should their “productive lives” lead
us to reevaluate our moral judgment that such behavior is sinful? Of course
not. Millions, even billions of people follow other gods and embrace other
faiths, and also live productive lives. Should their “productive lives” lead us
to deny Jesus’ own teaching that he is “the way, the truth, the life” and that
no one comes to the Father except by him? Again, of course not.
Questions for Reflection
1. Is the Bible a book only about God without implications for or teachings about our
sexuality?
2. Is the traditional sexual ethic of the Church coherent and consistent?
3.What are we to make of “the otherwise good person” who engages in sexual immorali-
ty or any other kind of sin?
White’s Fifth Premise
“We miss what these passages say about God when we spend so much time
debating what they say about sex.”
Now we are into the heart of the matter for evangelicals: What does the Bible
teach? We would have to write too much to both refute White’s errors and to
establish clearly the teachings of these passages. We recommend that the reader
consult John Stott’s coverage of the key biblical passages in
Same-Sex Partnerships
(Chapter 2; pp. 17-30) for a faithful and informed introduction to the biblical
issues. For those who want to dig deeper into these issues, a number of key the-
ological references are provided at the end of this document. But now to engage
White’s argument.
First, at the broad level, White again resorts to a false dichotomy: Suppose
these passages are speaking about God
and about sexual conduct. Let me put it
yet more directly: Passages about sexuality tell us both about our holy and loving
God
and our sinfulness and need for God’s redeeming grace in our lives. A full
understanding of the teachings of the Bible leads to deeper knowledge of God
and deeper self-kno
wledge.
Second, let us orient our minds positively before we examine these “prohibi-
tion” passages.The Bible does not deal with sex in an exclusively negative fashion
(the “thou shalt not” passages).The Bible begins with an affirmation of our being
made as human beings with bodies and sexes and sexuality (Genesis 1-2; careful-
ly study these passages for yourself). Embodiment as physical beings, as explicitly
sexual, male and female, physical
beings, is blessed as a creational good (“it was
very good,” Genesis 1:31,
NIV
). Furthermore, consummation of a heterosexual
Stanton L. Jones
22
marriage in sexual intercourse has been viewed as creating a divinely blessed and
intended outcome, a “one flesh” union between wife and husband (Genesis 2:24;
Matthew 19:5; 1 Corinthians 6:16). This truth has formed the basis for the
Church’s high view of marriage (1 Timothy 4:1-5; Hebrews 13:4) and negative
stance toward divorce. Historically, the Christian church has affirmed marriage
between one person of each sex as the creational norm for intimate sexual expres-
sion and the optimal nurture of children. In addition to the creation of this one-
flesh union, sexual intercourse must be seen biblically as serving the purposes of
biological reproduction (Genesis 1 and 2), and of providing pleasure (Proverbs
5:15-20) and legitimate gratification of a basic human drive (1 Corinthians 7:1-
9).The general biblical teaching on sexuality is unashamedly positive!
In light of these realities and purposes of our sexuality, the core of the tradi-
tional sexual ethic of the Christian church for two millennia and of the Hebrew
people before and since has been that God commends and commands chastity,
both for married people (through maintaining the exclusivity of sexual intimacy
with one’s spouse) and for unmarried people (through refraining from intimate
sexual relations). But some may ask, Is chastity for singles cruel or impossible?
Celibacy—that is, voluntary restraint from intimate sexual expression—while not
the creational norm for adults, is nevertheless approved in words by the Apostle
Paul (1 Corinthians 7) and by example in the life of our Lord Jesus Christ him-
self.This teaching and example ought to caution Christians about accepting any
view that elevates sexual intimacy to a basic necessity of full humanness or denies
the possibility of a meaningful celibate existence, especially where the latter is
formed and carried out in the context of a Christian community that equally and
fully values the gifts of all its members. Celibacy may be hard, but it is neither
cruel nor impossible.
Now, as we begin our analysis of biblical passages dealing with homosexual
conduct as examples of sexual immorality, let’s think briefly about sexual sin in
general. On the one hand, sexual sin may rightly be described as no different from
or no more heinous than other sins. After all, sexual sins appear as one kind
among many entries in the various “vice lists” in the Scriptures. But on the other
hand, Scripture also puts particular emphasis on sexual purity, urging us to “flee
sexual immorality,” and states explicitly that sexual sin is unlike any other type of
sin in that it produces a personal union disapproved by God and thus is a sin
against our own bodies, which are the temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians
6:15-18).
This is our general framework for approaching biblical teachings on homo-
sexual conduct. From it, what are we to make of White’s analysis?
Genesis 1 & 2: We would agree with White that the claim that “God shaped us,
and . . . said,‘It’s good’” is indeed the heart of the text. But by saying it is the heart,
we are not saying that we can’t learn much more than that from Genesis.We learn
additional truths as well, including that we were made as two types of beings,
23
male and female, complementary to and for each other, made for union with each
other in marriage, and blessed with the capacity to reproduce.White tries to make
much of the fact that the text is silent on some complex and puzzling addition-
al issues, but he creates confusion by doing so. Every text—from the Bible to the
phonebook—says certain things and not others. The fact that a particular text
leaves certain issues alone does not take away from the core truths it does teach.
Why limit the teaching of Genesis 1 and 2 to one simple lesson?
Genesis 19: White treats the Sodom text as if we can and should choose between
homosexual sin and other sins (rape, inhospitality) as the focus of the passage.
Again, why be forced to choose? If a man rapes a single woman, he is guilty both
of rape per se but also, in some sense, of fornication (certainly lust as well) and of
violence.The presence of one sin does not eliminate the others.We often com-
pound our sins.
Scripture as a whole treats the people of Sodom as wicked in multiple ways.
White quotes Ezekiel 16:48-49, but he
mistranslates the final passage as “They
were arrogant and
this was abominable in God’s eyes.”
23
A more accurate transla-
tion is “They were haughty and did an abomination before me” (
ESV). Robert
Gagnon discusses how this arrogance leading to abomination (rather than arro-
gance as an abomination) must be understood as a reference to the depravity of
homosexual sin.
24
In other words, White wants to reduce the passage to saying
something simple like “They were arrogant and their arrogance was abominable,”
but the better understanding of the passage is “They were arrogant and in their
arrogance they did arrogant, abominable things.”This is consistent then with the
understanding of the sin of Sodom seen in Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2:6-8.The sin of
Sodom was arrogance
and attempted sexual violence and sexual depravity and
many other evils. Once again, it is not either/or.
Leviticus: White dismisses the teachings of Leviticus with some superficial reason-
ing by 1) construing it to be a “Holiness Code,” defined as “a list of behaviors that
people of faith find offensive in a certain time and place,” 2) asserting the code
to have been “written for priests only,” and further 3) claiming that “Jesus and
Paul both said that the holiness code in Leviticus does not pertain to Christian
believers.”
Each of these assertions is false: 1) How can White claim that a moral viola-
tion lik
e incest (Leviticus 18) is something only offensive at a certain time and
place? If Leviticus is nothing more than a temporary holiness code, the conclu-
sion that incest, rape, and other offenses are mere matters of cultural taste follows;
this is obviously unacceptable. 2) Many of the regulations in this book of the
Bible apply to the entire people of Israel, not just the priests, as any casual glance
will indicate.
25
Also, note how the book often addresses “all the sons of Israel”
(e.g., Leviticus 17:2), and not just the priests. 3) Note that White does not say
where Jesus and Paul make these comments dismissing Leviticus.Where are these
Stanton L. Jones
24
passages? Until he clarifies, we would refer the reader to the earlier discussion of
Jesus’ views of sexual ethics. Jesus clearly accepted, built on, deepened and even
radicalized the Old Testament teachings on sexual morality. It is particularly prob-
lematic for White to suggest that Paul thinks Leviticus is irrelevant. In a later sec-
tion,White invokes “the mystery of
arsenokoitai,” the unusual word Paul uses in
1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 that is commonly translated “homosexu-
al sin.” This mystery is not such a mystery, and in its unraveling, we see a more
complex picture of Paul’s use of Leviticus.
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would
a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-edu-
cated Jew writing to Gentiles in the common language of the day, Greek, and
probably using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day,
the Septuagint or LXX, for his Scripture quotations. The Greek translation of
these Leviticus passages condemns a man
(arseno) lying with (koitai) another man
(arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in
Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as
we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1 Corinthians
and 1 Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
Leviticus 20:13 (in LXX):
If a man (Greek
arseno) lies (Greek koiten) with a man . . .
Neither the . . . homosexual offenders (
arsenokoitai) . . .
1 Corinthians 6:10
So the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1 Corinthians and
1 Timothy is
a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: homosexual sex (a
“man-lier”). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly
invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin. He is saying,
“Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Don’t do that!”
Paul, far from dismissing Leviticus, is drawing on it as the very foundation of his
teaching on homosexual conduct.
White also sa
ys in this section that “in every age, people of faith are responsi-
ble for setting moral and ethical standards that honor God.”This claim should set
off alarm bells for us. Christians have historically thought that it was
God’s pre-
rogative to set the moral and ethical standards that will give him honor and glory;
it is our proper response to obey. Jesus said it clearly:“Whoever has
my commands
and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by
my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21,
NIV).
The Apostle John, remembering those words at the end of his life, wrote in
25
1 John 2:4,“The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do what he commands
is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (NIV, emphasis added).This is the Christian
way—to submit to God as the law-giver, not to assert ourselves as law-makers.
Finally, White invokes the common misunderstanding of the story of Onan.
This is misdirection. In Genesis 38 it is clear that Onan “spilling his seed” was a
sin not because of the seed hitting the ground, but because Onan disobeyed God’s
direct command
26
to establish an heir for his dead brother and his brother’s
widow, thus securing the widow’s future and the continuity of the brother’s name
in Israel’s history.
Romans: White (using Smedes) repeats a common misunderstanding of Paul’s key
passage in Romans 1. He claims that Paul here is speaking about the lives of indi-
vidual sinners. It is as if Paul is claiming that the way an
individual person becomes
a homosexual is by first refusing to acknowledge and worship God, resulting in
hardening of heart, abandonment by God, and then homosexuality. But this is a
distortion of Paul’s meaning.
27
Paul, in Romans, is making a theological argument about the whole human
race. He argues basically that when we
cor
porately,
as a human race, refuse to
acknowledge and worship God, the result is a hardening of heart, which results
in God’s judgment.This judgment then results in a multitude of obvious distor-
tions and depravities as humanity rebels even against the obvious designs of
nature (our bodies). Paul brings in homosexual lust as an obvious (to him and to
his audience) example (and that is all it is, an example) of just how devastatingly
complete the distortion of sin can become. When we can no longer recognize
what is “natural” (man and woman together completing each other and capable
of reproducing themselves, all by God’s design) and instead burn with passion for
the “unnatural,” the devastation of sin is obvious! Paul’s argument here is about
our common plight as humans, not about individuals. In the process of making
this theological argument, Paul is obviously affirming the continuing validity of
the moral judgment of the Old Testament that homosexual sex is immoral.
1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy: Dr. White summarizes the thrust of 1 Corinthians as
Paul’s exclamation that “You are breaking God’s heart by the way you are treat-
ing one another.” But clearly Paul is agitated by something else as well; he is dis-
tressed that the Corinthians, despite God’s grace, are sinning against their just and
loving God—particularly that they are sinning sexually.
White says, “Paul tells them that what God wants is not strict adherence to a
list of laws, but a pure heart, a good conscience, and a faith that is not phony.”Yet
again, White leaves out key aspects of Paul’s meaning in this simple and selective
summary, and thus distorts Paul’s meaning. White continues, arguing that “God
doesn’t want us squabbling over who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out.’ God wants us to love
one another
. It’s God’s task to judge us. It is NOT our task to judge one another.”
This is a poor inter
pr
etation of P
aul’s argument. Let’s look at the words of the
Stanton L. Jones
26
apostle himself. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 4:4-5 Paul admonishes the Corinthians,
saying,“I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquit-
ted. It is the Lord who judges me.Therefore do not pronounce judgment before
the time, before the Lord comes.” But immediately Paul launches into
precisely the
kind of moral argument White so wants to avoid.
He first singles out a specific and
heinous type of sexual immorality: “It is actually reported that there is sexual
immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans,
for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! [apparently in their toler-
ance of this sin] Ought you not rather to mourn?” (5:1-2a).And then Paul moves
to judge and discipline this sexual immorality: “Let him who has done this be
removed from among you” (5:2b). Sexual immorality is in fact such a problem in
the Corinthian church that Paul must expand his argument and explicitly call for
judgment and discipline: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sex-
ually immoral people” (5:9);“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it
not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.
‘Purge the evil person from among you’” (5:12-13,
ESV).
This then leads Paul to the culmination of his argument when, under God’s
inspiration, he explicitly teaches about the relationship of our behavior to our
eternal fate:
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
[malakois] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] nor thieves
nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the king-
dom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NIV)
Later, we will discuss the broader meaning of this passage in terms of God’s grace
and love. For now, let’s focus again on the meaning of
malakois and arsenokoitai.
White advances his argument for the acceptance of homosexual conduct by lim-
iting and confusing the meaning of these two key Greek words. Both of these
words,
malakois and arsenokoitai, are compound words (like our “software” or
“database”) and, respectively, mean literally “soft ones” and “man-liers” (or as J. I.
Packer interprets it, “man-bedders”). Dr. John Stott has a complete discussion of
the meaning of the Apostle Paul in these Corinthians and Timothy passages.
White’s limiting of the word
malakois to mean “effeminate call boys” or “hired
hairless y
oung boys” is too restricted as an interpretation of this term. Stott
reflects the much more commonly shared view that this term refers to the “pas-
sive partner” in a homosexual pairing. In the ancient world, men were often pre-
sumed the active sexual partner and the woman as the passive sexual recipient,
and so this term most likely means the “one who receives as a woman” in a
homosexual pairing.
White’s construal of the meaning of
arsenokoitai is not just too restrictive, it is
problematic.We discussed the meaning of the term
arsenokoitai in our earlier dis-
27
cussion above about Leviticus.The arsenokoitai are those who are active partners
in a homosexual liaison; people who do precisely what the Levitical commands
prohibit. Stott’s discussion, in contrast to White, reflects the prevailing view of
contemporary biblical scholars.
Summary of the biblical material: In conclusion, what can we say about the ques-
tion of whether or not the Bible condemns homosexual conduct? No less of a
respected and central figure in 20th-century Christian theology than Wolfhart
Pannenberg (no raving fundamentalist) has stated that “The biblical assessments
of homosexual practice are unambiguous in their rejection.” Further, he stated
that “the entire biblical witness includes practicing homosexuality without
exception among the kinds of behavior that give particularly striking expression
to humanity’s turning away from God.”
28
Dan Via, professor emeritus of New Testament at Duke Divinity School and
a “progressive” working actively to increase full acceptance of gays in the church,
nevertheless recently conceded that “The four pertinent Old Testament texts . . .
present an unambiguous and unconditional condemnation of homosexuality.”
29
Then broadening his focus to the entire Bible,Via says,“Christians who want to
take an open, nontraditional position on this [i.e., on homosexual practice]
should be able to find biblical support for it. Of course, the few biblical texts that
deal explicitly with the subject offer no such support.”
30
This does not stop Via
from arguing for full acceptance, but at least he concedes that the explicit teach-
ings of Scripture are against his views.
The Bible speaks infrequently of homosexual conduct. When it does, it is
unequivocally and forcefully negative.White has given us little reason to change
that understanding.The biblical evidence is for a wide-ranging and fundamental
condemnation of all homosexual intimacy.
Before closing out our discussion of the teachings of the Bible on sexuality,
we raise a question for the reader:What sexual ethic would White and others like
him put in place of the traditional understanding? Remember our depiction of
that traditional teaching at the beginning of this document: God blesses full sex-
ual intimacy between a man and a woman united in a life-long union; he also
blesses and praises chastity of unmarried people. All other expressions of sexual
union are outside his will.What would replace this view?
Note that White never states positively what his sexual ethic is. He never says,
for example, that homosexual persons should remain chaste until marriage and
remain utterly faithful to their one life-long partner until death. Also note that
the support offered by Soulforce for bisexual persons (as a class) would mean that
the group
cannot be advocating monogamy as Christians have traditionally under-
stood it; after all, what can monogamy mean for a person whose inclinations
demand partners of both genders? If our orientations are a gift from God and are
the di
vine indicators that shape our morality, what moral norms are there beyond
our o
wn inclinations? (Ar
e w
e thus laws unto ourselves?)
Stanton L. Jones
28
These are not mere speculative concerns. We quote here biblical scholar
Robert A. J. Gagnon on the departures from the traditional sexual ethic that are
being advocated actively in the Christian church today:
31
Even respectable male homosexual activists have long been making the
point that the principle of monogamy is too stifling. For example, Andrew
Sullivan, a senior editor at
The New Republic and a well-known columnist
(and a homosexual man [who also, we would note, identifies himself as a
Roman Catholic]), wrote in his book
Virtually Normal: An Argument about
Homosexuality
(Random House, 1996):
There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramari-
tal outlets between two men than between a man and a woman; and again,
the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom. . . . Marriage should
be made available to everyone. . . . But within this model, there is plenty of
scope for cultural difference.There is something baleful about the attempt of
some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and lesbians into an uncrit-
ical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual normality. (pp. 200-204)
Marvin Ellison, professor of Christian ethics at Bangor Theological
Seminary and an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA) (and
homosexual man), calls for a “broader debate” on the subject of multiple part-
ners in
Same-Sex Marriage? A Christian Ethical Analysis (Pilgrim Press, 2004):
Should marriage, as the legal sanctioning of an intimate sexual affiliation,
be limited to two and only two persons . . . ? Should religious communities
bless multiple coexisting sexual partnerships? Surely one concern with
polyamorous affiliations is exploitation, or what feminist critics of polygamy
have called an “excess of patriarchy.” But how exactly does the number of
partners affect the moral quality of the relationship? This question requires
a serious answer. Could it be that limiting intimate partnerships to only two
people at a time is no guarantee of avoiding exploitation, and expanding
them to include more than two parties is no guarantee that the relationship
will be exploitative? (p. 155)
He also asks,
“How might it be possible to break with compulsory monogamy
and make marriage genuinely elective, as a vocation (or calling) for some but
not all?” (p. 154). . . .
The Metropolitan Community Churches bill themselves as “a worldwide
fellowship of Christian churches with a special outreach to the world’s gay, les-
bian, bisexual and transgender communities” and “the world’s largest gay and
lesbian spirituality organization.” Their 2005 General Conference in Calgary
(Alberta, Canada, July 21-26) included the presentation or workshops:
29
Building Closets or Opening Doors (Polyamory), Fran Mayes. Have we
who know the freedom of coming out to live without fear or shame created
our own MCC closets? The stories of some of us who love and/or partner
with more than one other person will be presented as told to me for my dis-
sertation “Polyamory and Holy Union in UFMCC”. . . .
Questions for Reflection
1. Has White presented a compelling case for overturning the historic understanding and
teaching of the Church about homosexual conduct?
2.What ethic will replace the traditional ethic if it is displaced?
White’s Sixth Premise
“The biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it
today. They neither approve it nor condemn it.”
White is even stronger in stating his premise within this section than he is in his
initial summary, saying:“The Biblical authors
knew nothing of homosexual orien-
tation as we understand it, and therefore said nothing to condemn or approve it.”
Here,White claims that, more than simply being silent, the biblical authors
knew
nothing
of homosexual orientation. This is an interesting claim—to not only
know what the biblical writers wrote but even what they knew.
Further,White paints a picture of complete ignorance about homosexual ori-
entation before the 19th century, and suggests that the only kind of homosexual
practice the biblical writers would have known might have been “the rituals of the
priests and priestesses who pranced around the statues of Aphrodite and Diana.”
Modern scholarship has established that this is simply wrong. It is true that the
biblical passages do not invoke directly the modern idea of sexual orientation. But
it is worth noting that Romans 1:26-27 does not simply speak of behavior, but
invokes the idea of people “consumed with passion for one another,” a descrip-
tion that clearly bears some resemblance to the concept of an erotic orientation.
More importantly, modern archeological and historical study has established
that an idea like that of our sexual orientation was well-established in the ancient
world, though obviously that modern English term was not used. In Greece and
Rome
, there was sufficient awareness of homosexual inclination to engender dis-
cussion of causal hypotheses about homosexuality (“These people are different;
why are they that way?”).There was even a fairly well-developed (though primi-
tive) biological hypothesis for the causation of male and female homosexuality that
suggested that these persons were somehow an “in-between” gender (a speculation
which is not unlike the current brain and cognitive research that keeps finding
ways in which gays and lesbians are “gender atypical”).
32
White is actually wrong
that Ulrichs was a great originator, because Ulrichs was so taken with the specu-
Stanton L. Jones
30
lations of the ancient Greeks and Romans that he actually used their terms to
advance his own speculations. This all means that Paul—a citizen of the Greco-
Roman empire—inhabited a sexual world not unlike ours today, a world in which
there was wide awareness and discussion of a multitude of sexual variations. In that
context, Paul continues to proclaim that homosexual sex is contrary to God’s will.
We should also discuss briefly the claim by White that “The Biblical authors
. . . said nothing to condemn or approve” homosexual orientation. In a sense, this
is true. The biblical authors focus on behavior, not on what motivates it. White
wants us to believe somehow that this opens up the possibility of the acceptance
of the homosexual lifestyle, but it would appear that the opposite is the result:
The biblical focus on conduct (which we all can control) rather than orientation
(which we do not directly choose or will) appears to establish the basis on which
we can with integrity separate a person’s conduct, conduct which we view as
immoral, from our love and care for the person who engages in that conduct.
This does not lead to the conclusion that homosexual orientation is itself
morally neutral; after all, it is not what God would have intended for the person
who has such inclinations. Homosexual orientation is a proclivity toward a cer-
tain kind of sin, and in a biblical/creational sense, is “not natural.”This is the point
made by the Roman Catholic Church in the recent Vatican Letter
Homosexualitatis Problema in saying that “Although the particular inclination of
the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered
toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an
objective disorder.”
33
But simply having the orientation itself is not the same as actively commit-
ting a sin; God is concerned with what we do with our inclinations. Heterosexual
males often struggle with their inclinations to be promiscuous; despite a desire to
be sexually pure, most heterosexual men are “oriented” to be attracted to many
women. Is this inclination toward promiscuity morally neutral? Of course not; it
is itself part of our moral brokenness.Though it is “natural” in the sense of being
common and not chosen, it is profoundly “unnatural” in falling far from what
God meant us to experience.This sinful inclination gives rise to the opportuni-
ty to sin, but God wants us to respond with integrity and choose what is right.
Similarly, God is concerned with what homosexual persons do with their
inclinations. Mel White, as he publicly acknowledges, was married with children
before he “came out,” at which time he left his wife and children and began liv-
ing with his male par
tner.While his pain and struggle were no doubt enormous,
was his violation of his marriage covenant and his embrace of an adulterous affair
his only options, and were they options honoring to God?
Finally, has White clearly established that “the writers of the Scripture are not
the final authorities on human sexuality”? Isn’t this precisely what we should be
affirming as Christians? That God, the author of the Bible through the inspira-
tion of its human authors, is the final authority on human sexuality and that we
hear his wisdom in the Bible?
31
Questions for Reflection
1.The Credo of Soulforce says,“My sexual orientation is a gift from my Creator to be accept-
ed, celebrated, and lived with integrity.” Is any orientation that is “natural” (in the sense
of not being consciously chosen but rather resulting from factors outside our control) a gift
from the Creator to be accepted, celebrated, and lived with integrity? If so, what about a
heterosexual orientation toward promiscuity, or toward polyamory or sexual violence?
2.What separates acceptable and unacceptable orientations? If we bring in factors other than
that the orientation is “natural” (unchosen), then how are those criteria justified, and
why is the Christian judgment that same-sex conduct is immoral viewed as invalid?
White’s Seventh Premise
“Although the prophets, Jesus, and other biblical authors say nothing about
homosexual orientation as we understand it today, they are clear about one
thing: As we search for truth, we are to ‘love one another.’”
In this passage,White links traditional views on homosexual immorality with sci-
entific ignorance, considerably overstating and twisting the historical issues of
Copernicus and Galileo.
34
But White raises what must be, along with the ques-
tion of what the Bible teaches, the other most central issue in this debate:What
does it mean to love the homosexual person?
See John Stott’s discussion of the meaning of faith, hope, and love as applied
to the issue of homosexuality in
Same-Sex Partnerships, Chapter 6 (pp. 69-83).
For White, love means acceptance. He urges us to respond with “We don’t under-
stand your views about sexual orientation, but we love and trust you. As long as
you love God and seek God’s will in your life, you are welcome here.”The major
problem with this must be that White presupposes that
love is acceptance and toler-
ance.
But is that what love means in Scripture?
We must again cite a key teaching of our Lord Jesus:“Whoever has my com-
mands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be
loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him” (John 14:21,
NIV). Obedience is linked to love by our Lord, and so if our highest goal is to lead
other
s to lo
ve the Lord of the universe, how can we truly be loving others if we
do not lead them to consider obedience to God’s commands as the highest
expression of that love for God?
Further, to cite an old (but valid) truism, if a child is sick and in need of sur-
gery, it is the cruel parent who avoids the pain of the surgery that can make the
child well in favor of masking the pain with drugs while avoiding the surgery.
The lo
ving par
ent accompanies the child through the pain in or
der that the
child’s ultimate well-being might be attained.
Stanton L. Jones
32
We are all sick indeed. Sin is our diagnosis. If Scripture teaches that homosex-
ual conduct is one clear and distinct type of sin, are we acting in love if we mask
or cover that over? Here, the issue again reduces to the question of what the Bible
teaches: if it teaches that homosexual conduct is sin, then it is cruelty, not love, to
pretend that this life-pattern is one to which God is indifferent. Traditionally,
Christians have taken Paul’s instruction quite seriously:
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. And
that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you
were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11, NIV)
Paul’s teaching here is not that any person who ever experiences homosexual
desire or who has engaged in homosexual acts will not inherit the kingdom of
God and go to hell. His clear meaning here is rather that those who give their
lives to patterns of behavior that constitute active rebellion against God’s revealed
will are evidencing a rejection of God’s grace and a rejection of the Lordship of
Christ over their lives. These persons in rebellion against God cannot expect to
inherit the kingdom of God.
And here we must briefly mention a subject that White does not mention at
all: healing. “And that is what some of you were,” says the Apostle Paul (1
Corinthians 6:11). At the very least, this statement must mean that some whose
lives were dominated by homosexual sin had forsaken that sin and found freedom
from sexual sin to live a chaste single life. Perhaps it means as well that some had
found a more complete healing that allowed them the fullness of heterosexual
experience in marriage. John Stott discusses this issue in
Same-Sex Partnerships,
Chapter 6 (pp. 73-78), and I do as well in The Gay Debate and much more fully
in Chapter 5 of my book
Homosexuality.
35
Exodus International is an organiza-
tion that links and coordinates the many ministries dedicated to pursuing heal-
ing and freedom for people experiencing same-sex attraction and sexual broken-
ness; their website http://www.exodus.to is full of resources and testimonials of
those who claim significant healing.
What constitutes a lo
ving response to someone whose life seems directed
toward
not inheriting the kingdom of God? The greatest act of love would be to
help such a person get to a place of being washed in the blood of Jesus, of begin-
ning the process of being sanctified, and of achieving justification in the name of
the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.Yes, we must do this with
patience, kindness, gentleness—indeed with all of the gifts of the Holy Spirit—
but a loving confrontation with the moral teachings of the Bible is part of what
it means to speak the truth in love.
33
Finally, note this: If we want to live a life of love and believe that our God is
love, then we can best understand how to love by looking to God’s own actions
as the perfect model of love.A pattern of loving confrontation with the reality of
our sin is the pattern modeled by God himself in his relationship with his peo-
ple, and this is as true of the actions of Jesus as in God’s other dealings with his
wayward people.
God is not indifferent to our sinful behavior. If we aspire to be loving
as God
is loving,
then we cannot turn our backs on his own expressions and descriptions
of how he is loving. And we find the Scriptures simply filled with examples of
God coupling his condemnation of the sin of his people with his loving pleas for
us to return to him for his mercy and to live with him while striving to live
according to his will. Moral condemnation is not inconsistent with love. God’s
moral condemnations are both an expression of his just character (he cannot
not
condemn what is wrong) and of his loving character (he condemns in order to
redeem and save).
White also invokes the following argument, though only implicitly:
Homosexual people who claim faith in Christ seem to exhibit evidence of the
Spirit of God in their lives, so shouldn’t we then allow them full fellowship and
remain agnostic about whether their homosexual conduct is sinful? This reduces
logically to the following argument:
Morally questionable behavior in one area can be
ignored if there is evidence of virtue and/or of the Spirit in other areas of life.
But this argu-
ment is invalid.The Apostle Paul condemns precisely this sort of reasoning in his
confrontations with the Corinthians who felt that their manifestation of the mirac-
ulous gifts of the Spirit exempted them from the moral demands of God’s will.
Questions for Reflection
1. Is it possible to truly love a person when expressing that their behavior is immoral?
2. Can love be disconnected from confrontation over sin?
3. Is it loving to accept the behavior of persons who are engaged in sinful life patterns?
White’s Eighth Premise
“Whatever some people believe the Bible says about homosexuality, they must
not use that belief to deny homosexuals their basic civil rights. To discriminate
ag
ainst sexual or gender minorities is unjust and un-American.”
What a complex web of issues this premise raises. First, note that Soulforce is
seeking to change the moral teachings of the Christian church, as they regard
these teachings as the source of the “spiritual violence” and the “religious and
political oppression” of homosexual persons. Their basic argument seems to be
that the only way to establish full civil rights for gays and lesbians is to change
the moral teachings of the Church and its various institutions. But it is a basic
Stanton L. Jones
34
civil right, a Constitutional right from the First Clause of the Bill of Rights, that
Americans have the right to free exercise of religious belief.
36
Exercising that
right, we traditional Christians proclaim the teachings of the Bible, including the
judgment that homosexual conduct is immoral.We form religious organizations,
like Wheaton College, that conform with our religious beliefs. Is there any para-
dox or inconsistency when, in the name of civil rights, Soulforce seeks to
force the
people who make up the traditional Church (including the institution of
Wheaton College) to change our moral and ethical teachings?
Second, we must ask if “homosexual persons” or “homosexuals” is a legitimate
class. In some senses,
of course there is such a thing as the group “homosexuals.”
But let’s think carefully:Are “homosexuals” a “class” (a human categorization that
somehow reflects an ultimate and enduring reality) like human beings or males
or females, or is this categorization a temporary human construction like
Republicans and Democrats, or more to the point, is it one like adulterers, cate-
gorized by a pattern of sinful behavior? Scripture itself seems to treat people like
a class based on their behavior (those who commit adultery are considered to be
adulterers), but clearly this is a class that can change, as adulterers can cease to be
in that class when they cease their adulterous behavior.
If the biblical focus on sexual behavior is primary, then maybe treating sexu-
al orientation as we treat gender is mistaken. If classes of persons grouped by their
sexual behavior (or appetites), “sexual minorities,” can be defined this way, what
about those even smaller minorities who are oriented toward polyamory (the
“love” of multiple partners) or sexual violence?
Think about Soulforce’s description of homosexual persons as “sexual or gen-
der minorities” as well as their invocation of the memory of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. Certainly homosexual persons are a minority in a statistical sense, but are
homosexual persons “minorities” as racial minorities are? Many African-
Americans, including individuals as different as Jesse Jackson and Thomas Sowell,
utterly reject the linkage of the quest for “gay civil rights” with the Civil Rights
Movement in the U.S., and many are deeply offended that homosexual advocates
seek to parallel sexual orientation and race.
37
Finally, the debate about homosexual persons in a pluralistic and secular
American culture is not one simply of granting or recognizing rights, but rather
one of
conflicts of rights:
38
What of the right, grounded in freedom of religion, of
a pastor to call homosexual conduct a sin from the pulpit? Does a Christian
wido
w renting out a room in her house have a right not to support an immoral
lifestyle by not renting her room to a gay couple? What of the right of the
Christian bookstore owner (or a college or church, for that matter) to not hire a
person whose moral lifestyle is unacceptable by that owner’s beliefs?
These are not hypothetical concerns. In recent years, a number of very trou-
bling incidents have occurred in Canada, which is a few years ahead of the U.S.
in its acceptance of gay rights and the legal force applied against those who are
seen as “intolerant.”The following are a few of the most alarming precedents:
39
35
• A Catholic high school was forced by the courts to allow a gay teen to bring
his male romantic interest to the school prom despite the explicit and reli-
giously-based behavior code of the school.
• “Marriage commissioners” (the Canadian equivalent of justices of the peace)
have been told to resign their public posts if they intend, based on their reli-
gious beliefs, to refuse to perform homosexual marriages.
• An evangelical Christian placed an ad in a local newspaper, the
Saskatchewan
Star Phoenix,
to protest growing acceptance of homosexuality. The ad sim-
ply superimposed on two male stick figures a red circle and bar (the univer-
sal symbol for “not allowed”), with four Scripture references underneath
(and no other commentary). He was convicted of a hate crime, and the
judge suggested that the Bible verses could be construed as hate literature.
• A professional printer who owned his own company refused to print mate-
rial for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives because it violated his reli-
gious beliefs. He was fined and forced to print the material against his will.
He lost all appeals and was left with $170,000 in legal fees.
• A school psychologist was declared guilty of “conduct unbecoming a
member of the British Columbia College of Teachers” for authoring a news-
paper editorial questioning the “wisdom of promoting the homosexual
agenda.” This “conviction” in a professional society was appealed to the
courts but was not overturned.
In recent days Swedish pastor Ake Green was convicted of hate speech for call-
ing homosexual conduct a sin in a sermon. His conviction was upheld through
lower Swedish courts, and overturned only in the Swedish Supreme Court, and
then only on the basis that the conviction would likely have been overturned in
the high court of the European Union.
40
Christians should join in the rejection and prevention of violence toward gay
and lesbian peoples.We should strive to contribute to a society where the basic
civil rights of all persons are protected before the law. But as is commonly debat-
ed today, where does the protection of
basic civil liberties end and the assertion
of
special rights for a “protected class” begin? And when does the advancement of
“basic civil rights” for homosexual persons begin to erode the basic civil right of
freedom of religion for individual Christians (and non-Christians) and for groups
and institutions of Christians?
Questions for Reflection
1. Are there ways in which the right of free exercise of religion is in tension with the
“basic civil rights” of homosexual persons?
2. What are the “basic civil rights” of homosexual persons?
Stanton L. Jones
36
Conclusion
Dr. Mel White is an effective communicator, but is his argument valid that we can
read the Bible somehow to be permissive of homosexual, bisexual, and transgen-
der lifestyles?
You find in White’s document very little in the way of a deep reading of the
message of the Bible. Instead, we encounter a series of arguments—a rhetorical
or persuasive strategy—that utilizes the following techniques:
• He draws us into reading the Bible
through tragic stories of the victimization
of gay and lesbian people, stories that are truly tragedies but told in a way
that elicits from us guilt and empathy that predisposes us to distance our-
selves from any moral condemnation of homosexual behavior.
• He strips or reduces complex scriptural passages to limited core teachings in
such a way as to pass over or bury the rich and challenging additional mean-
ings they embody.
• He raises doubts and fuels skepticism about the meaning of passages that
have been essentially clear in the eyes of the Church for millennia.
• In the end, he proposes no clear Christian sexual ethic to replace the one he
has sought to displace, rather just leaving us with the vague sense that gay,
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals are nice, trustworthy people
whom we should affirm and accept.
In contrast, I urge you to consider again the core of what we understand to be
the Gospel:The sovereign and loving God of the universe made us and loves us.
We all are tainted with the contagion of sin, and we all rebel against God.We are
all sexual beings by design, and our sexual natures reflect both creation and the
fall, and are exceedingly mysterious, complex, deep, and conflicted. God revealed
his truth and will for our lives, including his moral guidance for all of humanity,
and did so both to diagnose our sinfulness and to guide us in our faltering efforts
to follow him and express our love for him. And he sent his son Jesus to die for
us and rise in triumph over death for us that we might be forgiven, adopted as
his children, and live new lives as we abide in him.
As one small but clear part of his guidance for our lives, we have seen how
there is clarity and consistency to the traditional understanding of sexual ethics
derived from the Bible, and that in this ethic homosexual conduct is clearly con-
demned as contrary to God’s will.There are good reasons to see these moral laws
as binding today. And quite significantly, we have seen that this Christian under-
standing offers hope to the homosexual person: hope for forgiveness of sins, hope
for release from bondage to sexual and other sins, hope for grace and fulfillment
in life submitted to sexual purity and healing, hope that the entire Church will
embrace these per
sons exper
iencing same-sex attraction as fello
w sinner
s and as
fello
w disciples who follo
w the Risen Lor
d in obedience and humility
.
37
Brothers and sisters, trust the Gospel, for in it we find life. Hear the Apostle
John at the end of his life (1 John 1:5-2:6;
ESV):
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is
light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him
while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk
in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the
blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we
say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin.
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for
the sins of the whole world. And by this we know that we have come to know
him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says “I know him” but does not
keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps
his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that
we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in
which he walked.
Amen.
Stanton L. Jones
38
Recommendations For Further Study on Homosexuality
The Exodus International website http://www.exodus.to is a good source for up-to-
date practical resources, including testimonials for those who have left the “gay
lifestyle” in various ways.This site is particularly useful for those seeking help.
Brief introductions to this complex issue:
John Stott, Same-Sex Partnerships?: A Christian Perspective (Revell/Baker, 1998).
J. I. Packer,“Why I walked: Sometimes loving a denomination requires you to fight.”
Christianity Today, Jan/03, pp 46-50.
Stanton L. Jones,“The loving opposition: Speaking the truth in a climate of hate.”
Christianity Today, 7/19/93, pp. 18-25. (Original version of The Gay Debate)
For practical/clinical help:
See the Exodus International website http://www.exodus.to for current resources.
Mark A.Yarhouse & Erica S. N.Tan (2004). Sexual Identity Synthesis: Attributions,
Meaning-Making, and the Search for Congruence. Lanham, MD: University Press of
America.
Mark A.Yarhouse & Lori A. Burkett (2003). Sexual Identity: A Guide to Living in the
Time Between the Times. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Robert Davies and Lori Rentzel, Coming Out of Homosexuality (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1993).
Mario Bergner, Setting Love in Order (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995)
Theological and other resources:
Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001).
(scholarly; core resource)
Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Why the Disagreement Over the Biblical Witness on
Homosexual Practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni,What God Has
Joined T
ogether?” Reformed Review, Autumn 2005, 59 (1), pp. 19-130.
Available at https://repository.westernsem.edu/pkp/index.php/rr/article/
view/1548; retrieved February 17, 2006.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, “The Bible and homosexual practice:Theology, analogies, and
genes.”
Theology Matters, 7 (6), Nov/Dec, 2001, pp. 1-13. (at https://
www.theologymatters.com/NovDec01.PDF; click Back Issues, Nov/Dec 01)
See other Gagnon resources at http://www.robgagnon.net/
Stanton L. Jones and Mark A.Yarhouse, Homosexuality:The Use of Scientific Research in
the Church’s Moral Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
Updated in Jones, S., & Kwee, A.W. (2005). Scientific research, homosexuality,
and the Church’s moral debate:An update, Journal of Psychology and Christianity,
24 (4), 304-316.
Dan O.Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible:Two Views.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality
Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993).
Stanley Grenz, Welcoming But Not Affirming:An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality
(Westminster John Knox Press, 1998).
39
En
dnotes
1. This basic position has been reiterated repeatedly in history; note for instance the way this is framed
in the Heidelberg Catechism:“Q. 108. What does the seventh commandment [‘Thou shall not commit adultery’]
teach us? A.That all unchastity is condemned by God, and that we should therefore detest it from the heart,
and live chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life. Q. 109. Does God forbid noth-
ing more than adultery and such gross sins in this commandment? A. Since both our body and soul are a temple
of the Holy Spirit, it is his will that we keep both pure and holy.Therefore he forbids all unchaste actions,
gestures, words, thoughts, desires and whatever may excite another person to them.”
2. See, for example, the explication of the 7
th
Commandment in the Westminster Longer Catechism,
Questions 137-139, as just one piece of evidence that this has been the stable teaching of the Christian
church over time.
3. In this area,Wheaton College stands with the consistent teaching of the Christian church, here
well-represented by the consistent teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, on November 4,
2005, the Vatican issued its “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with
regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy
Orders,” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/
rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html and retrieved December 8, 2005. Quoting from that
letter:
“From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium,
and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homo-
sexuality.The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.
“Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins.The Tradition has con-
stantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no
circumstance can they be approved.
“Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objec-
tively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with
respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.They are called
to fulfill God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may
encounter.”
The footnote reference for these paragraphs (fn 8) cites previous statements from the Roman magis-
terium, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church “(editio typica, 1997), nn. 2357-2358” and also various
Documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith including the “Declaration Persona Humana
on certain questions concerning sexual ethics (29 December 1975)” and the “Letter Homosexualitatis
Problema to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (1 October
1986);” the footnote further states that “With regard to homosexual inclinations, the Letter Homosexualitatis
Problema states that ‘Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more
or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen
as an objective disorder’ (n. 3).”
4. http://www.soulforce.org/main/mission.shtml; retrieved 8/3/05.
5. http://www.soulforce.org/main/step1.shtml; retrieved 8/3/05. Note that this articulation of the
views of Soulforce do not mean that these views characterize every member of Soulforce; individual mem-
bers may have religious views more or less in alignment with orthodox Christian views.
6. Philip Turner, “An unworkable theology,” First Things, June/July 2005, pp. 10-12; quote p. 12;
emphasis added. Available at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0506/opinion/turner.html
7. Timothy George,“The pattern of Christian truth,” First Things, June/July 2005, pp. 21-25. Available
at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0506/articles/george.html
8. Ibid.
9. For a recent and personal example of such conflict, read Dr. Robert Gagnon’s account of a current
controversy (as of May 2005) within the Presbyterian Church USA at
http://www.robgagnon.net/Achtemeier-LaymanControversy.htm ; pay particular attention to the way that
some parties avoid grappling with the question of when teachings or assertions depart from biblical teach-
ing in such controversies.
10. L.William Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their
Implications for Today (Fortress Press, 1988; quotes pp. 243-245).
Stanton L. Jones
40
11. Richard J. Neuhaus, for instance, provides a helpful and recent sketch of the considerable disagree-
ment within the American Catholic Church with the various authoritative teachings of the Church dis-
cussed here in fn 3 in his article “The Truce of 2005,” First Things, February 2006, pp. 55-61.
12. See the classic book, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer
Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s (New York: Plume/Penguin, 1990; quotes pp. 183, 189).
13. Often when the issue of prejudice is raised, advocates like White have in mind not an intellectual
prejudice but the seemingly “natural” response of many heterosexuals that there is something distasteful
about the idea of sex between two people of the same sex.The suggestion seems to be that anyone who
has such a reaction is “biased” and their views delegitimated. But is this a “prejudice,” or might it have
something to do with a deeply engrained and widely shared sense of what God intended as natural and
good (heterosexual sex) versus that which was not intended by creational design?
14. Two resources for this story: 1) Virginia Heffernan,“Was the killing of Shepard an anti-gay hate
crime?” New York Times, November 26, 2004, Sec. E, pg. 34; accessed electronically via Lexus-Nexus. 2)
ABC News, November 26, 2004,“New details emerge in Matthew Shepard murder,” retrieved October
25, 2005; at http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685&page=1
15. David Sisler,“Hate crimes,” retrieved May 6, 2005 at www.catholiceducation.org/articles/media/
me0033.html
16. For “sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:9), or for desertion (1 Corinthians 7:15); these “exceptions”
to the condemnation of divorce are widely debated. It is worth noting here that quite a number of writers
point to the issue of divorce as a powerful example of hypocrisy in the evangelical church.Why, they ask,
do evangelicals “go ballistic and absolutistic” on homosexual conduct and yet placidly accept rampant
divorce in their midst? I would argue that this point is an excellent one, but is our best answer to say “since
we have accepted morally lax standards on divorce we must also on homosexual conduct”? or is the better
answer to say,“You are right, and we must begin to treat divorce with the moral seriousness that Scripture
itself does while also maintaining its clear teachings on homosexual conduct.” It must be acknowledged,
though, that Scripture itself allows for divorce under certain circumstances, but that there are no circum-
stances where homosexual conduct is allowed.This means there will always be “gray” in the Church’s
teachings on divorce.
17. Prostitution is termed “wickedness” in Leviticus 19:29, throughout the Proverbs (e.g., 7:6-27), and
in other places in the Scriptures (e.g., Deuteronomy 23:18).
18. The developmental character of God’s special revelation of his will for our lives is obvious in
Scripture. In the New Testament we see a raising of the expectations when, for instance, Christ goes
beyond mere behavioral restrictions (adultery) to condemn even states of the heart (lust). It would appear
that God revealed more and more of his standards to his people as they were ready to understand and live
by those standards.This helps us to address polygamy, for example, which (like slavery) is described and
regulated (e.g., Deuteronomy 21:15-17) in the Scriptures, but never approved.The earliest biblical state-
ments about marriage undercut the practice of polygamy; after all, how can a man and woman become
one flesh, as in Genesis 2, when there are six women and one man? Yet God, in his mysterious wisdom,
chose not to try to forbid polygamy in early Israeli society but rather determined and willed that it would
simply die out as the Hebrew people grew in number and sophistication in understanding God’s work
among them and his will.
19. Deuteronomy 23:10.
20. See particularly Acts 10-11; 15:22-35.
21. On sanitation, Deuteronomy 23:12-13; on building codes, Deuteronomy 22:8.
22. This is discussed in chapter 5 of Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse,
Homosexuality:The Use of
Scientific Researc
h in the Churc
h’
s Moral Debate
(Do
wner
s Gr
ove: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
23. Emphasis added.
24.
Rober
t A. J. Gagnon, pp. 57-59, in Dan O.Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon,
Homosexuality and the
Bib
le:
T
wo
Views
.
(Minneapolis:
F
or
tr
ess,
2003). I should also add that were I to revise my 1994
The Ga
y
Debate today, I would change the way I dealt with this passage in light of Gagnon’s excellent treatment
cited her
e
. I failed to see how this passage
does addr
ess sexual sin.
25.
See
,
for example
,
the r
egulations about disease in Leviticus 13.
26. Deuteronomy 25:5-10.
27.
For a readable explanation of this, see chapter 4 of Thomas E. Schmidt,
Str
aight and Narrow?
;
for
the mor
e complete and scholarly tr
eatment,
see Rober
t
A. J. Gagnon,
The Bib
le and Homosexual Pr
actice
.
41
28. Wolfhart Pannenberg,“Homosexual Experience,” Christianity Today, November 11, 1996, pp. 35-
36. Quote p. 36.
29. Dan O.Via, p. 4, in Dan O.Via and Robert Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible:Two Views.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
30. Ibid., p. 29
31. This material quoted from Robert Gagnon’s website; retrieved August 17, 2005; this report is well
worth reading in full: http://www.robgagnon.net/HeterosexismResponsePart2Science.htm.
32. See Mark Smith, “Ancient bisexuality and the interpretation of Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of the
American Academy of Religion, 64 (Summer, 1996), pp. 223-256;William R. Schoedel,“Same-sex eros: Paul
and the Greco-Roman tradition” (pp. 43-72), in David Balch (Ed.), Homosexuality, Science, and the “Plain
Sense” of Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000); and Gagnon, Robert A. J., The Bible and Homosexual
Practice.
33. See reference in fn 3; published in the United States as “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic
Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” Documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987).
34. Shea,W. R.,“Galileo and the Church,” (pp. 114-135), and Westman, R. S.,“The Copernicans and
the churches” (pp. 76-113), in D. C. Lindberg & R. L. Numbers (Eds.), God and Nature: Historical Essays on
the Encounter between Christianity and Science (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1986). See also
the treatments of Copernicus and Galileo in Brooke, J. H., Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) and Russell, C. A., Cross-currents: Interactions between Science
and Faith (Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1985).
35. Jones and Yarhouse,
Homosexuality; ibid.
36. Note that early Christians had no such guaranteed right under Rome for free exercise, but rather
saw it as their obligation and joy to exercise and proclaim Christian faith even under threat of death.
37. As discussed in “Homosexuals hijack the civil rights bus: Claiming a ‘civil right’ to ‘marry’ the
same-sex demeans a genuine struggle for liberty and equality” by Janet M. LaRue at
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/hhcrb.pdf ; retrieved December 15, 2005.
38. See the paper referenced in the previous footnote for one interesting discussion of these issues.
39. From Chris Kempling,“Religious Freedom in Canada,” retrieved October 25, 2005, from
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html.
40. http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0038730.cfm
