What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart
In the early 2000's, Mark Achtemeier embarked on a personal journey with the Bible that led him from being a conservative, evangelical opponent of gay rights to an outspoken activist for gay marriage and a fully inclusive church. In "The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage," Achtemeier shares what led to his change of heart: the problems with excluding groups of people and the insights into the Bible's message that led him to recognize the fullness of God's love and support for LGBT persons. Readers will discover how reading snippets of Scripture out of context has led to false and misleading interpretations of the Bible's message for gay people. Achtemeier shows how a careful reading of the whole Scripture reveals God's good news about love, marriage, and sexuality for gay and straight people alike.
156 pages, Paperback
First published June 13, 2014
56 people are currently reading
524 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews
February 10, 2017
This is a book that is going to ruffle quite a few feathers. “The Bible’s Yes to Same Sex Marriage” touches on some hot-button issues that I believe are much too often hot-button simply out of a cultural, rejection-of-different, impulse rather than any genuine concern over the Word of God. I am a rather sympathetic ear to most things “liberal” and have close relationships with homosexuals and homosexuals who profess faith in Christ. This was a book I was interested to read and somewhat hesitant to read for the same reason. Achtemeier makes the claim that this work is going to show why the Bible does not simply allow for same sex relationships but even supports them. That proves to be rather ambitious endeavor, one to which it inevitably falls well short.
First off, this work, while proclaiming itself as focused on God’s word, is firmly rooted in personal experience. For the first few chapters there is barely more than a few cursory interactions with the word of God. Achtemeier sets out to elicit empathy from his reader by presenting multiple heart breaking cases he encountered of Christians suffering due to their sexual orientation. This is in the hopes that the reader be brought to the same point where Achtemeier found himself after interacting with many who suffered through the struggle of same-sex attraction and Scriptural fidelity. When he reaches the apex of all these experiences and emotions and whatnot, Achtemeier declares that, “(t)he combined weight of all this evidence forced me to conclude that the traditional condemnations were wrong.” After determining what was true, based on his own criteria of what the Christian life should be and based on the experience of people he encountered, Achtemeier then went to the Scriptures to work on making them fit his presuppositions. And, not too surprisingly, he found exactly what he was looking for.
One of those presuppositions that proved most debilitating to any search for truth in this matter was a basic prosperity mentality attached to his worldview. Now, this was not the insidious prosperity preaching that fills Housewives spin-offs and TBN telethons. It is the more subversive prosperity teaching that fills the pulpits of conservative churches and the minds of many, many Christians. It is the mindset that God simply wants good (translation: comfortable, suffering and sacrifice free) for his people. It is the mindset that God would never allow anything difficult to befall his children. It is Christianized-karma based on an over-realized eschatology that sees no place for suffering in the life of believers, and it filled these pages.
Nowhere was suffering even a genuine option. In fact, if suffering is involved then it is obviously not of God. Nowhere in these pages was there any room for a God would refuse to remove a thorn from the flesh of his child while simultaneously assuring him that “my grace is sufficient.” Nowhere in these pages was there room for a God who would say, “Have you considered my servant Job?” Nowhere in these pages was there room for a God who would listen to the cries of his beloved Son to “let this cup pass” and answer him with silence. For this reason, when we do reach suffering in these pages it must not be of God. When someone is suffering in their struggle against embracing same sex attraction the automatic answer becomes that they must be doing wrong in resisting. Not only that but we, as loving and empathetic imitators of Christ, must then make a way for them to embrace their same-sex attractions and be relieved of their suffer-filled resistance. There is no room in this work for the refining fires of suffering so the dross of sinful lives must instead be counted as gold.
It is an easy step for Achtemeier to remove the impetus from much of Scripture because throughout this work the he presumptuously sits in judgment over Scripture. This is clear in his first principle of examining Scripture. Achtemeier presents the primary means of determining the meaning (and the cultural relativity) of a passage as whether or not it makes “good, coherent sense.” “My ways are higher” does not fly in the realm of autonomous, ultimate Reason. Achtemeier could have called this the Jefferson Method or the Jesus Seminar Principle where the primary factor in determining the veracity of a passage is what the sovereign Self thinks about it. This relative, self-centered hermeneutic fits well in a world full of relativistic, self-centered people but it ignores the objective, God-centered truth of Scripture. In this same vein, Achtemeier lays an early foundation of a “cultural” defense against anything that the modern mind might find objectionable and follows it through to the end. He aids this by implicitly and then explicitly tying those who reject same sex relationships with the neo-Nazis, those who support slavery, and those who oppress women. I would say “well done”… but it wasn’t. It was cliché and unoriginal. As far as inflammatory rhetoric and poisoning the well goes, it was rather weak.
Achtemeier does engage Paul’s teaching on singleness but he never, to my recollection, addresses Paul’s contention about eunuchs, specifically those who are eunuchs “by nature”. Based on how he conflates the physical and the spiritual in his argument about “nature”, Achtemeier would have to concede that when Paul says some are “by nature” eunuchs, this would not just be limited to physical disabilities but could also be due to same sex attraction coupled with a biblical and/or cultural rejection of same-sex relationships. So, it is not only possible but probable that Paul could be referencing those with same-sex attraction as those who are “eunuchs by nature.”(i.e. celibate due to same-sex attraction)
This work severely minimizes the sufficiency of God, in the Scriptures and in himself. The Scriptures are not sufficient to base our life and beliefs. We must submit the Word of God to our experience, our logic, our opinions. This is not a new teaching. Achtemeier follows well in the 19th century Schleiermachian German liberalism through the gates of the Union Seminaries of the world to the mainline Protestantism he now finds himself championing. This is the wide and easy path of elevating experience and feeling over the objective truth of Scripture.
It also minimizes the sufficiency of Christ himself. It leaves the reader with the understanding that there is no possible way that Christ is enough. If people are not allowed to marry and/or to pursue their attractions then they cannot have joy. They cannot have peace. They will never be happy. This might be true but, if so, it just more clearly portrays Paul’s argument in Romans 1 about the idolatrous nature of sexual sin. Much of this work feels like a mantra of “I love my idol” followed by “I can serve God and my sexual orientation too!”
Achtemeier fails at proving that the Bible endorses same sex marriage for the same reason I would fail to prove Lebron James plays professional baseball with an issue of Sports Illustrated—it says the exact opposite because the opposite is true. Beyond his failure to make his point, the underlying premise that this work is based on love is shown faulty. This work does not arise out of a love of Scripture because it denies its sufficiency and authority (while giving lip service to both). It does not arise out of a love of God because it says that which God calls evil is good and questions his authority and goodness because he does not act in the manner that Achtemeier would see fit. And it does not arise out of love for those who suffer with same sex attraction, no matter how much Achtemeier might claim otherwise. Simply put, it is not loving to set out to convince people that their sin is ok with God. It is hateful and damning. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, need the Gospel, not an affirmation of their sins.
Instead of lamenting the fact that there is no way for homosexuals to enjoy an earthly marriage relationship, why not present Christ as the all-sufficient one who exceeds every desire we have? Instead of twisting and manipulating Scripture in order to alleviate good, biblical suffering, why not echo our Lord’s wonderful words to his cherished Paul when he said clearly that “my grace is sufficient for you?” Instead of encouraging those with serious, persistent sin to simply embrace it and call it good, why not encourage them to heed the words of our Savior to repent and believe the Gospel.
“Anecdotal theology is rarely helpful.”—Douglas Bond. This work could stand as a case-study to support that claim.
I received a review copy of this book from the publisher.
First off, this work, while proclaiming itself as focused on God’s word, is firmly rooted in personal experience. For the first few chapters there is barely more than a few cursory interactions with the word of God. Achtemeier sets out to elicit empathy from his reader by presenting multiple heart breaking cases he encountered of Christians suffering due to their sexual orientation. This is in the hopes that the reader be brought to the same point where Achtemeier found himself after interacting with many who suffered through the struggle of same-sex attraction and Scriptural fidelity. When he reaches the apex of all these experiences and emotions and whatnot, Achtemeier declares that, “(t)he combined weight of all this evidence forced me to conclude that the traditional condemnations were wrong.” After determining what was true, based on his own criteria of what the Christian life should be and based on the experience of people he encountered, Achtemeier then went to the Scriptures to work on making them fit his presuppositions. And, not too surprisingly, he found exactly what he was looking for.
One of those presuppositions that proved most debilitating to any search for truth in this matter was a basic prosperity mentality attached to his worldview. Now, this was not the insidious prosperity preaching that fills Housewives spin-offs and TBN telethons. It is the more subversive prosperity teaching that fills the pulpits of conservative churches and the minds of many, many Christians. It is the mindset that God simply wants good (translation: comfortable, suffering and sacrifice free) for his people. It is the mindset that God would never allow anything difficult to befall his children. It is Christianized-karma based on an over-realized eschatology that sees no place for suffering in the life of believers, and it filled these pages.
Nowhere was suffering even a genuine option. In fact, if suffering is involved then it is obviously not of God. Nowhere in these pages was there any room for a God would refuse to remove a thorn from the flesh of his child while simultaneously assuring him that “my grace is sufficient.” Nowhere in these pages was there room for a God who would say, “Have you considered my servant Job?” Nowhere in these pages was there room for a God who would listen to the cries of his beloved Son to “let this cup pass” and answer him with silence. For this reason, when we do reach suffering in these pages it must not be of God. When someone is suffering in their struggle against embracing same sex attraction the automatic answer becomes that they must be doing wrong in resisting. Not only that but we, as loving and empathetic imitators of Christ, must then make a way for them to embrace their same-sex attractions and be relieved of their suffer-filled resistance. There is no room in this work for the refining fires of suffering so the dross of sinful lives must instead be counted as gold.
It is an easy step for Achtemeier to remove the impetus from much of Scripture because throughout this work the he presumptuously sits in judgment over Scripture. This is clear in his first principle of examining Scripture. Achtemeier presents the primary means of determining the meaning (and the cultural relativity) of a passage as whether or not it makes “good, coherent sense.” “My ways are higher” does not fly in the realm of autonomous, ultimate Reason. Achtemeier could have called this the Jefferson Method or the Jesus Seminar Principle where the primary factor in determining the veracity of a passage is what the sovereign Self thinks about it. This relative, self-centered hermeneutic fits well in a world full of relativistic, self-centered people but it ignores the objective, God-centered truth of Scripture. In this same vein, Achtemeier lays an early foundation of a “cultural” defense against anything that the modern mind might find objectionable and follows it through to the end. He aids this by implicitly and then explicitly tying those who reject same sex relationships with the neo-Nazis, those who support slavery, and those who oppress women. I would say “well done”… but it wasn’t. It was cliché and unoriginal. As far as inflammatory rhetoric and poisoning the well goes, it was rather weak.
Achtemeier does engage Paul’s teaching on singleness but he never, to my recollection, addresses Paul’s contention about eunuchs, specifically those who are eunuchs “by nature”. Based on how he conflates the physical and the spiritual in his argument about “nature”, Achtemeier would have to concede that when Paul says some are “by nature” eunuchs, this would not just be limited to physical disabilities but could also be due to same sex attraction coupled with a biblical and/or cultural rejection of same-sex relationships. So, it is not only possible but probable that Paul could be referencing those with same-sex attraction as those who are “eunuchs by nature.”(i.e. celibate due to same-sex attraction)
This work severely minimizes the sufficiency of God, in the Scriptures and in himself. The Scriptures are not sufficient to base our life and beliefs. We must submit the Word of God to our experience, our logic, our opinions. This is not a new teaching. Achtemeier follows well in the 19th century Schleiermachian German liberalism through the gates of the Union Seminaries of the world to the mainline Protestantism he now finds himself championing. This is the wide and easy path of elevating experience and feeling over the objective truth of Scripture.
It also minimizes the sufficiency of Christ himself. It leaves the reader with the understanding that there is no possible way that Christ is enough. If people are not allowed to marry and/or to pursue their attractions then they cannot have joy. They cannot have peace. They will never be happy. This might be true but, if so, it just more clearly portrays Paul’s argument in Romans 1 about the idolatrous nature of sexual sin. Much of this work feels like a mantra of “I love my idol” followed by “I can serve God and my sexual orientation too!”
Achtemeier fails at proving that the Bible endorses same sex marriage for the same reason I would fail to prove Lebron James plays professional baseball with an issue of Sports Illustrated—it says the exact opposite because the opposite is true. Beyond his failure to make his point, the underlying premise that this work is based on love is shown faulty. This work does not arise out of a love of Scripture because it denies its sufficiency and authority (while giving lip service to both). It does not arise out of a love of God because it says that which God calls evil is good and questions his authority and goodness because he does not act in the manner that Achtemeier would see fit. And it does not arise out of love for those who suffer with same sex attraction, no matter how much Achtemeier might claim otherwise. Simply put, it is not loving to set out to convince people that their sin is ok with God. It is hateful and damning. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals, need the Gospel, not an affirmation of their sins.
Instead of lamenting the fact that there is no way for homosexuals to enjoy an earthly marriage relationship, why not present Christ as the all-sufficient one who exceeds every desire we have? Instead of twisting and manipulating Scripture in order to alleviate good, biblical suffering, why not echo our Lord’s wonderful words to his cherished Paul when he said clearly that “my grace is sufficient for you?” Instead of encouraging those with serious, persistent sin to simply embrace it and call it good, why not encourage them to heed the words of our Savior to repent and believe the Gospel.
“Anecdotal theology is rarely helpful.”—Douglas Bond. This work could stand as a case-study to support that claim.
I received a review copy of this book from the publisher.
August 24, 2014
Thank you NetGalley!
This is a great book for christians seeking the truth of God's will. Mark Achtemeiet is an esteemed conservative scholar and theologian. In the early 1990's he was a church activist defending the "traditional" teaching condemning homosexual practices. In 1996 he had a change of heart due to a thorough research of the Bible.
Each chapter explores a certain topic and concludes with a summary. The "fragment method" of Bible interpretation is one such topic. This "method" is still used today, and neo-Nazis use it to justify white supremacy. The fact that neo-Natzi's were using it helped Achtemeier understand that even though teachings have Bible verses to back them up, they are far removed from God's will. By delving into each verse used in this way to condemn homosexuals, we get a clearer idea of the historical times in which they were written, and the actual meanings of such passages.
I have a lot of respect for a Fundamentalist willing to have a deeper understanding, and each chapter delves into mistaken interpretations in such a way that it is easy to understand. The final quarter of this book also offers more of a summary, which I felt was a little redundant, but all in all a great book for Christians struggling with this issue.
This is a great book for christians seeking the truth of God's will. Mark Achtemeiet is an esteemed conservative scholar and theologian. In the early 1990's he was a church activist defending the "traditional" teaching condemning homosexual practices. In 1996 he had a change of heart due to a thorough research of the Bible.
Each chapter explores a certain topic and concludes with a summary. The "fragment method" of Bible interpretation is one such topic. This "method" is still used today, and neo-Nazis use it to justify white supremacy. The fact that neo-Natzi's were using it helped Achtemeier understand that even though teachings have Bible verses to back them up, they are far removed from God's will. By delving into each verse used in this way to condemn homosexuals, we get a clearer idea of the historical times in which they were written, and the actual meanings of such passages.
I have a lot of respect for a Fundamentalist willing to have a deeper understanding, and each chapter delves into mistaken interpretations in such a way that it is easy to understand. The final quarter of this book also offers more of a summary, which I felt was a little redundant, but all in all a great book for Christians struggling with this issue.
July 4, 2014
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads, and it proceeded to astonish and free me. Being gay and Christian myself, I had been struggling with the choice I thought I had to make: my sexual orientation, or my faith. In this book, author Mark Achtemeier takes a step back from the immediate issue of homosexuality and instead tackles the topics of love, how the universe functions rationally, and the overall purpose for which God created us human beings. From there, he is able to delve into a solid, Biblically-based argument that shows how same-sex marriages can be and are blessed by God the same way "normal" heterosexual marriages are.
On a literary level, the book might be repetitive for some people's tastes--but to the hungry reader, the repetition is a reassuring comfort, telling us again and again that we're not going to hell for being the way God created us.
On a personal level, I believe every Christian, every person, should read this book; especially homosexuals. By the time I'd finished it, I was practically floating around the room in new-found hope and relief. I can honestly say this book has changed my life.
Thank you, Mark Achtemeier, for all your hard work and research. Thank you for writing this book.
On a literary level, the book might be repetitive for some people's tastes--but to the hungry reader, the repetition is a reassuring comfort, telling us again and again that we're not going to hell for being the way God created us.
On a personal level, I believe every Christian, every person, should read this book; especially homosexuals. By the time I'd finished it, I was practically floating around the room in new-found hope and relief. I can honestly say this book has changed my life.
Thank you, Mark Achtemeier, for all your hard work and research. Thank you for writing this book.
April 7, 2015
Why one star? Well, in books on this subject generally one star means you don't agree with the author and five stars means that the author was preaching to the choir. I read this book out of deep love for all people, for my neighbors, and for the Church. I leave this book though with a bitter taste in my mouth. I feel like a caricature or a straw man. I have deep convictions on the subject, but I left this book failing to see how my convictions look at texts as fragments (I have devoted many years to studying these texts as well), or how I fall within his description of a church that shows judgment, condemnation, and fear of punishment as he states on page 126. I want people everywhere of any background to experience gospel joy in Jesus Christ and eternal never-fading joy. I echo most of the author's closing sentiments about that, but I walk away sad. I would love for the author to interact more with an optimistic, hopeful, all-encompassing view of God in Christ, that is anchored deep in the Reformed tradition of both love for all and intellectual honesty.
October 2, 2014
When this title first came across my e-mail I was a little more than hesitant to yes to this review. I do not believe that the Bible condones same-sex marriage, but since I know many individuals that state they are homosexual or bi-sexual and still believe in God, I knew this was a book I needed to read to have the other view and to be able to think critically about this subject. I also wanted to approach this book without my bias on the subject already in place, which was very difficult to do. After all I am a reasonable person and I do not believe you can argue against something if you do not know the stance and reasons behind those feelings on the other end of the spectrum.
What bothered my most about this book was how the author tried to explain everything away by using fragmation theory. The author basically states the bible is not whole and complete and parts of the word of God are missing from it that would give us a more complete view of Gods approval for homosexual relationships and marriage. If that is the case, then we would have to call into account the views of every topic within the whole bible since it is filled with fragments.
Although my heart breaks for the situations in the lives of those that are struggling with homosexuality, I have to rely on the Word of God as being without error (even if fragmented) and therefore it is a sin. People of God wrestle daily with different trials they must overcome. Sin is sin and it can be very painful to try and lay it at the feet of Jesus and live without something we feel is a natural part of us. God does not give us all our desires, but he gives us what we need in life and with that we are called to glorify Him. The author on numerous occasions alters the word of God by saying we are living and interpreting the Bible on "old translations" and not what we have come to learn about God. He tells us that Paul's teaching on homosexuality were only for pagens and not believers. Believing that all instances in the bible that talk about homosexuality, including Leviticus, were all fragments that are only read in Biblical, literary, and cultural contexts, they condemn violence and oppression only, not the act of homosexuality.
Although I do not agree with the theology behind this book, it was a thoughtful and critical examination of the topic and I enjoyed the read.
What bothered my most about this book was how the author tried to explain everything away by using fragmation theory. The author basically states the bible is not whole and complete and parts of the word of God are missing from it that would give us a more complete view of Gods approval for homosexual relationships and marriage. If that is the case, then we would have to call into account the views of every topic within the whole bible since it is filled with fragments.
Although my heart breaks for the situations in the lives of those that are struggling with homosexuality, I have to rely on the Word of God as being without error (even if fragmented) and therefore it is a sin. People of God wrestle daily with different trials they must overcome. Sin is sin and it can be very painful to try and lay it at the feet of Jesus and live without something we feel is a natural part of us. God does not give us all our desires, but he gives us what we need in life and with that we are called to glorify Him. The author on numerous occasions alters the word of God by saying we are living and interpreting the Bible on "old translations" and not what we have come to learn about God. He tells us that Paul's teaching on homosexuality were only for pagens and not believers. Believing that all instances in the bible that talk about homosexuality, including Leviticus, were all fragments that are only read in Biblical, literary, and cultural contexts, they condemn violence and oppression only, not the act of homosexuality.
Although I do not agree with the theology behind this book, it was a thoughtful and critical examination of the topic and I enjoyed the read.
July 7, 2014
I read The Bible's Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart, because I supported my church's recent decision to permit teaching elders (i.e. ministers) to perform same-sex marriages in states where they are permitted and to allow sessions (local church councils) to permit the same in their buildings. I grew up as an evangelical and still consider myself one, so I still had questions about what the Scriptures and the Book of Confessions (our church's collection of creeds and confessions, which we consider "reliable expositions" of what Scriptures teaches)say about this issue. In a scholarly, accessible, and personal way, Mark Achtemeier brought me to a greater understanding and to place where my head caught up with my heart on this issue. I believe every Christian concerned about this issue should read this slim volume, not only for its insights into this issue, but also for the author's approach to the reading of scripture and for his honest sharing of his "change of heart."
November 26, 2021
I just finished "The Bibles Yes to Same-Sex Marriage: An Evangelical's Change of Heart," by Mark Achtemeier.
Achtemeier opens the book by saying that he actively opposed openly homosexual persons from ordained leadership as recently as the mid 90's. His Presbyterian Church (USA) like-mindedly added this ban to their constitution. Fourteen years finds him working to repeal this ban. He also affirms that neither he nor close family came out resulting in him viewing scripture through a different lens. And rather than destroy marriage he wants to see the benefits of heterosexual marriage extended to homosexual ones.
One big point that Achtemeier begins on has to do with marriages which violate the Law of Moses. There is one example where divorce is demanded in scripture in Ez 9-10. Going against the Law the Israelites married foreigners. To purify the Hebrew peoples the the officials put in place a plan to send the foreigners away, divorcing the foreigners. Then we read in Mal. 2:13-16 God denounced this move in Ezra to divorce the foreigner. The take away here would be if my affections were for the "foreigner" would that be a violation of the will of God to fulfill the law?
It seems that people miss the point when this issue is reduced to just a sexual one. This is about two people building lives together as married. The call to limit people to a life of celibacy contradicts some of the issues Luther and Calvin tackled in the Protestant Reformation where whole classes of people, monks, nuns and priests, were demanded to be celibate. While Jesus and Paul say that celibacy is a gift given by God to a few individuals.
"[These demands] required people to make sacrifices for God that were not in their power to make, resulting in widespread suffering, hypocrisy, and spiritual damage," p 12.
The rout Achtemeier is going looks like this: same sex attraction is not something the person desires or not otherwise we would not have same sex attracted persons damaging and killing themselves over the attraction and family rejection. One then is natured and/or nurtured as same sex attracted. Reforming same sex attracted persons is a big bust. Celibacy is a gift from God. If one is same sex attracted and doesn't have the gift of Celibacy then same sex marriage is the logical choice and is seen as good as a heterosexual marriage and under the same terms of monogamy and long term. When we see Christians who have gone the above route and exhibit fruit of a changed life (vine/branches: Jn 15:5-6) then experience demands us to at least review scripture once more.
One thing that Achtemeier wants us to understand is the overarching narrative of scripture. He does this by telling the story of Irenaeus vs the Valentanians. Irenaeus said that if one had a bunch of colored stones arranged in a mosaic that portrayed Christ as King then we have a true representation. But the Valentines took those stones and arranged them into a mosaic of a dog. As the story goes, Irenaeus listened to the Gnostic prooftexting of the Valentines. They had scriptural support for their Gnostic views and doctrines, it was a re-presentation of the mosaic; it was a dog. But with Christ as Lord they couldn't hold on to their prooftexting; Christ is the King. There's tons of things when taken in part and minus a Christocentric hermeneutical lens one can get; the wrongly assembled mosaic can get one whatevertheir heart desires. Slavery, white supremacy, treating women like objects, it's all there if you want to find it but you can't claim that you are compelled by the love of Jesus as Lord to get there. Well, similarly with Homosexuality.
So we must interpretative scripture according to some rules. Achtemeier uses the following (I would add to the below to look into historical criticism and how it is preferable to a literal understanding of scripture):
1) Good sense:
This is treating commands as they should be by their spirit. For instance, if a teen boy is true to the not having sex before marriage while spending his time watching porn and compare that to the girl who looses her virginity but doesn't watch porn, who comes out "on top?" While we obviously would want neither the porn or the sexual experience for our children:
"The point is that if we treat even the noblest moral teaching as an arbitrary rule and fail to consider the reasons and purposes that underlie it, our attempts at obedient will likely produce distorted and damaging results," p 31.
The Bible will give you the underlying reasons why such principles make sense. There aren't arbitrary rules. God's rules are so that we can flourish. I believe a good comparison would be "don't eat pork" because it spoils real quick leading to everything from explosive diarrhea to death so "don't do that."
2) A Christ-centered interpretation:
The Revelation of Jesus is the pinnacle of revelation of God. Jesus transcends scripture; scripture points us to Jesus so we can see what God is like.
3) Interpreting scripture by scripture:
One should seek to interpret obscure parts of scripture with the parts that are more clear.
4) Interpreting passages in culture/context:
100% of scripture was written to a people who are not us, in languages which aren't English, and in a time that is not now. Their culture/context matters because it is different from ours, and applying our mental filters to their time and place will often land us in the wrong place as far as interpretation goes (for instance: hot, cold and luke warm Christians; context matters to get the thrust of the message).
5) Understanding the purpose of the Lawgiver:
Based on a comment by Calvin Achtemeier advises us to seek to understand the intent of a law.
So a big question: why did God design love, sex and marriage? If you pulled these topics out of the overarching narrative of scripture what would the sum of their message be?
The Divine Framework for marriage:
Achtemeier begins by stating that there is no opposition between our being sexual persons because of the Imago Dei (image of God Gn. 1:27) all humans recieve at conception. The root of this comment is the low view people have placed on sex in a Christian context. In honesty this is nothing more than Platonism at best and Gnosticism at worst. We aren't disembodied spirits with a body we must be rid of. We are embodied persons who are at a less pristine place if we are disembodied.
Humans were made for deem spiritual, emotional and sexual communion with a partner (Gn 2).
All through we see marriage held to a very high view: it was this form of relationship that God is said to have with his people and Jesus with the church, Jesus first recorded miracle was at a wedding party and on and on it goes. As with so much in scripture we define how something is with the heart of God by our experience with it: Jesus to the Church is like a great marriage between humans. We miss the point. Marriage between humans should be like the heart of God expressed between God and Israel. The perfection of marriage is held at God's level, not ours; a correct expression of human marriage is an expression of the Imago Dei. Our marriages should reflect the kenotic (Ph. 2: self emptying), cruciformed giving of Jesus (Ep. 5:21-33).
Can the Divine Framework for marriage be applied also to homosexual relationships:
If the above reasons for marriage could be fulfilled in a same sex relationship then why tell homosexual persons that they must conform to a heterosexual marriage or celibacy?
But isn't procreation a major aspect of marriage? This being fruitful and multiplying was done and has been done quite well. This earth is filled with God's creatures. Also, if this is a mandate that is thrown up as something homosexual relationships can not fulfill thus nullifying a functional purpose then should all heterosexual marriages have the same mandate? Scripture views childless marriages as tragic. How do we view childless heterosexual marriages? Any different and if so why? A (male) childless woman in scripture had no retirement plan upon the demise of her (often older) husband. The male child was security. So procreation was a blessing but not a mandate in scripture. And as adoptive parents same sex couples can participate in this blessing.
Achtemeier moves on to what he calls the argument from plumbing (that male and female were created to fit together) and then state that Jesus affirms this by His quoting that God created them male and female. Jesus affirmation of heterosexual union is an argument from silence because he doesn't negate homosexual union. Homosexual unions as we are speaking about them just weren't something that was happening during this time. In context Jesus was speaking about divorce in heterosexual unions and then even goes on to admit keeping this teaching of abstaining from divorce is not for everyone. The argument from plumbing is correct in that male and female is the majority and it is this majority that have populated the earth. But this biological function doesn't negate same sex unions. And basing morality on what, by majority, occurs in nature is no sure fire win. People born deaf communicate with their hands. This is obviously a minority position yet we make room for people who deal with communication in life this way.
Accounts of God working with and accommodating outside of the norm or desired way can be seen in scripture with everything after Gn 3, it can be seen in God patiently working with Isreal as they complained after liberation, and it can be seen in God's affirmation of the Gentiles, a People without the law.
Achtemeier now dives into Interpreting the seven "clobber" passages.
The first thing to keep in mind is that there's not a word for gay, nor the concept of sexual orientation, in scripture.
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19:1-29):
The issue here is gang rape against the guests. Nothing new as rape is aggression against a person regardless of gender. This was how Sodom and Gomorrah welcomed guests to their town. What cant be found here are comments against willing and committed partners. A comparison here would be to go to Judges 19, a passage about men raping a woman and conclude that a heterosexual, monogamous, longterm relationship between men and women were wrong.
Law of Mo (Lev 18:22; 20:13):
Evidence to the nations who surrounded Isreal having temple prostitutes is backed by scripture (Deut 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2Kings 23:7), both male and female temple prostitutes. So it is obvious that this is not the type of house God would have for Israel so he commanded them against it. What is not spoken of here (because it was foreign at the time) is monogamous, long term relationships between same sees.
Dat strange flesh (Jude 5-7):
The reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and going after strange flesh here makes more sense with the preceeding verse speaking about angelic beings. So the comment here spring boards on the above about gang rape but sees it as crossing species, human to angelic.
Natural/unnatural (Romans 1:18-27):
Paul says here that pagans have substituted idols for God. He then lists out ways they have done so. Then, just when his Roman audience would have been chanting and screaming for blood he turns the tables on them in 2:1, "therefore you have no excuse...." The trap is that while the Christians are hearing this and agreeing because they just know Paul is about to drop the gauntlet on these pagans they condem themselves sitting in judgement while they too are guilty of many things in Paul's list in need of grace. These Greco-Roman activities from ch 1 that Paul's hearers associate with pagan idol worship and temple prostitutes Paul rightly condemns because they have nothing to do with God's intended purpose of love, marriage and sexuality.
Paul creates a Greek word (1 Cor 6:9-10):
So here Paul has a list of things not to do. He uses two Greek words, MALAKOI (M) and ARSENOKOITAI (A). M means "soft ones" which could be the passive partner, but that's a guess. A means "man bed" or "bed man" which could be the passive or active partner. In light of of the history of pederasty which was known in the ancient Greco-Roman world we have to be cautious of how we apply the "thou shall not...."
...and....
Paul and his word again (1 Tim 1:9-10):
Here too the Paulie writer uses "A" in a word cluster of "Fornicators, (A) sodomites, and slave traders." This can be seen as customers, Victim and profiteers. But what we don't see here is a loving, monogamy, long term relationship.
If you want a thoughtful but negating book on this subject, Preston Sprinkle 's "People to be loved" is great because he still leaves you embracing people who you may be different than. For an affirming book this one is very good.
People dont care what you stand for if you dont care for them. You don't get a place to speak into their life unless you lead with the love of Jesus.
How would you advise the people in this documentary in marital direction from a pastoral point of view? (We learn best in the extremes.) https://youtu.be/czbQRjdGvYQ
#TheBiblesYesToSameSexMarriage #SameSexMarriage #MarkAchtemeier #Homosexuality
Achtemeier opens the book by saying that he actively opposed openly homosexual persons from ordained leadership as recently as the mid 90's. His Presbyterian Church (USA) like-mindedly added this ban to their constitution. Fourteen years finds him working to repeal this ban. He also affirms that neither he nor close family came out resulting in him viewing scripture through a different lens. And rather than destroy marriage he wants to see the benefits of heterosexual marriage extended to homosexual ones.
One big point that Achtemeier begins on has to do with marriages which violate the Law of Moses. There is one example where divorce is demanded in scripture in Ez 9-10. Going against the Law the Israelites married foreigners. To purify the Hebrew peoples the the officials put in place a plan to send the foreigners away, divorcing the foreigners. Then we read in Mal. 2:13-16 God denounced this move in Ezra to divorce the foreigner. The take away here would be if my affections were for the "foreigner" would that be a violation of the will of God to fulfill the law?
It seems that people miss the point when this issue is reduced to just a sexual one. This is about two people building lives together as married. The call to limit people to a life of celibacy contradicts some of the issues Luther and Calvin tackled in the Protestant Reformation where whole classes of people, monks, nuns and priests, were demanded to be celibate. While Jesus and Paul say that celibacy is a gift given by God to a few individuals.
"[These demands] required people to make sacrifices for God that were not in their power to make, resulting in widespread suffering, hypocrisy, and spiritual damage," p 12.
The rout Achtemeier is going looks like this: same sex attraction is not something the person desires or not otherwise we would not have same sex attracted persons damaging and killing themselves over the attraction and family rejection. One then is natured and/or nurtured as same sex attracted. Reforming same sex attracted persons is a big bust. Celibacy is a gift from God. If one is same sex attracted and doesn't have the gift of Celibacy then same sex marriage is the logical choice and is seen as good as a heterosexual marriage and under the same terms of monogamy and long term. When we see Christians who have gone the above route and exhibit fruit of a changed life (vine/branches: Jn 15:5-6) then experience demands us to at least review scripture once more.
One thing that Achtemeier wants us to understand is the overarching narrative of scripture. He does this by telling the story of Irenaeus vs the Valentanians. Irenaeus said that if one had a bunch of colored stones arranged in a mosaic that portrayed Christ as King then we have a true representation. But the Valentines took those stones and arranged them into a mosaic of a dog. As the story goes, Irenaeus listened to the Gnostic prooftexting of the Valentines. They had scriptural support for their Gnostic views and doctrines, it was a re-presentation of the mosaic; it was a dog. But with Christ as Lord they couldn't hold on to their prooftexting; Christ is the King. There's tons of things when taken in part and minus a Christocentric hermeneutical lens one can get; the wrongly assembled mosaic can get one whatevertheir heart desires. Slavery, white supremacy, treating women like objects, it's all there if you want to find it but you can't claim that you are compelled by the love of Jesus as Lord to get there. Well, similarly with Homosexuality.
So we must interpretative scripture according to some rules. Achtemeier uses the following (I would add to the below to look into historical criticism and how it is preferable to a literal understanding of scripture):
1) Good sense:
This is treating commands as they should be by their spirit. For instance, if a teen boy is true to the not having sex before marriage while spending his time watching porn and compare that to the girl who looses her virginity but doesn't watch porn, who comes out "on top?" While we obviously would want neither the porn or the sexual experience for our children:
"The point is that if we treat even the noblest moral teaching as an arbitrary rule and fail to consider the reasons and purposes that underlie it, our attempts at obedient will likely produce distorted and damaging results," p 31.
The Bible will give you the underlying reasons why such principles make sense. There aren't arbitrary rules. God's rules are so that we can flourish. I believe a good comparison would be "don't eat pork" because it spoils real quick leading to everything from explosive diarrhea to death so "don't do that."
2) A Christ-centered interpretation:
The Revelation of Jesus is the pinnacle of revelation of God. Jesus transcends scripture; scripture points us to Jesus so we can see what God is like.
3) Interpreting scripture by scripture:
One should seek to interpret obscure parts of scripture with the parts that are more clear.
4) Interpreting passages in culture/context:
100% of scripture was written to a people who are not us, in languages which aren't English, and in a time that is not now. Their culture/context matters because it is different from ours, and applying our mental filters to their time and place will often land us in the wrong place as far as interpretation goes (for instance: hot, cold and luke warm Christians; context matters to get the thrust of the message).
5) Understanding the purpose of the Lawgiver:
Based on a comment by Calvin Achtemeier advises us to seek to understand the intent of a law.
So a big question: why did God design love, sex and marriage? If you pulled these topics out of the overarching narrative of scripture what would the sum of their message be?
The Divine Framework for marriage:
Achtemeier begins by stating that there is no opposition between our being sexual persons because of the Imago Dei (image of God Gn. 1:27) all humans recieve at conception. The root of this comment is the low view people have placed on sex in a Christian context. In honesty this is nothing more than Platonism at best and Gnosticism at worst. We aren't disembodied spirits with a body we must be rid of. We are embodied persons who are at a less pristine place if we are disembodied.
Humans were made for deem spiritual, emotional and sexual communion with a partner (Gn 2).
All through we see marriage held to a very high view: it was this form of relationship that God is said to have with his people and Jesus with the church, Jesus first recorded miracle was at a wedding party and on and on it goes. As with so much in scripture we define how something is with the heart of God by our experience with it: Jesus to the Church is like a great marriage between humans. We miss the point. Marriage between humans should be like the heart of God expressed between God and Israel. The perfection of marriage is held at God's level, not ours; a correct expression of human marriage is an expression of the Imago Dei. Our marriages should reflect the kenotic (Ph. 2: self emptying), cruciformed giving of Jesus (Ep. 5:21-33).
Can the Divine Framework for marriage be applied also to homosexual relationships:
If the above reasons for marriage could be fulfilled in a same sex relationship then why tell homosexual persons that they must conform to a heterosexual marriage or celibacy?
But isn't procreation a major aspect of marriage? This being fruitful and multiplying was done and has been done quite well. This earth is filled with God's creatures. Also, if this is a mandate that is thrown up as something homosexual relationships can not fulfill thus nullifying a functional purpose then should all heterosexual marriages have the same mandate? Scripture views childless marriages as tragic. How do we view childless heterosexual marriages? Any different and if so why? A (male) childless woman in scripture had no retirement plan upon the demise of her (often older) husband. The male child was security. So procreation was a blessing but not a mandate in scripture. And as adoptive parents same sex couples can participate in this blessing.
Achtemeier moves on to what he calls the argument from plumbing (that male and female were created to fit together) and then state that Jesus affirms this by His quoting that God created them male and female. Jesus affirmation of heterosexual union is an argument from silence because he doesn't negate homosexual union. Homosexual unions as we are speaking about them just weren't something that was happening during this time. In context Jesus was speaking about divorce in heterosexual unions and then even goes on to admit keeping this teaching of abstaining from divorce is not for everyone. The argument from plumbing is correct in that male and female is the majority and it is this majority that have populated the earth. But this biological function doesn't negate same sex unions. And basing morality on what, by majority, occurs in nature is no sure fire win. People born deaf communicate with their hands. This is obviously a minority position yet we make room for people who deal with communication in life this way.
Accounts of God working with and accommodating outside of the norm or desired way can be seen in scripture with everything after Gn 3, it can be seen in God patiently working with Isreal as they complained after liberation, and it can be seen in God's affirmation of the Gentiles, a People without the law.
Achtemeier now dives into Interpreting the seven "clobber" passages.
The first thing to keep in mind is that there's not a word for gay, nor the concept of sexual orientation, in scripture.
Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19:1-29):
The issue here is gang rape against the guests. Nothing new as rape is aggression against a person regardless of gender. This was how Sodom and Gomorrah welcomed guests to their town. What cant be found here are comments against willing and committed partners. A comparison here would be to go to Judges 19, a passage about men raping a woman and conclude that a heterosexual, monogamous, longterm relationship between men and women were wrong.
Law of Mo (Lev 18:22; 20:13):
Evidence to the nations who surrounded Isreal having temple prostitutes is backed by scripture (Deut 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2Kings 23:7), both male and female temple prostitutes. So it is obvious that this is not the type of house God would have for Israel so he commanded them against it. What is not spoken of here (because it was foreign at the time) is monogamous, long term relationships between same sees.
Dat strange flesh (Jude 5-7):
The reference to Sodom and Gomorrah and going after strange flesh here makes more sense with the preceeding verse speaking about angelic beings. So the comment here spring boards on the above about gang rape but sees it as crossing species, human to angelic.
Natural/unnatural (Romans 1:18-27):
Paul says here that pagans have substituted idols for God. He then lists out ways they have done so. Then, just when his Roman audience would have been chanting and screaming for blood he turns the tables on them in 2:1, "therefore you have no excuse...." The trap is that while the Christians are hearing this and agreeing because they just know Paul is about to drop the gauntlet on these pagans they condem themselves sitting in judgement while they too are guilty of many things in Paul's list in need of grace. These Greco-Roman activities from ch 1 that Paul's hearers associate with pagan idol worship and temple prostitutes Paul rightly condemns because they have nothing to do with God's intended purpose of love, marriage and sexuality.
Paul creates a Greek word (1 Cor 6:9-10):
So here Paul has a list of things not to do. He uses two Greek words, MALAKOI (M) and ARSENOKOITAI (A). M means "soft ones" which could be the passive partner, but that's a guess. A means "man bed" or "bed man" which could be the passive or active partner. In light of of the history of pederasty which was known in the ancient Greco-Roman world we have to be cautious of how we apply the "thou shall not...."
...and....
Paul and his word again (1 Tim 1:9-10):
Here too the Paulie writer uses "A" in a word cluster of "Fornicators, (A) sodomites, and slave traders." This can be seen as customers, Victim and profiteers. But what we don't see here is a loving, monogamy, long term relationship.
If you want a thoughtful but negating book on this subject, Preston Sprinkle 's "People to be loved" is great because he still leaves you embracing people who you may be different than. For an affirming book this one is very good.
People dont care what you stand for if you dont care for them. You don't get a place to speak into their life unless you lead with the love of Jesus.
How would you advise the people in this documentary in marital direction from a pastoral point of view? (We learn best in the extremes.) https://youtu.be/czbQRjdGvYQ
#TheBiblesYesToSameSexMarriage #SameSexMarriage #MarkAchtemeier #Homosexuality
March 13, 2017
Excellent
A faithful, educated reading of the Bible that affirms God's all-inclusive blessing. Very grateful for scholars and leaders who take the time to consider, pray, and be willing to be changed.
A faithful, educated reading of the Bible that affirms God's all-inclusive blessing. Very grateful for scholars and leaders who take the time to consider, pray, and be willing to be changed.
August 1, 2014
While there is still considerable resistance to marriage equality, there is a growing sense within society and in the Christian community that the traditional arguments against it are inadequate and should be abandoned. Mark Achtemeier, a Presbyterian pastor and theologian, who is also an evangelical, provides us with one more expression of this change. Achtemeier found it necessary to re-read Scripture in light of his discovery that there are LBGT people who are seeking to follow Christ and find that what they had been taught about homosexuality was increasingly oppressive. Many tried as many avenues as possible to suppress their desires, and yet nothing worked. What they were hearing from the church did not bring joy or a sense of closeness to God, but despair.
Having had conversations with seminary students and church members, Achtemeier began to study first what the Bible had to say about marriage. What is its purpose? He found that much of what the Bible said about marriage could apply equally to gay and to straight couples. He then went and studied the texts that are traditionally used to deny LGBT folks a place in the church, its ministry, and marriage, and found that they don't apply to a modern understanding of a loving, egalitarian relationship between two people of the same gender. Instead, they speak of violence and inequality and idolatry. What he discovered is that he could affirm the intent of these passages without giving up his new found belief that the Bible permits same-sex marriage.
The book is both a personal journey and a theological manifesto. It should prove valuable to the many people who are trying to figure out how to remain true to a high view of scripture and embrace a more open stance toward LGBT people. Achtemeier offers them a way to move in that direction.
Having had conversations with seminary students and church members, Achtemeier began to study first what the Bible had to say about marriage. What is its purpose? He found that much of what the Bible said about marriage could apply equally to gay and to straight couples. He then went and studied the texts that are traditionally used to deny LGBT folks a place in the church, its ministry, and marriage, and found that they don't apply to a modern understanding of a loving, egalitarian relationship between two people of the same gender. Instead, they speak of violence and inequality and idolatry. What he discovered is that he could affirm the intent of these passages without giving up his new found belief that the Bible permits same-sex marriage.
The book is both a personal journey and a theological manifesto. It should prove valuable to the many people who are trying to figure out how to remain true to a high view of scripture and embrace a more open stance toward LGBT people. Achtemeier offers them a way to move in that direction.
September 2, 2015
I chose to read The Bible's Yes because I was intrigued by yet another traditionalist Christian changing sides on the Bible's view of homosexuality, and since I already read a Baptist and non-denom take, I wanted a PCUSA take.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed at more than one point when Achtemeier exclaimed his delight in discovering that a new reading of the Bible allowed him to affirm homosexuality (101, for example). I find this troubling because I assumed he came to his investigation more objectively than that.
I am unconvinced by Achtemeier's arguments but can appreciate his desire to love.
A lesser criticism is the typeface chosen by the publisher. It is very hard on the eyes, enough so that I almost gave up finishing the book.
Unfortunately, I was disappointed at more than one point when Achtemeier exclaimed his delight in discovering that a new reading of the Bible allowed him to affirm homosexuality (101, for example). I find this troubling because I assumed he came to his investigation more objectively than that.
I am unconvinced by Achtemeier's arguments but can appreciate his desire to love.
A lesser criticism is the typeface chosen by the publisher. It is very hard on the eyes, enough so that I almost gave up finishing the book.
July 30, 2014
I am completely speechless! Was a new Bible written?
April 9, 2019
Achtemeier records his journey as a Presbyterian theologian from being "anti-gay" to "pro-same-sex marriage" thought both his personal experience with gay Christians and depth Biblical research.
First, this would be an excellent resource for a lay Christian attempting to understand an inclusive Biblical perspective. The author writes in cogent and generally clear language. He does not belabor his points nor get lost in minutia. This would be a fine resource for group discussion or personal enlightenment.
Second, the author unpacks the various verses of the Bible most often used to suggest homosexuality - either in orientation or behavior - is a sinful state. In the corpus of the book, he approaches the Biblical elements of the subject within three slices of analysis.
A - he takes the Hebrew and Greek terms most frequently translated or interpreted as related to homosexuality set in a negative light. By giving the breadth of definitions, one can see the Biblical author's intent unlikely to be describing a 21st Century definition of homosexual.
B - he unpacks the cultural world in which the authors of scripture are writing. Knowing the normative cultural ideas on sexuality, power, the status of women and what was assumed to be "natural" all add texture to understanding the topic.
C - he provides spiritual context. Using Jesus as his center, he describes historical moments when God's Spirit led faithful Christians to reconstruct what seemed like settled Biblical interpretation (slavery, usury, status of women), Achtemeier points to how the personal journey of gay Christians and modern science allow the Holy Spirit to raise questions about orthodox proclamations on marriage and sexuality. Bluntly, if one is an intimate to the spiritual life and struggles of Christian homosexuals, it can provide both light and insight into Biblical understanding.
Let me be clear. I am deeply committed to gender equality and the inclusion of gays fully into all elements of Christian living. I have performed same-sex weddings. That said, I would seriously doubt this book will change the mind of those fully camped on the "anti" side of the debate. Why I feel that way is based on one thing: the nature of God.
Achtemeir is embraced by a God of love and compassion. God, while revealed in scripture (which he adores) is also revealed in the mystery of Divine Love we experience. Revelatory moments come when fully embraced by God and it give us new eyes to understand and interpret the Biblical story. In such, a Christian leans into an inclusive, loving understanding toward homosexual behaviors when the fruits of the Holy Spirit are evident. Simply, does a gay Christian exhibit a more whole and healthy life - spiritually, emotionally and physically - in a loving relationship than without it? Such is a divine relationship by that understanding. Likewise, humility and a willingness to live in uncertainty and "unbailed hay" is just fine.
But if one is a fundamentalist, none of this matters. Fundamentalists the nature of God is law-giver. They tend to see God as one who creates order of chaos and does this through a well laid out and usually hierarchical world. To such, "the rules" or Biblical laws, are God's way of laying out what is right/wrong so the divine order can be upheld. As we are not God, our duty is to obey. If the Bible says "X" is wrong, forget definitions or culture or the emotional experience of spiritual mystery! They tend to hold a "the Bible says it, I believe it and that's that" mentality. Because of that, this book, and those like it, are unlikely to be persuasive.
Still, this is a good read. For those in the midst of the conversation, it's a very useful tool.
First, this would be an excellent resource for a lay Christian attempting to understand an inclusive Biblical perspective. The author writes in cogent and generally clear language. He does not belabor his points nor get lost in minutia. This would be a fine resource for group discussion or personal enlightenment.
Second, the author unpacks the various verses of the Bible most often used to suggest homosexuality - either in orientation or behavior - is a sinful state. In the corpus of the book, he approaches the Biblical elements of the subject within three slices of analysis.
A - he takes the Hebrew and Greek terms most frequently translated or interpreted as related to homosexuality set in a negative light. By giving the breadth of definitions, one can see the Biblical author's intent unlikely to be describing a 21st Century definition of homosexual.
B - he unpacks the cultural world in which the authors of scripture are writing. Knowing the normative cultural ideas on sexuality, power, the status of women and what was assumed to be "natural" all add texture to understanding the topic.
C - he provides spiritual context. Using Jesus as his center, he describes historical moments when God's Spirit led faithful Christians to reconstruct what seemed like settled Biblical interpretation (slavery, usury, status of women), Achtemeier points to how the personal journey of gay Christians and modern science allow the Holy Spirit to raise questions about orthodox proclamations on marriage and sexuality. Bluntly, if one is an intimate to the spiritual life and struggles of Christian homosexuals, it can provide both light and insight into Biblical understanding.
Let me be clear. I am deeply committed to gender equality and the inclusion of gays fully into all elements of Christian living. I have performed same-sex weddings. That said, I would seriously doubt this book will change the mind of those fully camped on the "anti" side of the debate. Why I feel that way is based on one thing: the nature of God.
Achtemeir is embraced by a God of love and compassion. God, while revealed in scripture (which he adores) is also revealed in the mystery of Divine Love we experience. Revelatory moments come when fully embraced by God and it give us new eyes to understand and interpret the Biblical story. In such, a Christian leans into an inclusive, loving understanding toward homosexual behaviors when the fruits of the Holy Spirit are evident. Simply, does a gay Christian exhibit a more whole and healthy life - spiritually, emotionally and physically - in a loving relationship than without it? Such is a divine relationship by that understanding. Likewise, humility and a willingness to live in uncertainty and "unbailed hay" is just fine.
But if one is a fundamentalist, none of this matters. Fundamentalists the nature of God is law-giver. They tend to see God as one who creates order of chaos and does this through a well laid out and usually hierarchical world. To such, "the rules" or Biblical laws, are God's way of laying out what is right/wrong so the divine order can be upheld. As we are not God, our duty is to obey. If the Bible says "X" is wrong, forget definitions or culture or the emotional experience of spiritual mystery! They tend to hold a "the Bible says it, I believe it and that's that" mentality. Because of that, this book, and those like it, are unlikely to be persuasive.
Still, this is a good read. For those in the midst of the conversation, it's a very useful tool.
February 10, 2018
Being up front, I read this book, knowing that I was coming from an opposing viewpoint, and it would probably be dishonest to say that this fact did not shade my impression of the book. That being said, in grappling with the author's viewpoint, I was not overly impressed. The book deals with a topic - a biblical case for the author's viewpoint - but dealt with it in a way where the sense was that the data was secondary to the author's experience and relationships. The title of the book is "The BIBLE'S Yes to Same-Sex Marriage"...and yet I felt as if the author had made up his mind before really combing the Bible for evidence. At seemingly the beginning of every chapter, the author seems to express "I was encouraged by what I was finding." For someone like me who wants to hear the biblical case in an objective way - have I missed something? - this communicated that he was almost rooting for one of the viewpoints (biblical approval for same sex marriage), as opposed to examining the biblical data, and following it where it led.
Some of the author's logic, in my estimation, is very flawed. Assumptions that the author claimed "victory" on, in my estimation, were unusually poorly backed. (The early assumptions of the book about the overall message and precedent of the Bible sincerely left me scratching my head.)
I thought that the discussion of the New Testament passages were a little more complete, and did cause me to think a bit. The logic behind the Old Testament passages, again, in my estimation (again, admitting that neither I nor anyone is completely objective), was poor and unconvincing.
That being said, I appreciated the author relaying the stories, many of which are very sad, of people who are grappling with this. I understand that this is not a simple issue, anymore than people are simple. I appreciate the author tackling this issue, and as a compliment to Mark, I will come away with at least a little better understanding of the viewpoint that seeks to validate the Bible's approval of committed same-sex relationships.
Some of the author's logic, in my estimation, is very flawed. Assumptions that the author claimed "victory" on, in my estimation, were unusually poorly backed. (The early assumptions of the book about the overall message and precedent of the Bible sincerely left me scratching my head.)
I thought that the discussion of the New Testament passages were a little more complete, and did cause me to think a bit. The logic behind the Old Testament passages, again, in my estimation (again, admitting that neither I nor anyone is completely objective), was poor and unconvincing.
That being said, I appreciated the author relaying the stories, many of which are very sad, of people who are grappling with this. I understand that this is not a simple issue, anymore than people are simple. I appreciate the author tackling this issue, and as a compliment to Mark, I will come away with at least a little better understanding of the viewpoint that seeks to validate the Bible's approval of committed same-sex relationships.
October 17, 2023
This book should be re-titled: "How I felt bad for people who struggle with SSA, and thus disregarded anything the Bible says, or twisted it to make myself (and them!) feel better" - Sure it's unwieldy, but it's accurate.
The crux of Achtemeier's argument comes down to horribly flawed hermeneutical/exegetical approach:
"...A good test of whether we have understood the Bible's teaching correctly is whether or not we can discern the loving reasons that stand behind it"
Contrast that to what the Bible actually says: Isaiah 55:7-9 NKJV
Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
The Truth of scripture has NOTHING to do with how well we can discern it.
He fails to show any way that the Bible says "yes" to same sex marriage, aside from plastering the misguided prosperity-gospel mantra of "God wants YOU to be HAPPY!"
The scriptures are clear: Romans 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
The crux of Achtemeier's argument comes down to horribly flawed hermeneutical/exegetical approach:
"...A good test of whether we have understood the Bible's teaching correctly is whether or not we can discern the loving reasons that stand behind it"
Contrast that to what the Bible actually says: Isaiah 55:7-9 NKJV
Let the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts; Let him return to the Lord, And He will have mercy on him; And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
The Truth of scripture has NOTHING to do with how well we can discern it.
He fails to show any way that the Bible says "yes" to same sex marriage, aside from plastering the misguided prosperity-gospel mantra of "God wants YOU to be HAPPY!"
The scriptures are clear: Romans 5:1-5 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
June 10, 2018
In general this is a good argument, but I imagine not
convincing to those who are entrenched anti-gay people.
The first part of the book defends the study of the Bible
as necessarily done in historical and literary context. The
author does not like those who use fragments of scripture
to prove their point.
Eventually he considers the 7 "fragments" that are often
used to condemn sex between same-sex people. Some
involve questionable translation of the original language.
But primarily he cites all as criticizing violent sex and
pagan sexual practices and even human traficking. His point
is that nothing was known in Biblical times of caring and
loving commitment between two people of the same sex.
The author maintains that marriage means exactly the
same between heterosexual and homosexual couples. It
is based on love, which is of God.
The author seems to indicate that his opinion completely
changed, partly in Bible study, but also in getting to know
spiritually gay people who are committed to each other and
to God.
convincing to those who are entrenched anti-gay people.
The first part of the book defends the study of the Bible
as necessarily done in historical and literary context. The
author does not like those who use fragments of scripture
to prove their point.
Eventually he considers the 7 "fragments" that are often
used to condemn sex between same-sex people. Some
involve questionable translation of the original language.
But primarily he cites all as criticizing violent sex and
pagan sexual practices and even human traficking. His point
is that nothing was known in Biblical times of caring and
loving commitment between two people of the same sex.
The author maintains that marriage means exactly the
same between heterosexual and homosexual couples. It
is based on love, which is of God.
The author seems to indicate that his opinion completely
changed, partly in Bible study, but also in getting to know
spiritually gay people who are committed to each other and
to God.
August 12, 2018
I don’t even want to write a review. This book was SO good. I’ve read multiple books that tackle this issue. And Mark’s conversation and journey reconciling these two worlds was beautiful and deep. Every part of the book made sense. He addresses multiple facets of the discussion and does so with theological understanding and emotional intelligence. I recommend this to anyone who is trying to discover where they land or just want to be challenged. ❤️🌈
September 21, 2018
As part of my yearly reading challenge, I was challenged to read a book from a theological viewpoint that I disagreed with. This book lived up to that category. I appreciated the author’s compassion that came through in his writing, but this same compassion led him to make his subjective experience the judge as he sought to reinterpret the Bible through that lens. I disagree with his method which led me to disagree with his conclusions about using the Bible to support same sex marriage.
October 26, 2019
Achtemeier presents a very compelling argument for changing the way the Church views same-sex marriage. However, his writing (at least in the actual argument portion) is incredibly juvenile. He is always "greatly encouraged" or "very heartened," or "worried that." I think he was trying to make it sound more conversational, but I found the repetetive phrases annoying, which made this book hard for me to read.
March 18, 2020
I was surprised to be disappointed by this one. The book is kind of “throw everything against the wall and see what sticks,” so strong and weak arguments are all mixed together, making everything pretty weak, and crying out for more/better editing. I was very surprised that someone who had written his earlier anti-inclusive essays got to the very subjective, individualistic hermeneutic that he arrives at by this book.
January 28, 2021
Wordy and repetitive (and a very unfortunate choice in fonts that make reading more challenging than it should be), but overall a helpful, basic review of a way to take Scripture seriously while still affirming same-gender relationships. Not an especially deep scholarly look, but it doesn't claim to be. Might be especially helpful to someone who wants to affirm same-gender relationships but hasn't figured out how that works with the authority of Scripture.
June 12, 2021
There is nothing new in this book. There is nothing logical about his arguments. This is just not a good book nor a well written book regardless of your position on gay marriage. If you already agree thay gay marriage is a fine, biblically supported idea, you'll find yourself nodding a lot in agreement. If you don't support thay position, you'll yawn your way through a very tired, tedious treatment of the subject. True, it's a few years old, but it has not aged well.
December 31, 2024
Excellent reference for those interested in a deep dive into the passages in the Bible many have used for years to attack, disenfranchise members of the LGBTQ community. The author was one of those at one time but after encounters with gay individuals and seeing their pain he began his own research and found that the Biblical text being used was being misinterpreted.
This edition features a Study Guide, as well.
This edition features a Study Guide, as well.
May 31, 2021
I found this an illuminating book. It wasn't a difficult read, and it walked through his journey to becoming affirming, as well as the people and questions he encountered along the way. It's not the only book I'd base my opinion on... I need additional theologically rigorous opinions, but it was a great place to start.
June 27, 2020
A must read for everyone
A must read for all Christians, LGBTQ or otw... am so glad I kept looking!!! I believe this is an inspired book and will do much to clarify the Biblical teachings without alienating anyone! Finally a book that makes sense! Thank you!!!
A must read for all Christians, LGBTQ or otw... am so glad I kept looking!!! I believe this is an inspired book and will do much to clarify the Biblical teachings without alienating anyone! Finally a book that makes sense! Thank you!!!
June 8, 2022
As a queer kid coming from this extreme evangelical background this book was startling accurate. It's great that its written by this pastor and we can only hope he does enough to convince some evangelicals out there.
February 7, 2025
This book has good stories and connections for people searching for Biblical understanding. If you are a literalist, it may not be for you. If your are open to the ideas of parables and stories, you’ll find a helpful resource .
May 30, 2018
Nice insight into the process of reexamining what he knew and believed.
August 14, 2021
Pretty clearly written. More persuasive than many other books from an affirming Christian perspective!
July 27, 2022
good exploration of scriptures
Displaying 1 - 30 of 61 reviews