This is the second book I have read that attempts to make the case that being in a committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship is not against the teachings presented in the bible.
I was not familiar with David Gushee prior to learning about this book and did a little research on him so as to ascertain what his beliefs are/were. I was surprised to learn he is a Christian Ethicist (given the fact I did know even no that existed) and that his well received in the Christian community (at least at the time of this review.)
As to this book, is during the introduction in Which Brian McLaren states one will face a big ethical decision if one reads this with courage and their heart open. Conversely, if you are unwilling to read without being honest and engaging, the reader is chickening out. It is the sort of setup that really irritates me as it supposes that if you do not agree with the conclusion of the writer it is because you are not being a courageous or heartfelt reader. After all if the reader was, they would come to the same conclusion of the writer. I personally don't like being told what I should you should not believe in.
Much of the book deals with how the author came to the conclusion he did. I really cannot comment much on that except that he has a similar backstory in which they, as a "Christian", have believed that the Bible is not compatible with a committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship. It is only until a family member or other loved one comes out a "gay" that they reach an epiphany that the Bible does indeed allow for a committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship and work at great pains to prove it as such.
These are the areas I have an issue with.
Like other writers, we begin with Genesis and work our way through Timothy. In Genesis the notion of a Genesis 1-2 Christian interpretation is not realistic as the Adam and Eve were removed from the garden due to their sin and that Christians should like from Genesis 3 onward acknowledging the fact that humans are sinful and that the notion of a strictly male/female monogamous is not the only human relationship. That's an interesting notion but really make no sense as anyone could make the same argument concerning any sinful behavior, sexual or otherwise.
Of course, we get to Leviticus and the notion the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with sexual sin and that the notion concerning the men of the city wanting to "know" the angelic messengers who were with Lot had more to do with being bad stewards to guests, which is still considered a major taboo in the Middle East, and that if sex was to be involved, it had to do with humiliation and as an expression of power only, certainly not a committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship. I admit that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had more to do than just sex. As the Bible described it, they were extremely sinful cities so I would have to imagine a lot more happened within their walls than what the Bible reports. The notion of the men of the city not really engaging in homosexual relations with the strangers and just wanted to show their dominance makes little sense. The writer argues that in a patriarchal society, allowing these men to engage in sex with the messengers would be quite detrimental as their societal worth, the messengers, would be diminished. The problem here is that Lot offered his virgin daughters which held a significate social and financial risk to Lot, if this was about power this would have had a severely adverse affect to Lot and his family.
In a way that almost supposes the writer thought about a potential counterargument, he states it's also possible the wickedness had to do with the fact these men wanted to have sex with Angels. The problem here is two-fold; one would have to assume that the men of the city knew these messengers were indeed Angels, second the only mention of sex between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men" appears several chapters earlier and the implication is the Angels felt enamored with the women on Earth.
Then of course we come to Paul and his condemnation of homosexuality. The writer then engages in the argument that other writers have made concerning the usage of the word in the society climate of the time and how it's possible the conversion from Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and English is not accurate and the word does not really mean what we in this modern society thinks it does. If that is truly the case, then how can a Christian reader have any faith in anything that is presented in the Bible? After all if these passages are translated into a word(s) that they were not to be, the entirety of all passages of the Bible should then be called into question.
Either the Bible is the divinely word of God or it isn't. What the writer is trying to do here is have it both ways. He believes the Bible is the Word of God at the same token he is stating it's not been translated correctly.
All in all, like the book on this subject I have read, the amount of work needed to make the argument that a committed, monogamous, homosexual relationship is permissible under the Bible, puts even the most gifted lawyers to shame as the amount of supposition, conjecture, heresy, and unrelated evidence that has to be cobbled together to make this an even slightly plausible argument.