What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church
Unique among most debates on homosexuality, this book presents a constructive dialogue between people who disagree on significant ethical and theological matters, and yet maintain a respectful and humanizing posture toward one another. Few topics are more divisive today than homosexuality. Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church brings a fresh perspective to a well-worn debate. While Christian debates about homosexuality are most often dominated by biblical exegesis, this book seeks to give much-needed attention to the rich history of received Christian tradition, bringing the Bible into conversation with historical and systematic theology. To that end, both theologians and biblical scholars--well accomplished in their fields and conversant in issues of sexuality and gender--articulate and defend each of the two The main essays are followed by insightful responses that interact with their fellow essayists with civility. Holding to a high view of Scripture, a commitment to the gospel and the church, and a love for people--especially those most affected by this topic--the contributors wrestle deeply with the Bible and theology, especially the prohibition texts, the role of procreation, gender complementarity, and pastoral accommodation. The book concludes with reflections from general editor Preston Sprinkle on the future of discussions on faith and sexuality. The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.
240 pages, Paperback
Published November 29, 2016
181 people are currently reading
683 people want to read
About the author
Preston Sprinkle
20 books180 followersPreston Sprinkle (PhD, Aberdeen) is a teacher, speaker, and New York Times bestselling author. He has written several books including People to Be Loved, Living in a Gray World, Charis, and Erasing Hell, which he co-authored with Francis Chan. Preston has held faculty positions at Nottingham University, Cedarville University, and Eternity Bible College. He and his family live in Boise, Idaho, and he currently helps pastors and leaders engage the LGBTQ conversation with thoughtfulness and grace.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
June 8, 2017
Summary: Four biblical scholars and theologians, two holding two a traditional understanding of human sexuality, and two holding an affirming stance, but all taking the biblical testimony about human sexuality seriously, articulate the basis on which they hold their positions, and respond to the statements of the other three in gracious dialogue.
I don't think anyone will contradict the assertion that recent discussions around sexuality both within the culture and the church have been fraught with bitter rancor and contention. Denominations have fractured and hurtful attacks have been made on those holding either of the two major stances, traditional and affirming. There are books demeaning those holding one or the other of these views while arguing for their own.
If for no other reason then, this book is a welcome alternative. Four scholars argue for variants of one of the two major stances in a dialogue that is unrestrained in the rigor in which one or the other view is held while speaking respectfully of the contributions of others, even those in disagreement. Furthermore, all four care deeply about the biblical witness on these matters, although they part ways in their interpretation of that witness. Strikingly, three of the four, including one of the affirming scholars would contend that the biblical witness precludes same sex unions but reach differing conclusions on how this might be applied in the contemporary context.
The four scholars then in the dialogue and the basic positions they hold are:
William Loader, a scholar who has studied sexuality in ancient Judaism and Christianity holds that the Bible prohibits all forms of same sex relations, but that this must be weighed against findings in biology and other fields related to sexuality and gender not available to the biblical writers, and thus he arrives at a position affirming same sex unions.
Megan DeFranza is a theologian whose research on intersex persons (those whose physiology is neither clearly male nor female) challenges the assumption that all people are born exclusively male or female. She notes the recognition of eunuchs in scripture as a biblical example contrary to this traditional assumption. She also argues that the prohibition passages have to do with exploitative forms of sexuality related to slavery, trafficking, and power differences and do not focus on loving, monogamous same sex relationships.
Wesley Hill, a celibate gay biblical scholar who shares something of his own narrative, contends that the prohibitive passages preclude any same sex relations and argues that these must be understood in the broader context of the Bible's affirmations about sexuality, marriage, and procreation. Both he and the next scholar draw on Augustinian theology as the best resource for articulating a biblical synthesis on matters of marriage and sexuality. Hill also eloquently argues for the place of "spiritual friendship"--deeply committed, non-sexual friendships between two same sex persons as well as the full welcome of same sex persons committed to the traditional view within families, sharing his own experience of being invited to be the godfather of a couple's children and thus drawn into that family.
Stephen Holmes is a theologian who argues that the prohibitive passages are actually secondary (though important) to the biblical passages teaching about marriage. He also draws on Augustinian theology, despite its acknowledge defects for its formulation of the three-fold goods of marriage: children, faithfulness (a God-graced experience of learning selflessness), and sacrament (revealing the mystery of Christ's relation to the church). Holmes, while not advocating same sex unions, explores the possibility of some kind of accommodation for same sex couples who come into the church, along the lines of the church's accommodation for at least some who divorce and remarry, or those made in mission contexts for polygamous unions.
Each of these scholars sets forth his or her own understanding and their reasons for that understanding--rooted significantly in biblical, cultural, and contemporary research as well as pastoral concerns.
The essays underscore several things:
With some exceptions, the question is less what scripture says than what this is taken to mean for the church and how this is appropriated pastorally.
While the tone of these discussions was irenic, the disturbing reality was the support this gives to the "pervasive interpretive pluralism" scholars like Brad Gregory and Christian Smith level against Protestant Christianity. At the same time, these scholars model a serious effort at engagement that looks for common ground, and perhaps in the future, a reconciliation of their differences.
The essays and responses all model pastoral concern and compassion and respect for the dignity and character of LGBT persons as well as the challenge all in the church are faced with by the scriptures calling for integrity in our sexual lives.
Both Hill and Holmes press a corollary of traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality that is neglected in much Protestant discourse, the good of procreation and children.
Loader and DeFranza do raise an important hermeneutic question of how in other areas (for example, our understanding of the cosmos, a heliocentric solar system, the age of the earth) many in the church have accommodated their understanding of scripture to these findings in science. Is there similar warrant in matters of sexuality? Hill and Holmes would argue that there is no basis for such a warrant concerning homosexuality, and arrive at different hermeneutical outcomes.
Preston Sprinkle, editor of this work makes similar observations and also helpfully frames the discussion at the start, and points toward future work to be done. The need for this is clear. Often, the disputes of the church have taken a century or more to resolve. The discussion of justification, grace, faith, and works is five hundred years and running, with significant recent explorations of common ground between Catholic and Protestant. It occurs to me that a resolution will take further work along the lines of what these scholars done.
I also believe the conversation needs to be expanded to listen to scholars and theologians from non-Western backgrounds. While this discussion included a woman and a self-identified gay person, it was a discussion among four white scholars. One of my own concerns in this discussion is the exclusionary and culturally imperialistic consequences of how the church in the West has often deliberated and acted in these matters and sometimes spoken pejoratively of the views of believers from other parts of the global Christian family. Their voices must also be heard and honored.
I don't think anyone will contradict the assertion that recent discussions around sexuality both within the culture and the church have been fraught with bitter rancor and contention. Denominations have fractured and hurtful attacks have been made on those holding either of the two major stances, traditional and affirming. There are books demeaning those holding one or the other of these views while arguing for their own.
If for no other reason then, this book is a welcome alternative. Four scholars argue for variants of one of the two major stances in a dialogue that is unrestrained in the rigor in which one or the other view is held while speaking respectfully of the contributions of others, even those in disagreement. Furthermore, all four care deeply about the biblical witness on these matters, although they part ways in their interpretation of that witness. Strikingly, three of the four, including one of the affirming scholars would contend that the biblical witness precludes same sex unions but reach differing conclusions on how this might be applied in the contemporary context.
The four scholars then in the dialogue and the basic positions they hold are:
William Loader, a scholar who has studied sexuality in ancient Judaism and Christianity holds that the Bible prohibits all forms of same sex relations, but that this must be weighed against findings in biology and other fields related to sexuality and gender not available to the biblical writers, and thus he arrives at a position affirming same sex unions.
Megan DeFranza is a theologian whose research on intersex persons (those whose physiology is neither clearly male nor female) challenges the assumption that all people are born exclusively male or female. She notes the recognition of eunuchs in scripture as a biblical example contrary to this traditional assumption. She also argues that the prohibition passages have to do with exploitative forms of sexuality related to slavery, trafficking, and power differences and do not focus on loving, monogamous same sex relationships.
Wesley Hill, a celibate gay biblical scholar who shares something of his own narrative, contends that the prohibitive passages preclude any same sex relations and argues that these must be understood in the broader context of the Bible's affirmations about sexuality, marriage, and procreation. Both he and the next scholar draw on Augustinian theology as the best resource for articulating a biblical synthesis on matters of marriage and sexuality. Hill also eloquently argues for the place of "spiritual friendship"--deeply committed, non-sexual friendships between two same sex persons as well as the full welcome of same sex persons committed to the traditional view within families, sharing his own experience of being invited to be the godfather of a couple's children and thus drawn into that family.
Stephen Holmes is a theologian who argues that the prohibitive passages are actually secondary (though important) to the biblical passages teaching about marriage. He also draws on Augustinian theology, despite its acknowledge defects for its formulation of the three-fold goods of marriage: children, faithfulness (a God-graced experience of learning selflessness), and sacrament (revealing the mystery of Christ's relation to the church). Holmes, while not advocating same sex unions, explores the possibility of some kind of accommodation for same sex couples who come into the church, along the lines of the church's accommodation for at least some who divorce and remarry, or those made in mission contexts for polygamous unions.
Each of these scholars sets forth his or her own understanding and their reasons for that understanding--rooted significantly in biblical, cultural, and contemporary research as well as pastoral concerns.
The essays underscore several things:
With some exceptions, the question is less what scripture says than what this is taken to mean for the church and how this is appropriated pastorally.
While the tone of these discussions was irenic, the disturbing reality was the support this gives to the "pervasive interpretive pluralism" scholars like Brad Gregory and Christian Smith level against Protestant Christianity. At the same time, these scholars model a serious effort at engagement that looks for common ground, and perhaps in the future, a reconciliation of their differences.
The essays and responses all model pastoral concern and compassion and respect for the dignity and character of LGBT persons as well as the challenge all in the church are faced with by the scriptures calling for integrity in our sexual lives.
Both Hill and Holmes press a corollary of traditional understanding of marriage and sexuality that is neglected in much Protestant discourse, the good of procreation and children.
Loader and DeFranza do raise an important hermeneutic question of how in other areas (for example, our understanding of the cosmos, a heliocentric solar system, the age of the earth) many in the church have accommodated their understanding of scripture to these findings in science. Is there similar warrant in matters of sexuality? Hill and Holmes would argue that there is no basis for such a warrant concerning homosexuality, and arrive at different hermeneutical outcomes.
Preston Sprinkle, editor of this work makes similar observations and also helpfully frames the discussion at the start, and points toward future work to be done. The need for this is clear. Often, the disputes of the church have taken a century or more to resolve. The discussion of justification, grace, faith, and works is five hundred years and running, with significant recent explorations of common ground between Catholic and Protestant. It occurs to me that a resolution will take further work along the lines of what these scholars done.
I also believe the conversation needs to be expanded to listen to scholars and theologians from non-Western backgrounds. While this discussion included a woman and a self-identified gay person, it was a discussion among four white scholars. One of my own concerns in this discussion is the exclusionary and culturally imperialistic consequences of how the church in the West has often deliberated and acted in these matters and sometimes spoken pejoratively of the views of believers from other parts of the global Christian family. Their voices must also be heard and honored.
January 2, 2018
William Loader's view (affirming):
• Paul condemned not only homosexual behavior, but the homosexual disposition itself
• Paul believed there were only two genders (male and female) and that any perversion in sexual attraction could be attributed to rebellion against God
• Since biology has shown us there are more than two genders and that some are born gay, Paul's words do not apply to them
• The most biblical response then is to affirm those legitimately born gay
Megan DeFranza's view (affirming):
• The presence of those who are “eunuchs from birth” implies that there are not only two genders; Adam and Eve or representatives of a majority, but they are not exclusive in the same way that reptiles do not fit the categories of beasts in creation
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was because of the sin of sexual violence, not their views of marriage
• The Leviticus laws mot likely were to keep a man from being dishonored as a a woman, not because of a “sexual orientation”
• Paul’s remarks in Romans are against the aristocracy who often sexually abused enslaved persons
• We can’t use an argument against nature, because in biblical times heterosexual rape, incest, and prostitution were all considered “natural”
• Heterosexual marriage as an analogy for Jesus and his love for the church does not work in modern times, because it was based on a patriarchal view of marriage where the man was twice the age of the female, more educated, and had all the power
• In the same way that Gentiles were grafted into the Jewish family, the next generation of Christians will need to graft in homosexuals and bisexuals into the family of God
Wesley Hill’s view (traditional):
• The Genesis narrative should determine our canonical biblical theology of marriage, especially since Jesus quotes it as well (Mark 19:1-6)
• The explicit commandments against homosexuality in Leviticus and Romans 1 should be interpreted in the light of the fall and are directly related to Genesis
• Augustine argues there are three “goods” of marriage: offspring, faithfulness (or fidelity), and “sacramentum” or a sign of Christ’s love for the church
Stephen Holmes’ view (traditional):
• There are three options the church has:
• The same way that missionaries made concessions when evangelizing polygamous countries (so as not to break up existing family units and leave children and wives destitute), our pastors too should make concessions and allow some who were “married” to remain so and become part of our church (the same way we also allow divorced and remarried couples to be a part of the church)
• The crux of marriage is procreation – even without the explicit texts (Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians), you would still walk away knowing that homosexuality is wrong
• Because Augustine argues that marriage is a place where our desires are more rightly reordered, we need to raise the standard for heterosexual marriages
• Paul condemned not only homosexual behavior, but the homosexual disposition itself
• Paul believed there were only two genders (male and female) and that any perversion in sexual attraction could be attributed to rebellion against God
• Since biology has shown us there are more than two genders and that some are born gay, Paul's words do not apply to them
• The most biblical response then is to affirm those legitimately born gay
Megan DeFranza's view (affirming):
• The presence of those who are “eunuchs from birth” implies that there are not only two genders; Adam and Eve or representatives of a majority, but they are not exclusive in the same way that reptiles do not fit the categories of beasts in creation
• The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was because of the sin of sexual violence, not their views of marriage
• The Leviticus laws mot likely were to keep a man from being dishonored as a a woman, not because of a “sexual orientation”
• Paul’s remarks in Romans are against the aristocracy who often sexually abused enslaved persons
• We can’t use an argument against nature, because in biblical times heterosexual rape, incest, and prostitution were all considered “natural”
• Heterosexual marriage as an analogy for Jesus and his love for the church does not work in modern times, because it was based on a patriarchal view of marriage where the man was twice the age of the female, more educated, and had all the power
• In the same way that Gentiles were grafted into the Jewish family, the next generation of Christians will need to graft in homosexuals and bisexuals into the family of God
Wesley Hill’s view (traditional):
• The Genesis narrative should determine our canonical biblical theology of marriage, especially since Jesus quotes it as well (Mark 19:1-6)
• The explicit commandments against homosexuality in Leviticus and Romans 1 should be interpreted in the light of the fall and are directly related to Genesis
• Augustine argues there are three “goods” of marriage: offspring, faithfulness (or fidelity), and “sacramentum” or a sign of Christ’s love for the church
Stephen Holmes’ view (traditional):
• There are three options the church has:
1. the Christian concept of marriage can be changed to include same-sex couples
2. we can make a wholly new way of life that sits alongside opposite gender marriage
3. we can hold same-sex marriage is wrong but make pastoral accommodation for some to live that way
• The same way that missionaries made concessions when evangelizing polygamous countries (so as not to break up existing family units and leave children and wives destitute), our pastors too should make concessions and allow some who were “married” to remain so and become part of our church (the same way we also allow divorced and remarried couples to be a part of the church)
• The crux of marriage is procreation – even without the explicit texts (Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians), you would still walk away knowing that homosexuality is wrong
• Because Augustine argues that marriage is a place where our desires are more rightly reordered, we need to raise the standard for heterosexual marriages
April 17, 2023
I really don't have enough good things to say about this book and would love to read more from this series.
The format: four scholars present essays on homosexuality and the Church; two are affirming in their conclusions, two are traditional. After each essay, the other three contributors respond to the points made. The chapter ends with a rejoinder from the author of the essay before moving on to the next. The responses are respectful, compassionate, thoughtful, and open to new ideas -- something rarely seen in debates on such a contentious topic! Homles actually ends his chapter with the subheading "Conclusion: Admitting I Might Be Wrong", which gave me appreciative pause. This is what scholarly conversation needs to look like, and lay people should take note.
I was deeply challenged by all four positions. In each there were points I had not considered, which stretched my mind. They were epistemologically humble, rigorous, and honest, full of pastoral concern. This is a challenging read, but well worth the time for anyone in ministry today.
The format: four scholars present essays on homosexuality and the Church; two are affirming in their conclusions, two are traditional. After each essay, the other three contributors respond to the points made. The chapter ends with a rejoinder from the author of the essay before moving on to the next. The responses are respectful, compassionate, thoughtful, and open to new ideas -- something rarely seen in debates on such a contentious topic! Homles actually ends his chapter with the subheading "Conclusion: Admitting I Might Be Wrong", which gave me appreciative pause. This is what scholarly conversation needs to look like, and lay people should take note.
I was deeply challenged by all four positions. In each there were points I had not considered, which stretched my mind. They were epistemologically humble, rigorous, and honest, full of pastoral concern. This is a challenging read, but well worth the time for anyone in ministry today.
Read
February 28, 2017The format of this book is enormously helpful as a teaching tool. It's incredibly valuable for students to read the essays together with the responses. A model for academic conversation.
June 15, 2020
Preston Sprinkle facilitated dialogue between two scholars that argue monogamous, consensual same-sex relationships can be blessed by God and fully included in the life of the church and two scholars that argue all forms of same-sex sexual behavior are prohibited by Scripture and Christian theology. Megan DeFranza and William Loader are the “affirming” scholars. Wesley Hill and Stephen Holmes are the “traditional” scholars. Each writer is erudite and insightful making the book worthwhile in an academic setting. While the writing can be technical at times for a lay reader, it is still approachable.
Because Zondervan published this book, you might expect the debate to center around the relevant passages in the Bible and how they are interpreted by each scholar. However, that is not how the debate unfolds. Loader, who affirms same-sex relationships, interprets these passages to mean exactly what traditional scholars claim they mean. The path Loader takes to affirming same-sex relationships is the source of debate. He says, “To truly honor Scripture and respect Paul, we do better to acknowledge respectfully that we see Paul’s understanding of human sexuality as no longer adequate. My faith does not commit me to first-century views about the universe, humanity, and sexuality which Paul and others assumed.” Surprisingly, Hill does not even engage Loader on this point. Readers will appreciate that Holmes does address this issue directly. DeFranza agrees with Loader that human observations of nature are at odds with the traditional understanding of Scripture. However, rather than seeing Scripture as inadequate she assigns the inadequacy to our traditional interpretation of it.
Then DeFranza opens the debate exactly how a Zondervan reader might expect—examining the relevant passages in a new light. Her journey begins re-examining all of Scripture for its accounting of intersex persons. This investigation is her first step in unpacking the inadequacy of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 as a paradigm for all human sexuality. She then re-examines all the passages relevant to same-sex relationships. In her final analysis, the traditional interpretation of these passages was also found to be inadequate. Her revised interpretations employ approaches to interpretation that are not commonly used within evangelical scholarship. But when Wesley responds, readers may be disappointed he only addresses her view of Genesis 1. Holmes only covers Genesis 1 and Romans 1. DeFranza’s readings of all other passages are left without response. Readers may also be disappointed that neither Wesley nor Holmes addresses her untraditional methods of interpretation.
Hill and Holmes each have their turn for laying out their path to affirming the traditional view same-sex relationships. And this is the strength of this book—each writer laying out their view of same-sex relationships based on the relevant passages. But that only provides four separate monologues. My hope for this book was dialogue—and Holmes and Loader did dialogue about Loader’s evaluation of Paul’s view of sexuality as inadequate. There was significant dialogue about Genesis 1 and Romans 1. But there was no dialogue about DeFranza’s non-traditional approaches to interpretation and many passages that escaped dialogue. In short, what the book does accomplish, it accomplishes with great success. But I suspect many readers will feel as I did that there were many things that could have been accomplished but were not even attempted.
Because Zondervan published this book, you might expect the debate to center around the relevant passages in the Bible and how they are interpreted by each scholar. However, that is not how the debate unfolds. Loader, who affirms same-sex relationships, interprets these passages to mean exactly what traditional scholars claim they mean. The path Loader takes to affirming same-sex relationships is the source of debate. He says, “To truly honor Scripture and respect Paul, we do better to acknowledge respectfully that we see Paul’s understanding of human sexuality as no longer adequate. My faith does not commit me to first-century views about the universe, humanity, and sexuality which Paul and others assumed.” Surprisingly, Hill does not even engage Loader on this point. Readers will appreciate that Holmes does address this issue directly. DeFranza agrees with Loader that human observations of nature are at odds with the traditional understanding of Scripture. However, rather than seeing Scripture as inadequate she assigns the inadequacy to our traditional interpretation of it.
Then DeFranza opens the debate exactly how a Zondervan reader might expect—examining the relevant passages in a new light. Her journey begins re-examining all of Scripture for its accounting of intersex persons. This investigation is her first step in unpacking the inadequacy of the traditional interpretation of Genesis 1 as a paradigm for all human sexuality. She then re-examines all the passages relevant to same-sex relationships. In her final analysis, the traditional interpretation of these passages was also found to be inadequate. Her revised interpretations employ approaches to interpretation that are not commonly used within evangelical scholarship. But when Wesley responds, readers may be disappointed he only addresses her view of Genesis 1. Holmes only covers Genesis 1 and Romans 1. DeFranza’s readings of all other passages are left without response. Readers may also be disappointed that neither Wesley nor Holmes addresses her untraditional methods of interpretation.
Hill and Holmes each have their turn for laying out their path to affirming the traditional view same-sex relationships. And this is the strength of this book—each writer laying out their view of same-sex relationships based on the relevant passages. But that only provides four separate monologues. My hope for this book was dialogue—and Holmes and Loader did dialogue about Loader’s evaluation of Paul’s view of sexuality as inadequate. There was significant dialogue about Genesis 1 and Romans 1. But there was no dialogue about DeFranza’s non-traditional approaches to interpretation and many passages that escaped dialogue. In short, what the book does accomplish, it accomplishes with great success. But I suspect many readers will feel as I did that there were many things that could have been accomplished but were not even attempted.
April 25, 2023
This was a very deceiving book. The title is clear on what this book is about. 4 authors write articles on two different views on this debate, one view affirming the homosexual view and the other being the traditional view. Although the book states to have two people who affirm the traditional view, I believe that this book does not accomplish this fairly. I would not recommend this book to anyone.
April 30, 2024
Imagine sitting in a coffee shop with four people who take the Bible and the theological traditions of the church seriously. Then imagine the four of them engaging in a civil and nuanced conversation over human sexuality in which they find common ground, but also disagree.
If you can imagine that and want to be part of such a conversation, then you will want to read this book. It is theologically and biblically rich, and deeply thought-provoking.
I highly recommend it.
If you can imagine that and want to be part of such a conversation, then you will want to read this book. It is theologically and biblically rich, and deeply thought-provoking.
I highly recommend it.
June 25, 2019
This is a thoughtful and thorough overview of the major perspectives on sexuality in the Western church today, as well as a great model for conversation on such a heated and divisive topic. Like many "multi-view" books, each author was given a chance to respond to the other essays, but one of the things that sets this one apart is that each essay writer was also given a chance to respond to the responses (rejoinder). The result is a robust conversation, and the reader gets to see nuances and complications within each argument. Both DeFranza's and Holmes' essays were stand-outs for me, as they brought refreshing new arguments. DeFranza helped me gain a better appreciation for the intersex angle on this whole conversation, as well as the extent to which the traditional view really relies on Augustinian theology (something both Holmes and Hill acknowledge in this book). Holmes' essay deeply resonated with me, particularly his articulation of the pressing pastoral needs in the church today.
Given all the back-and-forth, the book's format could have been a mess. Remarkably, it's quite readable, though at times it does get fairly repetitive. Overall, I gained a ton from reading this, and would absolutely recommend it to anyone who wants to gain an overview of the sexuality-and-the-Bible conversation in our culture today.
Given all the back-and-forth, the book's format could have been a mess. Remarkably, it's quite readable, though at times it does get fairly repetitive. Overall, I gained a ton from reading this, and would absolutely recommend it to anyone who wants to gain an overview of the sexuality-and-the-Bible conversation in our culture today.
August 5, 2024
I truly appreciated the empathy, humility, intelligence, and value for scripure each of the 5 authors exhibited in the writing of this book. While they argued for 2 different approaches to Christians in same-sex marriage, they were respectful/appreciative of each other's love for Christians with same-sex orientation, rigorous study, and care for Biblical integrity.
The book contains 4 arguments from 4 separate theologians: 2 arguing that God can ordain committed, exclusive, lifeling same-sex relationships and 2 arguing that God does not ordain these relationships for Christians. Each essay is then followed by 3 responses from the other authors and concludes with a final response from the initial essay writer. I really appreciated the editor's summation at the end, although I really would have appreciated a bullet point chart to sum up each author's arguments!
I read this book not to solidify or alter my position on same-sex marriage for Christians but to gain a better understanding of the legitimate biblical and theological arguments rather than common arguments based on sentiment and fear.
This book might convince a reader of one position in particular, but that is not its primary purpose. It's short (226 pages) but a tough read because it is so academic! I am a fast reader, but this is not the type of book a non-theologian can effectively read quickly. The academic style of writing, as well as a lot of references, can be difficult to follow. I had to re-read many portions in order to understand, and even then, some things went over my head. My one complaint is the obsession with Augustinian theology. I loved that each theologian has come to their beliefs and conclusions IN community with their gay and lesbian friends.
The book contains 4 arguments from 4 separate theologians: 2 arguing that God can ordain committed, exclusive, lifeling same-sex relationships and 2 arguing that God does not ordain these relationships for Christians. Each essay is then followed by 3 responses from the other authors and concludes with a final response from the initial essay writer. I really appreciated the editor's summation at the end, although I really would have appreciated a bullet point chart to sum up each author's arguments!
I read this book not to solidify or alter my position on same-sex marriage for Christians but to gain a better understanding of the legitimate biblical and theological arguments rather than common arguments based on sentiment and fear.
This book might convince a reader of one position in particular, but that is not its primary purpose. It's short (226 pages) but a tough read because it is so academic! I am a fast reader, but this is not the type of book a non-theologian can effectively read quickly. The academic style of writing, as well as a lot of references, can be difficult to follow. I had to re-read many portions in order to understand, and even then, some things went over my head. My one complaint is the obsession with Augustinian theology. I loved that each theologian has come to their beliefs and conclusions IN community with their gay and lesbian friends.
November 9, 2025
This work did an excellent job of reframing what many see as a black and white issue. The conversation has a lot of gray area with great debate regarding the ethical application of the view held. Reading this work necessitates a willingness to listen to every unique argument without rebuttal for a time, just like how the authors of this work accomplished. If you enter the work with a predetermined view, whether affirming or traditional, hoping and expecting one of the essayists to perfectly conform to your view and "slam" the other opinions, you will be greatly disappointed. As Sprinkle noted in his conclusion, there are points I too found myself agreeing with and disagreeing with points from each essay. I hope I approach the topic with greater humility, just as Holmes presented in the conclusion of his essay.
November 15, 2019
This isn't a book you read in an evening, or only once for that matter. But if someone is looking for a thoughtful, balanced, well-researched book, this is a great choice. Ultimately, all the contributors love God and love people and want to do both well. I don't leave this book with any definitive conclusions, but I have do leave with a much better understanding of the complexities of this topic within the Christian church.
May 27, 2023
Really appreciate how this book felt like a conversation not an argument. On such a divisive issue, the voices were diverse but still held respect for their spiritual family with differing opinions. I really appreciated hearing about viewpoints that were outside of what most people in my Christian faith tradition believe in. Definitely expanded my biblical view of this topic.
Read
March 2, 2023DMin Course Reading
June 21, 2019
A useful and irenic summary of the debate among Evangelical scholars. I wish one of the affirming contributions had been from a queer person; however, the fact that such a book is possible is a massive step forward, outlining clearly what some Evangelicals think is at stake.
On a second reading in June 2019, I affirm what I say above, and add that the afterword mentions questions that may be useful to pursue for queer theologians interested in conversation with Evangelical traditions in North America and the UK.
On a second reading in June 2019, I affirm what I say above, and add that the afterword mentions questions that may be useful to pursue for queer theologians interested in conversation with Evangelical traditions in North America and the UK.
February 6, 2017
This is a good overview of the two positions. The discussion is respectful and scholarly. I'd say it's representative of the issues involved and the possible solutions.
January 7, 2017
*4.5 Stars*
November 19, 2022
An interesting, nuanced view of homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church. I would recommend this book to those wanting a civil, well-researched view of this topic.
August 20, 2025
***this is the one that puts both views into conversation
July 9, 2023
Enormously helpful book that captured many thoughts and questions I've had on the subject and made me think about a lot more. As described, it's two Christian views on homosexuality, one affirming, one traditional. But it's really four views - each side looking at Biblical exegesis and a theological approach, and all views engage with each other. All of them have a very high view of Scripture (the discussion is dominated by Scriptural analysis) and a real loving concern for LGBQ brothers and sisters. (Intersex is mentioned only briefly in service of an argument and the preface notes that transgender concerns are beyond the scope of this book. Presumably so are other categories.)
At the risk of oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy (and leaving a ton out), the views given are:
William Loader (affirming) - the relevant passages in Leviticus and Romans mean what they seem, a prohibition of homosexual behavior, and that should be honored and recognized. However, they're all based on a premise that we now know to be false (that orientation is not ingrained) so much as we reconsider Biblical passages that talk about cosmology in light of modern science while still allowing it to speak to us, we should do the same with these passages.
Megan K. DeFranza (affirming) - passages that seem to condemn homosexuality in general are actually talking about a specific act, where there is a power differential and abuse. Given that, Scripture would affirm a loving, committed same-sex marriage.
Wesley Hill (traditional) - marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. But there needs to be real place in the church for committed relationships that aren't a part of marriage for all people, including gays and lesbians.
Stephen R. Holmes (traditional) - a more theological approach; regardless of specific Scriptural passages, Christian theology points to marriage being for procreation, and thus for a man and woman. While it seems unfair to call gays and lesbians to celibacy, the problem is not that we're asking too much of them, it's that we're asking too little of straight people - their standards should be raised.
One thing I was pleasantly surprised about was the fact that sexual orientation being innate was taken for granted by all. I think we've left the days of conversion therapy behind, and to me that's a good thing.
I was also surprised at how respectful the writers were to all views, and in fact how jumbled they were - for example, Hill is the one gay essayist, and he unexpectedly (to me) endorses a traditional view.
I was also surprised by the real love they all had for gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Holmes presents the most traditional (Augustinian) view, but even his essay ends with a surprise, that he believes that exceptions can (and probably should) be made out of pastoral care. For example, if a lesbian couple with children comes to faith, it would cruel to break up that family.
I think two groups would not like this book - one, those who think that the primacy and legitimacy of sexual orientation is so paramount and obvious that any Scripture that questions that should be dismissed out of hand. This isn't that type of book. The affirming views don't reject Scripture, they fairly obsess on honoring it. Two, those who think that gays and lesbians are deviant and the obvious solution is that they can and must change. This isn't that type of book either. It recognizes sexual orientation as a real thing and displays real pastoral love for them.
The book made me think a lot. I think the issue is more complex than many Christians grant. And it actually made me rethink my views on heterosexual marriage as well. My own views are all mixed up, but purely on an essay level, I found Loader's essay most engaging. Regardless, I was encouraged to read this, that across the spectrum there's a real desire in the church to truly love LGBQ, not condemn them.
At the risk of oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy (and leaving a ton out), the views given are:
William Loader (affirming) - the relevant passages in Leviticus and Romans mean what they seem, a prohibition of homosexual behavior, and that should be honored and recognized. However, they're all based on a premise that we now know to be false (that orientation is not ingrained) so much as we reconsider Biblical passages that talk about cosmology in light of modern science while still allowing it to speak to us, we should do the same with these passages.
Megan K. DeFranza (affirming) - passages that seem to condemn homosexuality in general are actually talking about a specific act, where there is a power differential and abuse. Given that, Scripture would affirm a loving, committed same-sex marriage.
Wesley Hill (traditional) - marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. But there needs to be real place in the church for committed relationships that aren't a part of marriage for all people, including gays and lesbians.
Stephen R. Holmes (traditional) - a more theological approach; regardless of specific Scriptural passages, Christian theology points to marriage being for procreation, and thus for a man and woman. While it seems unfair to call gays and lesbians to celibacy, the problem is not that we're asking too much of them, it's that we're asking too little of straight people - their standards should be raised.
One thing I was pleasantly surprised about was the fact that sexual orientation being innate was taken for granted by all. I think we've left the days of conversion therapy behind, and to me that's a good thing.
I was also surprised at how respectful the writers were to all views, and in fact how jumbled they were - for example, Hill is the one gay essayist, and he unexpectedly (to me) endorses a traditional view.
I was also surprised by the real love they all had for gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. Holmes presents the most traditional (Augustinian) view, but even his essay ends with a surprise, that he believes that exceptions can (and probably should) be made out of pastoral care. For example, if a lesbian couple with children comes to faith, it would cruel to break up that family.
I think two groups would not like this book - one, those who think that the primacy and legitimacy of sexual orientation is so paramount and obvious that any Scripture that questions that should be dismissed out of hand. This isn't that type of book. The affirming views don't reject Scripture, they fairly obsess on honoring it. Two, those who think that gays and lesbians are deviant and the obvious solution is that they can and must change. This isn't that type of book either. It recognizes sexual orientation as a real thing and displays real pastoral love for them.
The book made me think a lot. I think the issue is more complex than many Christians grant. And it actually made me rethink my views on heterosexual marriage as well. My own views are all mixed up, but purely on an essay level, I found Loader's essay most engaging. Regardless, I was encouraged to read this, that across the spectrum there's a real desire in the church to truly love LGBQ, not condemn them.
December 7, 2023
In this book, four evangelical scholars debate the "affirming" and "traditional" viewpoints on gay marriage. They are all kind to each other and to the people they are discussing (one of the scholars defending traditional marriage is himself gay). I agreed with many of their points, such as the following:
-Marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of having offspring is the ideal set forth from the beginning of the Bible.
-However, for a variety of biological reasons, many people are not able to fulfill that pattern.
-The Bible clearly condemns homosexual relations in a variety of situations.
-However, marriage in ancient times was very different from today. Many of the marriage laws in the Bible are about inheritance, and women or slaves were not seen as equal to men.
-Today, marriage is more egalitarian. Additionally, we have much lower infant mortality, and more technology for both contraception and fertility treatments.
-The Bible condemns many forms of marriage, such as after divorce, that we allow today. We do not forbid people who are infertile or older from marrying, even though they are not able to have children together.
-The Bible also has rules about sex that imply it should only be for procreation, such as forbidding intercourse during menstruation or pregnancy. Again, these are ignored in most churches today. Most couples do not have a problem doing sexual acts, including some of those done by same-sex couples, that cannot lead to conception.
-Marriage is not just an outlet for sexual gratification. It is a sacrifice, where both parties must control their own bodies in order to fully give themselves to each other. Everyone can benefit from this partnership.
-Celibacy is also a sacrifice, an and honorable one that is recommended by the Bible. But it should not be a requirement for anyone, no matter how they were born.
-We should expand our views on family to include more single people as sisters, uncles, and godfathers. All people can help raise the next generation of children.
Though it would not have made sense 2000 years ago, I do not see anything wrong with a committed, same-sex marriage today, especially if the couple wants to adopt children. I am a part of a church that, unlike the authors of this book, does believe that marriage is an eternal relationship. But I believe that family is about connecting more than just one man and one woman. I also believe that revelation is ongoing, and we can adapt principles of the Bible to our modern circumstances. I think we should allow more people to participate in the joy of marriage and childbearing, even if it is not the ideal of a man and a woman raising their own biological children.
-Marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of having offspring is the ideal set forth from the beginning of the Bible.
-However, for a variety of biological reasons, many people are not able to fulfill that pattern.
-The Bible clearly condemns homosexual relations in a variety of situations.
-However, marriage in ancient times was very different from today. Many of the marriage laws in the Bible are about inheritance, and women or slaves were not seen as equal to men.
-Today, marriage is more egalitarian. Additionally, we have much lower infant mortality, and more technology for both contraception and fertility treatments.
-The Bible condemns many forms of marriage, such as after divorce, that we allow today. We do not forbid people who are infertile or older from marrying, even though they are not able to have children together.
-The Bible also has rules about sex that imply it should only be for procreation, such as forbidding intercourse during menstruation or pregnancy. Again, these are ignored in most churches today. Most couples do not have a problem doing sexual acts, including some of those done by same-sex couples, that cannot lead to conception.
-Marriage is not just an outlet for sexual gratification. It is a sacrifice, where both parties must control their own bodies in order to fully give themselves to each other. Everyone can benefit from this partnership.
-Celibacy is also a sacrifice, an and honorable one that is recommended by the Bible. But it should not be a requirement for anyone, no matter how they were born.
-We should expand our views on family to include more single people as sisters, uncles, and godfathers. All people can help raise the next generation of children.
Though it would not have made sense 2000 years ago, I do not see anything wrong with a committed, same-sex marriage today, especially if the couple wants to adopt children. I am a part of a church that, unlike the authors of this book, does believe that marriage is an eternal relationship. But I believe that family is about connecting more than just one man and one woman. I also believe that revelation is ongoing, and we can adapt principles of the Bible to our modern circumstances. I think we should allow more people to participate in the joy of marriage and childbearing, even if it is not the ideal of a man and a woman raising their own biological children.
November 8, 2020
This book has many good arguments within it. However, I question the supposed “high” view of scripture that all contributors have. For example, Dr. Loader does not seem to have the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it is humans trying to express about God. Also, Dr. Defranza does not think the Bible holds “timeless truths.” Both seem to assume that the Bible is limited by the contexts in which it was written (for example, their interpretations of Christ as the head of the church and marriage as a metaphor for this assume that it mirrors marriage at the time Paul wrote rather than assuming that the Bible is using the metaphor to instruct us about how marriage should be.) The editor also in the conclusion recognizes some of this tension by raising the question of how the Bible is authoritative. All of this seems to me to fall short of the “high” view of Scripture as the word of God. Yes, it was written by people, but ultimately it is reliant not on the humans writing it but on the wisdom and knowledge of God. This view would greatly impede the rational for both of the affirming views which seem to rely on the idea that because we have more knowledge now than those individuals who wrote the Bible, we can change what it means. I believe that the Bible, as the word of God, implies that God did have the knowledge of all the things we do today, and therefore, assuming that there is “new” information when it comes to Biblical doctrines whether through science or otherwise, seems to me a rather untenable view. Overall, the arguments in the books are interesting and useful although the conclusions of some authors seem weak in some respects in light of their views on Scripture and its role in Christian doctrine.
December 19, 2018
At $5.28 for the Kindle version, it seemed like a steal. But Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church fails to give a well-rounded picture of the debate. This book aims to offer the academically inclined Christian a useful introduction to this hot-button issue, thus it appears “timely.” The book has had a fairly positive reception. One professional reviewer called it a “helpful summary of the current state of evangelical views on homosexuality.” Another said, "the proverbial deck was stacked against the traditional view of marriage." Unfortunately, the book represents the “traditional” position as holding that homosexual activity is merely impermissible, without the notion that homosexuality is a disordered behaviour resulting from mental illness or a problem of faith, as many traditionalists claim (Rom 1:26-27). We will return to this position, call it “standard,” since traditional has been co-opted. The reader is left trying to fill in blanks created by this omission, as the contributors barely acknowledge such a position or act as if the idea is merely an artifact of bygone thinking that the modern era has put behind us. The research these scholars put forward is fascinating, and their arguments are erudite and well-formed, but the book is left wanting without fully representing the debate. Still worth a read for the serious student, but only with the understanding that further research will be necessary to get the full picture.
Read a more complete review here: Book Review: Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church
Read a more complete review here: Book Review: Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church
January 8, 2024
An excellent read for any Pastor or Christian looking for a resource to navigate and better understand this timely and heated topic. The format of this book having two affirming and two non-affirming authors, write their position papers, and have each author offer a rebuttal, then having the initial author of the paper respond to the responses was a unique format and very helpful. In fact, I would love to see more books like this, even in the political realm, or other areas that are extremely polarizing. The candor directness and kind yet challenging feedback created a robust discussion while keeping a cordial attitude. If nothing else, this book is a great example of how to listen well and potentially disagree with someone directly, honestly, while not demonizing them or being rude.
This book definitely helped me understand some positions that are different from my own, create a patient empathy with people that feel same-sex attraction, and provided really really good perspective on some of the scriptures that directly address homosexuality in the Bible. Preston, sprinkle, did a great job of selecting for very diverse authors that each offered a unique perspective on the topic and approached it from different angles.
I'm a better, more informed person for reading this book.
This book definitely helped me understand some positions that are different from my own, create a patient empathy with people that feel same-sex attraction, and provided really really good perspective on some of the scriptures that directly address homosexuality in the Bible. Preston, sprinkle, did a great job of selecting for very diverse authors that each offered a unique perspective on the topic and approached it from different angles.
I'm a better, more informed person for reading this book.
December 5, 2024
Gender and sexuality have become huge topics within the culture and church. Rightly or wrongly I have avoided having much discussion publicly about these issues. Part of my avoidance is possibly because of the hurt many of my LGBTQ friends feel from the church. Since I have been a Christian I have seen the church give space to a lot of different groups of people to wrestle through their faith and have meaningful dialogue. I have not seen this space always afforded to the LGBTQ community. Certainly some of you and your church traditions may have a different experience, I am simply sharing my personal experience.
My interest in this book was to begin to educate and help me wrestle through some of the issues at hand. Preston Sprinkle who is the editor of this book brings together four theologians. Two of the theologians present the traditional view on sexuality and marriage while two theologians present an affirming view. I found that all four writers presented themselves well and we're very thoughtful. One of the strengths of this book Is that after each person had made their arguments the other three writers critiqued what was said in charitable ways. This book is by no means a definitive work and the final answer but maybe a starting place for the church to figure out what it looks like to be christ-like concerning these issues.
My interest in this book was to begin to educate and help me wrestle through some of the issues at hand. Preston Sprinkle who is the editor of this book brings together four theologians. Two of the theologians present the traditional view on sexuality and marriage while two theologians present an affirming view. I found that all four writers presented themselves well and we're very thoughtful. One of the strengths of this book Is that after each person had made their arguments the other three writers critiqued what was said in charitable ways. This book is by no means a definitive work and the final answer but maybe a starting place for the church to figure out what it looks like to be christ-like concerning these issues.
September 8, 2018
Though, like the rest of the series, it is a solid introduction to the topic, this particular collection appears to lack the space necessary for some of the authors to fully develop their arguments. This problem is particularly noticeable for the defender of the Augustinian view, who is unable to compellingly justify why Augustine’s view is definitive, focusing instead on the implications of that view. This issue was surprising to me, as a number of other volumes in the series are a great deal longer, so I am still unsure why this one needed to be as short as it is. Nonetheless, all the authors are considerate and offer compelling readings of historical and biblical thought. Additionally, the citations offer great sources for further reading if one is interested in exploring the topic further. Overall, it’s a good introduction for educated laypeople and pastors looking to get better acquainted with the theology of marriage, though it’s hardly a sufficient place to stop.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 28, 2018
While there are strong scholars at work here, three of the four of them are presenting biblical arguments against homosexuality. The first “affirming” position is only affirming on a technicality. So really this book is more conservative than it claims to be. Loader (the first “affirming” author) claims that not only same-sex acts but same-sex attraction is biblically condemned. So he’s really the most traditional of all of them—and the most damaging to someone with an affirming viewpoint. Which makes it awful that the book calls him “affirming”.
Format is a good idea in theory. But really after each section the authors just repeat their views in shorter spaces, making those sections pointless.
So the whole book was a great concept but poorly executed and really misleading for someone looking for a good view of both sides where the Bible is held as the basis for Christian life.
Format is a good idea in theory. But really after each section the authors just repeat their views in shorter spaces, making those sections pointless.
So the whole book was a great concept but poorly executed and really misleading for someone looking for a good view of both sides where the Bible is held as the basis for Christian life.
January 2, 2020
Good for a deep dive
I appreciated the way this book was constructed - with a lot of written interaction between the four authors based on each of their essays - and this book definitely goes deep into the topic. My take away from the book (which is definitely an over-simplification) is that one’s view on this topic is dependent on whether or not you have a literalist view of the Bible. I am not a literalist, so I really identified with Megan K. DeFranza’s essay and her arguments for the cultural differences between 1st Century Christianity and 21st Century Christianity - specifically differences on patriarchy, marriage, the rights of women, sexual exploitation/slavery, and subsequently the affirmation of same-sex marriages. Overall, a good book if you want to do some study on this hot-button topic.
I appreciated the way this book was constructed - with a lot of written interaction between the four authors based on each of their essays - and this book definitely goes deep into the topic. My take away from the book (which is definitely an over-simplification) is that one’s view on this topic is dependent on whether or not you have a literalist view of the Bible. I am not a literalist, so I really identified with Megan K. DeFranza’s essay and her arguments for the cultural differences between 1st Century Christianity and 21st Century Christianity - specifically differences on patriarchy, marriage, the rights of women, sexual exploitation/slavery, and subsequently the affirmation of same-sex marriages. Overall, a good book if you want to do some study on this hot-button topic.
December 4, 2021
A very helpful summary of the major positions for and against broadening the Christian understanding of marriage to affirm same-sex relationships. It was helpful to hear from both Biblical scholars and theological ethicists on either side. Clearly the debate is not only about "what the Bible says" (exegesis) but how we should read the Bible ethically (hermeneutics), and how we should go about understanding what marriage actually is (theologically) in light of 2000 years of tradition.
The dialogue was cordial and Sprinkle's afterword was especially helpful in rounding things out. This book definitely sparked thoughts I'd never had before and was very informative. Overall I found Hill's and Holmes' treatments most persuasive although reading the pushback from Loader and DeFranza was very helpful for me as I continue to wrestle with this important topic.
The dialogue was cordial and Sprinkle's afterword was especially helpful in rounding things out. This book definitely sparked thoughts I'd never had before and was very informative. Overall I found Hill's and Holmes' treatments most persuasive although reading the pushback from Loader and DeFranza was very helpful for me as I continue to wrestle with this important topic.
October 24, 2023
Overall, I was impressed with each editors' position and arguments surrounding the hot topic of homosexuality within the Church. There was a point in each editors' essay in which I was able to see myself in agreement as well as a point in which I could see their conclusions as theologically problematic. All but one I departed from respecting their position overall. If you want to know whose position I departed from not respecting by the end of the book, I advise you purchase the book for yourself and find out.
Every Christian with two cents on this issue (progressive, moderate, conservative) should read this book. Besides gaining a better understanding of those across the aisle, this is a great resource to make you really think about what you believe on the issue, and the implications that come with your current stances. Theology matters.
Every Christian with two cents on this issue (progressive, moderate, conservative) should read this book. Besides gaining a better understanding of those across the aisle, this is a great resource to make you really think about what you believe on the issue, and the implications that come with your current stances. Theology matters.
January 28, 2019
Anyone can claim to have a high view of Scripture; that doesn’t make it true. I was disappointed that, despite the editor’s claim, all the authors seemed to have a sub-par view of God’s revelation. One author reads it and says it needs updating; another reads it and attempts to reinterpret it to undercut its plain meaning. The authors taking the traditional view apparently don’t hold to the sufficiency of Scripture, preferring to interact with Augustine instead exegeting the passages in question. It appeared that all authors were egalitarian, which seems to be problematic in this discussion of gender/sexuality.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews