What do you think?
Rate this book
The Grace of Shame: 7 Ways the Church Has Failed to Love Homosexuals
For this generation of Christians in the western world, sexuality is the battle being waged in the culture. Traditional marriage is out the window and every manner of sexual perversity is being pushed as good and healthy and normal on TV, in the movies, by the mainstream media, and by the fathers of our city and nation. At the forefront of this battle is homosexuality.
It’s easy for Christians to see the enemy out there—to see all the ways that the modern tolerance machine is tearing down the bulwark of God’s moral law. But what if the culture doesn’t lead the church? What if the church leads the culture? What if the real responsibility lies with us?
The Grace of Shame exposes the errors the church has made on sexuality over the last several decades, from failing to understand the sin of effeminacy to promoting the “gay Christian” movement. With reverence for the church universal, and a keen prophetic eye for the sins and failures of our modern church, this book exposes all the ways we have allowed this sin to triumph in the culture at large, and offers hope for the future.
It’s easy for Christians to see the enemy out there—to see all the ways that the modern tolerance machine is tearing down the bulwark of God’s moral law. But what if the culture doesn’t lead the church? What if the church leads the culture? What if the real responsibility lies with us?
The Grace of Shame exposes the errors the church has made on sexuality over the last several decades, from failing to understand the sin of effeminacy to promoting the “gay Christian” movement. With reverence for the church universal, and a keen prophetic eye for the sins and failures of our modern church, this book exposes all the ways we have allowed this sin to triumph in the culture at large, and offers hope for the future.
151 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 4, 2017
14 people are currently reading
238 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 51 reviews
October 27, 2017
Really good book at just the right time.
January 12, 2019
The central thesis of The Grace of Shame is contained in its subtitle: that the Church (especially the evangelical church) has failed to love homosexuals. Of course, many of us would nod our heads and think something like, yes, the Church has been horrible in how it has condemned and despised homosexuals over the years. That's what I initially thought this book was talking about just by glancing at the cover.
Boy was I wrong.
This is NOT a book about how Christians have been so mean and prejudiced towards "sexual minorities" in the past, and how we need to repent of our past bigotries. It is instead a book about how we are currently refusing to love homosexuals by refusing to preach the clear truths of God's Word in the language of His Word and calling homosexuals to repent not just of their actions, but of their identities and temptations. Instead of being faithful witnesses, we* use equivocal and toned-down language, have removed words like "effeminate" from the list of sins that bar one from the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, tolerate people who claim that you can be a Christian and still claim the "gay" label as long as you're celibate, accept the concept of "sexual orientation" even though it directly contradicts Genesis' teaching about "He made them male and female," offer "gay celibate Christians" our pulpits and blogs, and so on. Much of the book is highlighting and examining these failures, and it is very eye-opening.
But the real question is why are we doing all this? The central aim, as the authors make explicit in Chapter 10, is to remove the shame associated with sodomy (and notice how even the word choice has a lot to do with that!) We are afraid of what others will think of us, or even what they will do to us, if we proclaim God's Word boldly and without apology, so we compromise with all these measures to try to make ourselves and our religion look more inclusive and tolerant. But shame, as the book states, cannot be destroyed; it can only be transferred from one item to another. So we are no longer ashamed of sodomy, but we are ashamed of how Scripture talks about sodomy (words like "abomination" come to mind). But when we do this, we are not loving homosexuals - we are only concerned about ourselves. Why? Because "God gave us physical pain to protect our bodies and shame to protect our souls." In other words, shame is a grace of God to homosexuals - and when we don't proclaim what Scripture really teaches, we rob them of that shame and the opportunity to repent.
Of course, the authors say all this far better than I can. This is a truly outstanding book, and every Christian should read it (and I don't say that lightly). In a world where so many Christian leaders are selling us fluff or being manipulative on this issue (see the list below), this is a breath of fresh air. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
*By "we," I mean major leaders and organizations in the evangelical church (as well as ordinary Christians): The Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Sam Allberry, Living Out, Desiring God, Ed Shaw, and more (all of these are dealt with in the book).
Boy was I wrong.
This is NOT a book about how Christians have been so mean and prejudiced towards "sexual minorities" in the past, and how we need to repent of our past bigotries. It is instead a book about how we are currently refusing to love homosexuals by refusing to preach the clear truths of God's Word in the language of His Word and calling homosexuals to repent not just of their actions, but of their identities and temptations. Instead of being faithful witnesses, we* use equivocal and toned-down language, have removed words like "effeminate" from the list of sins that bar one from the kingdom of God in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, tolerate people who claim that you can be a Christian and still claim the "gay" label as long as you're celibate, accept the concept of "sexual orientation" even though it directly contradicts Genesis' teaching about "He made them male and female," offer "gay celibate Christians" our pulpits and blogs, and so on. Much of the book is highlighting and examining these failures, and it is very eye-opening.
But the real question is why are we doing all this? The central aim, as the authors make explicit in Chapter 10, is to remove the shame associated with sodomy (and notice how even the word choice has a lot to do with that!) We are afraid of what others will think of us, or even what they will do to us, if we proclaim God's Word boldly and without apology, so we compromise with all these measures to try to make ourselves and our religion look more inclusive and tolerant. But shame, as the book states, cannot be destroyed; it can only be transferred from one item to another. So we are no longer ashamed of sodomy, but we are ashamed of how Scripture talks about sodomy (words like "abomination" come to mind). But when we do this, we are not loving homosexuals - we are only concerned about ourselves. Why? Because "God gave us physical pain to protect our bodies and shame to protect our souls." In other words, shame is a grace of God to homosexuals - and when we don't proclaim what Scripture really teaches, we rob them of that shame and the opportunity to repent.
Of course, the authors say all this far better than I can. This is a truly outstanding book, and every Christian should read it (and I don't say that lightly). In a world where so many Christian leaders are selling us fluff or being manipulative on this issue (see the list below), this is a breath of fresh air. I cannot recommend it highly enough.
*By "we," I mean major leaders and organizations in the evangelical church (as well as ordinary Christians): The Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Sam Allberry, Living Out, Desiring God, Ed Shaw, and more (all of these are dealt with in the book).
January 5, 2020
Before saying anything else, it needs to be clear that the Baylys and co. are definitely doing the Lord's work by pointing the things they point out in this book. Right now, Evangelicals have accepted the liberal narrative that the Church was mean for a long time and that the best step forward, even if we still condemn gay marriage, is by grovelling and apologizing for (our grouchy fundamentalist fathers') sins. If you want to know the play that is currently being played, just read this book: it's all true and it's wrecking Christians' lives. And the Baylys do not write as dispassionate Pharisees who have never struggled with it. He even struggled with gender roles in his own marriage, and so when he speaks about not having courage and wanting to be cool, he speaks from the heart. There was one man who they did not counsel adequately to put off the works of darkness, and he seems to be a great pastor who really does help gays. Reading this book, I never felt in it a tone of gracelessness or arrogance.
At the same time, I think the book will be difficult for a lot of people, particularly those who don't share their assumptions about gender. The First Error, Removing the Sin of Effeminacy has some good thoughts, but it gets there by presenting a wide array of evidence, but not in a systematic or step-by-step way. The gist of it is that he attacks English Bible translators for removing the word "effeminacy" from the Bible in places where it is also condemning homosexuals, replacing it with the idea of passive and active homosexual partners. They make a good case by pointing to the ways the word clearly meant "effeminate" in the ancient world and then they insist throughout that the new translations are disobedience pure and simple. But then they quote Robert Gagnon favorably: "Since [malakoi] is sandwhiched in between the terms pornoi ... and moichoi (adulterers) on the one side and arsenokoitai (men who lie with a male) on the other side, it is probable that malakoi too has to do with immoral sexual relations." (p. 40). This weakens some of the things they have been saying in the chapter, arguing that conservatives were in clear disobedience to God by removing effeminacy. Now it is possible that the modern translators were being cowardly, but I think there's a need to have a stronger case if you are going to call a change in translation disobedience, pure and simple. Also, the translation changes were made years before the gay lobby reached the church, so it seems even more unlikely to me that this was their intent: it may even have been a case of conservative doubling down for all I know. Maybe someone out there though can correct me on this point.
The next chapter on effeminacy is pretty good, pointing to how Jesus is portrayed in hugely effeminate ways. Amen. Pictures of Jesus are hideous. Yuck and glech. They are also right that effeminacy is more than just sexual acts, but involves your whole being. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a recognizably "gay" look that sometimes involves flamboyant dress, a love for camp, and all sorts of garbage. I agree with this.
In the chapter on "Godliness is Not Heterosexuality," they make the very compelling point that Gospel Coalition folks are basically mimicking the world, and for the usual reasons (cowardice, fear of looking harsh to millennials, etc.) Gay Christians are proud of it and can be publicly bitter about it (see the recent talk about "brokenness" in Revoice folks). The Baylys win this round: obviously being a heterosexual is not automatically godly, but it's definitely the case that the rhetoric put out by Evangelicals is weak.
In chapter 7, they talk about the error of "Sexual Orientation." There are a lot of good points in this chapter: for instance, Albert Mohler really looks bad by saying that his new understanding of sexuality is "more robust." Sorry, the Baylys are right: it's being cool to admit this and there's really no emotional sacrifice in admitting you're wrong. Again, effeminacy is about more than lying in bed. They are also right that the word "orientation" is not really helpful: temptation would probably be nearer the mark. An unusual thing here is that they entirely leave out the question of whether some people are going to be stuck fighting this temptation forever and will never be able to marry. I hope I am wrong and I missed it, but I think Douglas Wilson was right when he said that some kids are born this way, even in godly Christian homes, and they won't be able to marry someone of the opposite sex: "[The Bible] doesn’t say you can repent of homosexual orientation. You can’t flip that off like a switch. ... I've seen kids manifesting homosexual orientation from toddler age. And I don’t think it’s something they got into … I’ve seen people oriented that way." See https://canonpress.com/products/the-s.... Mind you, I am inclined to think that WAY more people than is usually thought to be the case can do it, and in fact the people I know who have this temptation are the ones who feel the most strongly that men should marry a woman. But here's the thing: even some men and women who would like to marry can't find a partner they would be sexually satisfied in. So they need to be content with that. I think it's quite possible for some homosexuals to be tempted this way without really being able to switch, and in fact the older Evangelical position was this (Chuck Colson for instance, affirmed this back in the day). Now this does not mean that you can get out of embracing your gender identity. There's a pretty universally understood way of acting and dressing that can signal masculinity and femininity, and I think Paul requires this (for instance, in First Corinthians). Homosexual desire is always a sin, as is any homosexual appreciation of male beauty: the Baylys are right about this. But I wish the Baylys could have been clearer about this point, since the Church hasn't talked much about how people with this kind of temptation should live if they can't switch.
The chapter about conversion therapy is very disturbing: I didn't know that Evangelicals were opposing it so vigorously. That seems sad to me, and downright harmful. No, The Imitation Game is wrong. Stop making strawmen. Baylys win this one too.
The "Such Were Some of You Error" point out that when we compare it to heterosexual sins or greed, we all think that homosexuality ain't so bad, rather than thinking that all the other sins are actually bad too. That's a very compelling point, and the Desiring God article really looks bad for virtue signalling.
In the chapter on the "living Out" error, the Baylys point out that many Christians are publicly flaunting that they are celibate and "living out" their lives as gay Christians. This is a point of pride and anyone who uses Biblical language is rejected as reductionistic. They point out that shame in the Bible is actually a good thing, and indeed homosexuality is an abomination, whether in the Old or New Testament. Shame is something that protects us from sinning, and indeed we should be wary of the fact that our culture is becoming shameless. Definitely the best part of the book.
In the last chapter, they make the point that this is all the result of original sin, and original sin is ultimately offensive to the rebellious heart. They then say that as Christians we are called to work with homosexuals and to share in their sorrows: "Love will lead us to work with those souls tormented by these temptations, declaring our solidarity with them as they plead with God to remove this evil that is way, way down deep inside them. And yes, this work will cause us to groan and shed tears with them as they tell us of the terrible rejection they suffered at the hands and words of their fathers. If our work of loving them is not agony, we're either not doing it from love or we're not doing it all" (p. 136). They follow it up with the very compelling point that Jesus promised we'd suffer with Him, and deep down we are all afraid of being judgmental Pharisees. But this is what we need to be called to now. So, the book ends, I suppose on a high note.
I don't always enjoy reading the Baylys, but they speak from the heart and are better than 90% of everybody else out there, and for that I hope this book gets a wider, receptive audience so that we can stop getting eaten for breakfast by the culture.
At the same time, I think the book will be difficult for a lot of people, particularly those who don't share their assumptions about gender. The First Error, Removing the Sin of Effeminacy has some good thoughts, but it gets there by presenting a wide array of evidence, but not in a systematic or step-by-step way. The gist of it is that he attacks English Bible translators for removing the word "effeminacy" from the Bible in places where it is also condemning homosexuals, replacing it with the idea of passive and active homosexual partners. They make a good case by pointing to the ways the word clearly meant "effeminate" in the ancient world and then they insist throughout that the new translations are disobedience pure and simple. But then they quote Robert Gagnon favorably: "Since [malakoi] is sandwhiched in between the terms pornoi ... and moichoi (adulterers) on the one side and arsenokoitai (men who lie with a male) on the other side, it is probable that malakoi too has to do with immoral sexual relations." (p. 40). This weakens some of the things they have been saying in the chapter, arguing that conservatives were in clear disobedience to God by removing effeminacy. Now it is possible that the modern translators were being cowardly, but I think there's a need to have a stronger case if you are going to call a change in translation disobedience, pure and simple. Also, the translation changes were made years before the gay lobby reached the church, so it seems even more unlikely to me that this was their intent: it may even have been a case of conservative doubling down for all I know. Maybe someone out there though can correct me on this point.
The next chapter on effeminacy is pretty good, pointing to how Jesus is portrayed in hugely effeminate ways. Amen. Pictures of Jesus are hideous. Yuck and glech. They are also right that effeminacy is more than just sexual acts, but involves your whole being. It seems pretty clear to me that there is a recognizably "gay" look that sometimes involves flamboyant dress, a love for camp, and all sorts of garbage. I agree with this.
In the chapter on "Godliness is Not Heterosexuality," they make the very compelling point that Gospel Coalition folks are basically mimicking the world, and for the usual reasons (cowardice, fear of looking harsh to millennials, etc.) Gay Christians are proud of it and can be publicly bitter about it (see the recent talk about "brokenness" in Revoice folks). The Baylys win this round: obviously being a heterosexual is not automatically godly, but it's definitely the case that the rhetoric put out by Evangelicals is weak.
In chapter 7, they talk about the error of "Sexual Orientation." There are a lot of good points in this chapter: for instance, Albert Mohler really looks bad by saying that his new understanding of sexuality is "more robust." Sorry, the Baylys are right: it's being cool to admit this and there's really no emotional sacrifice in admitting you're wrong. Again, effeminacy is about more than lying in bed. They are also right that the word "orientation" is not really helpful: temptation would probably be nearer the mark. An unusual thing here is that they entirely leave out the question of whether some people are going to be stuck fighting this temptation forever and will never be able to marry. I hope I am wrong and I missed it, but I think Douglas Wilson was right when he said that some kids are born this way, even in godly Christian homes, and they won't be able to marry someone of the opposite sex: "[The Bible] doesn’t say you can repent of homosexual orientation. You can’t flip that off like a switch. ... I've seen kids manifesting homosexual orientation from toddler age. And I don’t think it’s something they got into … I’ve seen people oriented that way." See https://canonpress.com/products/the-s.... Mind you, I am inclined to think that WAY more people than is usually thought to be the case can do it, and in fact the people I know who have this temptation are the ones who feel the most strongly that men should marry a woman. But here's the thing: even some men and women who would like to marry can't find a partner they would be sexually satisfied in. So they need to be content with that. I think it's quite possible for some homosexuals to be tempted this way without really being able to switch, and in fact the older Evangelical position was this (Chuck Colson for instance, affirmed this back in the day). Now this does not mean that you can get out of embracing your gender identity. There's a pretty universally understood way of acting and dressing that can signal masculinity and femininity, and I think Paul requires this (for instance, in First Corinthians). Homosexual desire is always a sin, as is any homosexual appreciation of male beauty: the Baylys are right about this. But I wish the Baylys could have been clearer about this point, since the Church hasn't talked much about how people with this kind of temptation should live if they can't switch.
The chapter about conversion therapy is very disturbing: I didn't know that Evangelicals were opposing it so vigorously. That seems sad to me, and downright harmful. No, The Imitation Game is wrong. Stop making strawmen. Baylys win this one too.
The "Such Were Some of You Error" point out that when we compare it to heterosexual sins or greed, we all think that homosexuality ain't so bad, rather than thinking that all the other sins are actually bad too. That's a very compelling point, and the Desiring God article really looks bad for virtue signalling.
In the chapter on the "living Out" error, the Baylys point out that many Christians are publicly flaunting that they are celibate and "living out" their lives as gay Christians. This is a point of pride and anyone who uses Biblical language is rejected as reductionistic. They point out that shame in the Bible is actually a good thing, and indeed homosexuality is an abomination, whether in the Old or New Testament. Shame is something that protects us from sinning, and indeed we should be wary of the fact that our culture is becoming shameless. Definitely the best part of the book.
In the last chapter, they make the point that this is all the result of original sin, and original sin is ultimately offensive to the rebellious heart. They then say that as Christians we are called to work with homosexuals and to share in their sorrows: "Love will lead us to work with those souls tormented by these temptations, declaring our solidarity with them as they plead with God to remove this evil that is way, way down deep inside them. And yes, this work will cause us to groan and shed tears with them as they tell us of the terrible rejection they suffered at the hands and words of their fathers. If our work of loving them is not agony, we're either not doing it from love or we're not doing it all" (p. 136). They follow it up with the very compelling point that Jesus promised we'd suffer with Him, and deep down we are all afraid of being judgmental Pharisees. But this is what we need to be called to now. So, the book ends, I suppose on a high note.
I don't always enjoy reading the Baylys, but they speak from the heart and are better than 90% of everybody else out there, and for that I hope this book gets a wider, receptive audience so that we can stop getting eaten for breakfast by the culture.
December 15, 2017
Imagine me rooting through the attic of my mind, finding a box marked "Superlatives (Good)," and dumping them indiscriminately all over this book. I've never read better teaching on the subject. Ever. Pastor Bayly's book is wise, hard-hitting and the timeliest book I've read in years.
His basic point is that the church has failed homosexuals by muffling our witness about sexual evil in two ways. First, we have allowed (and often encouraged) worldliness to seep into the church in the form of language, definitions, and teaching. Second we have Bowdlerized the church's teaching on sex by rejecting Biblical language, ignoring categories of sin, and twisting the gospel to allow us to coddle our lusts. This leaves homosexuals confused and lost in sin, but does help us show that we're not one of those sorts of boorish haters.
Significantly, Bayly lets a lot of high-profile conservative-ish teaching have it, taking on The Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, Desiring God Ministries, Tim Keller, and others. In fact, Bayly talks quite freely about failing his own flock in some of these areas. He's dead-on all over the place, and it makes for a powerful, refreshing antidote to the poison we have allowed into the church. Read it and then get your friends to read it. Few will be able to get through it and not get nailed at some point, but it will put the right kind of steel in your spine.
I'll end with a quote: "If we think we are wiser than God in the choice of words addressing same-sex sin, we prove we are fools. The reason we shy away from God's words is not because our own words are better, but because we don't want to communicate the truth which His words communicate perfectly." (pg. 125-26)
His basic point is that the church has failed homosexuals by muffling our witness about sexual evil in two ways. First, we have allowed (and often encouraged) worldliness to seep into the church in the form of language, definitions, and teaching. Second we have Bowdlerized the church's teaching on sex by rejecting Biblical language, ignoring categories of sin, and twisting the gospel to allow us to coddle our lusts. This leaves homosexuals confused and lost in sin, but does help us show that we're not one of those sorts of boorish haters.
Significantly, Bayly lets a lot of high-profile conservative-ish teaching have it, taking on The Gospel Coalition, Al Mohler, Desiring God Ministries, Tim Keller, and others. In fact, Bayly talks quite freely about failing his own flock in some of these areas. He's dead-on all over the place, and it makes for a powerful, refreshing antidote to the poison we have allowed into the church. Read it and then get your friends to read it. Few will be able to get through it and not get nailed at some point, but it will put the right kind of steel in your spine.
I'll end with a quote: "If we think we are wiser than God in the choice of words addressing same-sex sin, we prove we are fools. The reason we shy away from God's words is not because our own words are better, but because we don't want to communicate the truth which His words communicate perfectly." (pg. 125-26)
September 28, 2017
This will clear your mind of a lot of unbiblical nonsense.
May 15, 2023
This is a difficult book to rate because it was somehow scattered, yet repetitive. However, the subject matter is important, and the authors bring years of ministry to homosexuals to the debate. The premise is that the church fails to love homosexuals when we affirm their sin. They even call out the sin of effeminancy, exhorting men to clearly live out God's design for men, and women to live definitively as women. Does this mean that men cannot cry at movies or crochet? No. A man can bring glory to God through crying or crocheting. However, a man does not glorify God when he presents outwardly as a woman or adopts feminine mannerisms. It also addresses the mantra "Heterosexuality is not godliness." Honoring God is not simply practicing celibacy, but rather pursuing life as God intended for you when He gave you the body you inhabit. This book provides material for thought and discussion, and I plan to reread it more deeply.
January 25, 2018
Being a slow reader who buys and begins many more books than he finishes, I assume that the voracity with which I devoured this one shows how starved I am for clear, Christian teaching about sexuality. The Church is famished thanks to a typing pool of naggy "Gospel" bloggers who massage so much nuance into Scripture as to completely negate its meaning. I refuse to sip any more seawater.
Pastor Bayly writes boldly with the heart and mind of a shepherd who knows he will someday give an account to the Good Shepherd, even for times past when he has failed to proclaim God's Created Order of male and female. He reminds us that there are souls at stake, reputation be damned. I am repentant and stirred up to be a better elder and husband thanks to this book.
Read it. Or come back and read it after hearing the excellent accompanying podcast, The World We Made. You will be convinced that tough truth and tender love are not strangers, but necessary companions.
Pastor Bayly writes boldly with the heart and mind of a shepherd who knows he will someday give an account to the Good Shepherd, even for times past when he has failed to proclaim God's Created Order of male and female. He reminds us that there are souls at stake, reputation be damned. I am repentant and stirred up to be a better elder and husband thanks to this book.
Read it. Or come back and read it after hearing the excellent accompanying podcast, The World We Made. You will be convinced that tough truth and tender love are not strangers, but necessary companions.
January 20, 2018
Man, this is GOOD.
Want to read
February 5, 2019Reviewed briefly at
WORLD
. See Plodcast, Episode #25. Mentioned positively here.
November 7, 2018
Very helpful book, it clarified for me the errors otherwise orthodox Evangelical leaders are currently making that, if uncorrected, will inevitably lead to compromise, liberalization, and apostasy down the road.
January 12, 2022
Words fail to tell how good and necessary this book is. Every professing Christian must read it.
October 12, 2019
Such solid book. Eye opening and much needed in our time.
September 8, 2024
Excellent book. I've read many books on homosexuality and this is my favorite thus far. I especially appreciated him going after effeminacy as most other books on the topic don't touch that.
April 16, 2018
Short, precise and unsparing. Tim Bayly and the co-authors have no qualms about picking up their crosses and going head first into the culture's tolerance buzz saw. Swimming with resolve against the "inclusive" church current, they call out specific evangelical leaders and put forward seven different ways that the church has failed to love homosexuals. These charges range from purposefully refusing to use biblical words inspired by the Spirit, to adopting extra-biblical philosophies that inadvertently blur lines of objective biblical discernment and reality. The authors also take time to unearth the long lost sin of effeminacy (the sin of soft men), and display how soft men undergird and pave the way for cultural sodomy.
In short, this book is very timely and needed for our under sheperds and church officers. It produces a call which echoes that of previous reformations- a call back to the Scriptures.
In short, this book is very timely and needed for our under sheperds and church officers. It produces a call which echoes that of previous reformations- a call back to the Scriptures.
September 5, 2019
Tim Bayly authored “The Grace of Shame” (Warhorn Media, 2017). To understand Bayly’s writing and worldview, it may be useful to know some of his background.
Bayly was ordained in the John Knox Presbytery (the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin portion) of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). In 1991 he transferred his ordination to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the largest Reformed denomination in the US, which split from the PCUSA in 1973. In 2010, he moved his credentials to Clearnote Fellowship, a denomination he created from three churches: his own, Clearnote Church in Bloomington, IN, and two other churches. One church is pastored by his son, Joseph, who co-authored this book, and the other was planted by the son.
As of February 2019, Tim Bayly’s church changed its name from Clearnote Church to Trinity Reformed Church, also renaming and restructuring the Fellowship into its own denomination and presbytery, the Evangel Presbytery. Clearnote created a Pastors’ College in 2005, which is now also part of Evangel.
Part of the Evangel Presbytery confessions includes belief in the Creation Order: Adam first, followed by the God-ordained subjugation of Eve. Adherence to Creation Order strongly influences Bayly’s views on the roles of men and women, and what he considers to be masculine and feminine. By extension, this also impacts his views on those who identify as LGBTQ.
In 1997, Bayly was named the first executive director at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). He later left CBMW disappointed that the organization was only committed to the headship of men over women in the home and church. Bayly thought male leadership should extend to business, government, and the legal systems. He acknowledges this position in “The Grace of Shame” writing:
“Outside the Christian home and church, we say there is nothing wrong with women serving as police persons, guards in men's prisons, lawyers, doctors, senators, judges, combatants in the armed forces, governors, prime ministers, and presidents. We tell the world male leadership is just a private Christian thing, assuring ourselves that it's just the private lives of Christians God is concerned about. We don't have time to discuss where and how we should witness to God's creation order of Adam then Eve among unbelievers. It's complicated and that discussion would subvert the immediate task at hand.” (p. 26-27)
Bayly does not believe women should have any leadership roles within corporate worship. Women are not to lead worship, participate in the readings, or give announcements, with the exception perhaps of announcing women’s ministry events. It is important to note these extreme positions about the “acceptable” roles of women because these convictions spill over into his views about how men and women are to behave.
One might quickly notice by looking at Bayly’s social media postings that he is hyperfocused (actually obsessed) on what it means to be a man or masculine. He frequently posts with his signature #manup delineating how a “hard” man behaves versus a soft man, “the effeminate,” a term he very much favors.
Surprisingly, I agree with Tim Bayly on one point. The fundamental premise upon which he bases his book is that the Greek work “malakoi” should not be translated as boy/male prostitute, catamite, or as the passive partner in homosexual sex, as it has been in some modern Bibles. We very much disagree with how it could be best rendered, but we’ll get there.
First, it might be helpful to look at the various translations of the Greek word malakoi before 1946 as well as considering contextual and historical information so we can better understand the world in which malakoi was written and translated. It is against this backdrop that we can better assess Bayly’s ideology and translation of malakoi.
At the center of the controversy, there are two Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: arsenokoitai and malakoi. Arsenokoitai is the more difficult of the two to translate. Bayly assumes his translation of arsenokoitai, “it literally means men who lie with males” (p. 34) is the correct translation. However, most Bible scholars agree that no one can say with certainty what it means precisely.
“Men who lie with males” is the literal translation of two Old Testament Hebrew words used in Leviticus, arsen and koiten. However, it is believed the apostle Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai. We need to notice the passage in Leviticus was written 1,600 years before Paul coined his word in a different language. To understand how Paul may have intended to use the word when he addressed a sin happening in the church in Corinth, we need to look at other ways in which the word was used. Unfortunately, there is no historical notation along the lines of “this is what arsenokoitai means.”
The word mostly appears in list form and occurs fewer than 100 times over a period of 600 years. It is mostly associated with the economic sin of exploitation, rather than a purely sexual sin. This is not where I will focus, however, since arsenokoitai is not the focus of Bayly’s book. It is the other Greek word, malakoi that is the topic of “The Grace of Shame.” Bayly believes that malakoi should be translated today as the “sin of effeminacy”.
Earlier English translations of malakoi indicate a weakness or degeneracy in character: lechers, weaklings, the wanton, and, eventually, the 1611 King James Version translates the word as “the effeminate.” The use of the English word “effeminate” is consistent in the 1881 English Revised Version and 1901 American Standard Bible.
Next, a series of somewhat consistent shifts take place in the mid-20th century. Sometimes the two Greek words are combined into one word or expression, and other times they are individually translated.
1946 Revised Standard Version—combined to one expression—homosexual
1963 New American Standard Bible—effeminate, homosexual
1971 English Standard Version—men who practice homosexuality
1971 The Living Bible—those who are homosexual
1973 The Message Bible—those who use and abuse others, those who use and abuse sex
1973 New International Version— men who have sex with men
1982 New King James—homosexuals, sodomites
1995 New American Standard—male prostitutes, sodomites
2001 English Standard Version—men who practice homosexuality (with a clarification footnote: the active and passive partners in consensual homosexual sex)
Bayly does not like these changes that have occurred since 1946. He writes, “Past generations of English Bible readers were able to read the word God's Holy Spirit inspired. Their Bibles always translated the Greek word malakoi into English, so everyone knew effeminacy was a sin distinct from homosexual intercourse, and that both sins excluded men from the Kingdom of God.” (p.36) He further contends that we need to return to the translation of malakoi used in the KJV, ERV, and ASV where malakoi/effeminate is recognized as a sin distinct from arsenokoitai/homosexuals, homosexuality (his interpretation, not mine). “Their justifications (modern translators) for this removal (of the word effeminate) are inexcusable. Past Bible scholars all left the word intact and translated correctly, so they had many faithful witnesses across the centuries that they could have easily followed.” (p. 37)
Bayly advocates for returning to the pre-1946 meaning of malakoi and renames the sin, the “sin of effeminacy.” He says of The Shame of Grace, “This book is our plea for the church to return to the words and truths of Scripture and her loving witness to the effeminate, sodomites, women who lie with other women, and similar abominations.” (p. 5) He is disturbed that “The sin of effeminacy is never mentioned in our churches today. In fact, our modern Bible translations have removed effeminacy from the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6.” (p.35) “Pastors and elders particularly must not rob them (the effeminates) of repentance by refusing to use the words God uses about their sin.” (p. 7)
I have no doubt Bayly is earnest in his desire to shepherd people faithfully and consistent with the Scriptures. But words, especially two-thousand-year-old words, have cultural and time-bound baggage. Malakoi in the first century is not equal to effeminate or “the sin of effeminacy” in the 21st century. This is the crux of the problem with Bayly’s translation, ideology, and teachings in his book.
The ancient and historical distinctions between what is male/masculine and what is female/ feminine would be utterly unfamiliar to us today. Moreover, the bulk of these views associated with sex and gender roles would likely seem foolish.
This is a quick overview of the world into which the word “malakoi” was used and then translated as “effeminate” in 1611.
The whole of a human being was contained in the male semen. A woman’s sole contribution to conception was the fertile planting field of her uterus. It was not discovered until 1870 that a baby was produced by the joining of sperm and egg. A woman’s reproductive system was the inversion of a man’s anatomy. Her vagina was called a woman’s penis (along with other slang terms), but there was no scientific name for the vagina until 1680.)
Sex was performed only with the intent of procreation. Any non-procreative sex (no matter the sex of the partners) was sodomy. All sex acts should be devoid of passion and lust.
Ancient views of the male/masculinity and the female/femininity were determined by the balance and amounts of four types of bodily liquids (humours). If the hot, dry humours of a man overcame the cold, wet humours of a woman, you got a boy baby. If they didn’t, oh well, you got a girl. A woman’s “stuff” was on the inside because she was “cold.” Men’s “stuff” was on the outside because he was “hot.” Upon the birth of a baby, menstrual blood transformed to lactation milk. Her skin was seen as porous, vulnerable, and weak. Ancients thought women needed to stay indoors to protect their porous skin. It was so porous in fact that any excess liquid needed to be expelled monthly (her menses). Ancients thought every aspect of a woman from skin to vagina was the anatomical proof of her role to be penetrated in sex.
Clearly, ancient cultures were steeped in patriarchy and gender hierarchy (male dominance is all arenas). These negative views and the sub-importance of women and the feminine form an inextricable backdrop to the first century meaning of malakoi as well as its 17th-century translation “effeminate.”
The historical meaning of malakoi is fairly easy to define by observing context and usage. Malakoi had many meanings, some which Bayly acknowledges in his book (like cowardice and soft clothing), but the word also describes dispositions associated with the negative traits of women that were held as true in ancient times.
Women were thought to be morally weak, lazy, unchaste, given to unnatural vices, lustful, impure, and submissive in sex--to be penetrated. But the word was also used to describe men who were weak in battle, strutted and dressed as “peacocks” for women, too bookish, fell in love with women and lost control of their passions, and men who neglected their businesses.
Beyond contextual meanings of malakoi, our knowledge concerning human sexuality and what defines male and female has greatly expanded beyond the above nonsense. And, taking a more expansive view, we know what it is to be male/masculine and female/feminine/effeminate has not been and is not stagnant for all times and all places.
Because the Scripture warns that being malakoi can bar one from heaven, Bayly holds firm that the “sin of effeminacy” has the same result. While the 1 Corinthians passage does not even slightly indicate the social or sexual behavior of actual women, Bayly freely extrapolates his “sin of effeminacy” to women by flipping an inverse posture: The “sin of hardness” keeps women from heaven.
Throughout his book, Bayly attempts to give guidelines and examples of what are and are not effeminate behaviors, though he never strictly defines them. He somewhat defines it as a refusal by a man to occupy the place and role he should in a given relationship. “Effeminacy is the denial of one's manhood decreed by God, and thus effeminacy is a sexual sin even when it is committed by a man who is all alone.” (p. 40) Bayly neglects most of the actual ancient concepts associated with malakoi and adds his own conditions he considers to be effeminate.
Should access to heaven be barred for those who read a lot of books, eat fine foods and drink fine wines, dress nicely, use nicer hair and skincare products, unbutton one too many buttons on their shirts, have long hair, are more passive in social situations, fall in love with women and “lose” themselves romantically and sexually, perform any sex act that is not procreative (By the way, Bayly is anti-masturbation too. He wants to call out “every form of sexual sin from fornication to effeminacy to adultery to incest to bestiality to masturbation.” (p. 30))
And let’s not forget that we need to be aware of “hard women.” Are they the ones with short hair who wear masculine clothing? Are they “too educated”? Maybe they’re the ones in traditionally male jobs, who can fix their own cars and plumbing, or take care of the family finances?
It is all rather subjective but the core message is apparently written in our anatomy. Bayly writes: “Hard is not what God made woman to be. Look at a woman's sexual organ and consider the simple truth that godliness for woman means living in obedience to her body. Her body is soft in receiving man's initiative and bearing the fruit of his initiative through her gift of life, and this is the reason hard women will not enter the Kingdom of God. They are in rebellion against God and who he made them to be.” (p. 54) There’s more: “Those with eyes to see the meaning our Creator has written into our body parts easily understand that man is made to initiate and women to receive. Again, the book of nature and the book of God agree.” (p. 62)
Why the focus on the sin of effeminacy? If unchecked, it may lead to the next listed sin, arsenokoitai/homosexuality. “What happens when a man gives himself to effeminacy and playing the woman? Not being able to say no to his lust, the effeminate decays until he finds himself in bed with another man. A man giving himself over to softness is well on the way to giving himself over to bedding another man.” (p. 64)
Bayly recounts a story where he failed to rein in an effeminate before he gave himself over to homosexuality. Pastor Bayly allowed the man, a countertenor in his congregation, to sing a “female aria” from Handel’s “Messiah” one Sunday morning during Advent. Some congregation members thought a woman was singing. (continued on my blog, or Amazon, easily found)
Bayly was ordained in the John Knox Presbytery (the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin portion) of the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA). In 1991 he transferred his ordination to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the largest Reformed denomination in the US, which split from the PCUSA in 1973. In 2010, he moved his credentials to Clearnote Fellowship, a denomination he created from three churches: his own, Clearnote Church in Bloomington, IN, and two other churches. One church is pastored by his son, Joseph, who co-authored this book, and the other was planted by the son.
As of February 2019, Tim Bayly’s church changed its name from Clearnote Church to Trinity Reformed Church, also renaming and restructuring the Fellowship into its own denomination and presbytery, the Evangel Presbytery. Clearnote created a Pastors’ College in 2005, which is now also part of Evangel.
Part of the Evangel Presbytery confessions includes belief in the Creation Order: Adam first, followed by the God-ordained subjugation of Eve. Adherence to Creation Order strongly influences Bayly’s views on the roles of men and women, and what he considers to be masculine and feminine. By extension, this also impacts his views on those who identify as LGBTQ.
In 1997, Bayly was named the first executive director at the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). He later left CBMW disappointed that the organization was only committed to the headship of men over women in the home and church. Bayly thought male leadership should extend to business, government, and the legal systems. He acknowledges this position in “The Grace of Shame” writing:
“Outside the Christian home and church, we say there is nothing wrong with women serving as police persons, guards in men's prisons, lawyers, doctors, senators, judges, combatants in the armed forces, governors, prime ministers, and presidents. We tell the world male leadership is just a private Christian thing, assuring ourselves that it's just the private lives of Christians God is concerned about. We don't have time to discuss where and how we should witness to God's creation order of Adam then Eve among unbelievers. It's complicated and that discussion would subvert the immediate task at hand.” (p. 26-27)
Bayly does not believe women should have any leadership roles within corporate worship. Women are not to lead worship, participate in the readings, or give announcements, with the exception perhaps of announcing women’s ministry events. It is important to note these extreme positions about the “acceptable” roles of women because these convictions spill over into his views about how men and women are to behave.
One might quickly notice by looking at Bayly’s social media postings that he is hyperfocused (actually obsessed) on what it means to be a man or masculine. He frequently posts with his signature #manup delineating how a “hard” man behaves versus a soft man, “the effeminate,” a term he very much favors.
Surprisingly, I agree with Tim Bayly on one point. The fundamental premise upon which he bases his book is that the Greek work “malakoi” should not be translated as boy/male prostitute, catamite, or as the passive partner in homosexual sex, as it has been in some modern Bibles. We very much disagree with how it could be best rendered, but we’ll get there.
First, it might be helpful to look at the various translations of the Greek word malakoi before 1946 as well as considering contextual and historical information so we can better understand the world in which malakoi was written and translated. It is against this backdrop that we can better assess Bayly’s ideology and translation of malakoi.
At the center of the controversy, there are two Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: arsenokoitai and malakoi. Arsenokoitai is the more difficult of the two to translate. Bayly assumes his translation of arsenokoitai, “it literally means men who lie with males” (p. 34) is the correct translation. However, most Bible scholars agree that no one can say with certainty what it means precisely.
“Men who lie with males” is the literal translation of two Old Testament Hebrew words used in Leviticus, arsen and koiten. However, it is believed the apostle Paul coined the Greek word arsenokoitai. We need to notice the passage in Leviticus was written 1,600 years before Paul coined his word in a different language. To understand how Paul may have intended to use the word when he addressed a sin happening in the church in Corinth, we need to look at other ways in which the word was used. Unfortunately, there is no historical notation along the lines of “this is what arsenokoitai means.”
The word mostly appears in list form and occurs fewer than 100 times over a period of 600 years. It is mostly associated with the economic sin of exploitation, rather than a purely sexual sin. This is not where I will focus, however, since arsenokoitai is not the focus of Bayly’s book. It is the other Greek word, malakoi that is the topic of “The Grace of Shame.” Bayly believes that malakoi should be translated today as the “sin of effeminacy”.
Earlier English translations of malakoi indicate a weakness or degeneracy in character: lechers, weaklings, the wanton, and, eventually, the 1611 King James Version translates the word as “the effeminate.” The use of the English word “effeminate” is consistent in the 1881 English Revised Version and 1901 American Standard Bible.
Next, a series of somewhat consistent shifts take place in the mid-20th century. Sometimes the two Greek words are combined into one word or expression, and other times they are individually translated.
1946 Revised Standard Version—combined to one expression—homosexual
1963 New American Standard Bible—effeminate, homosexual
1971 English Standard Version—men who practice homosexuality
1971 The Living Bible—those who are homosexual
1973 The Message Bible—those who use and abuse others, those who use and abuse sex
1973 New International Version— men who have sex with men
1982 New King James—homosexuals, sodomites
1995 New American Standard—male prostitutes, sodomites
2001 English Standard Version—men who practice homosexuality (with a clarification footnote: the active and passive partners in consensual homosexual sex)
Bayly does not like these changes that have occurred since 1946. He writes, “Past generations of English Bible readers were able to read the word God's Holy Spirit inspired. Their Bibles always translated the Greek word malakoi into English, so everyone knew effeminacy was a sin distinct from homosexual intercourse, and that both sins excluded men from the Kingdom of God.” (p.36) He further contends that we need to return to the translation of malakoi used in the KJV, ERV, and ASV where malakoi/effeminate is recognized as a sin distinct from arsenokoitai/homosexuals, homosexuality (his interpretation, not mine). “Their justifications (modern translators) for this removal (of the word effeminate) are inexcusable. Past Bible scholars all left the word intact and translated correctly, so they had many faithful witnesses across the centuries that they could have easily followed.” (p. 37)
Bayly advocates for returning to the pre-1946 meaning of malakoi and renames the sin, the “sin of effeminacy.” He says of The Shame of Grace, “This book is our plea for the church to return to the words and truths of Scripture and her loving witness to the effeminate, sodomites, women who lie with other women, and similar abominations.” (p. 5) He is disturbed that “The sin of effeminacy is never mentioned in our churches today. In fact, our modern Bible translations have removed effeminacy from the list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6.” (p.35) “Pastors and elders particularly must not rob them (the effeminates) of repentance by refusing to use the words God uses about their sin.” (p. 7)
I have no doubt Bayly is earnest in his desire to shepherd people faithfully and consistent with the Scriptures. But words, especially two-thousand-year-old words, have cultural and time-bound baggage. Malakoi in the first century is not equal to effeminate or “the sin of effeminacy” in the 21st century. This is the crux of the problem with Bayly’s translation, ideology, and teachings in his book.
The ancient and historical distinctions between what is male/masculine and what is female/ feminine would be utterly unfamiliar to us today. Moreover, the bulk of these views associated with sex and gender roles would likely seem foolish.
This is a quick overview of the world into which the word “malakoi” was used and then translated as “effeminate” in 1611.
The whole of a human being was contained in the male semen. A woman’s sole contribution to conception was the fertile planting field of her uterus. It was not discovered until 1870 that a baby was produced by the joining of sperm and egg. A woman’s reproductive system was the inversion of a man’s anatomy. Her vagina was called a woman’s penis (along with other slang terms), but there was no scientific name for the vagina until 1680.)
Sex was performed only with the intent of procreation. Any non-procreative sex (no matter the sex of the partners) was sodomy. All sex acts should be devoid of passion and lust.
Ancient views of the male/masculinity and the female/femininity were determined by the balance and amounts of four types of bodily liquids (humours). If the hot, dry humours of a man overcame the cold, wet humours of a woman, you got a boy baby. If they didn’t, oh well, you got a girl. A woman’s “stuff” was on the inside because she was “cold.” Men’s “stuff” was on the outside because he was “hot.” Upon the birth of a baby, menstrual blood transformed to lactation milk. Her skin was seen as porous, vulnerable, and weak. Ancients thought women needed to stay indoors to protect their porous skin. It was so porous in fact that any excess liquid needed to be expelled monthly (her menses). Ancients thought every aspect of a woman from skin to vagina was the anatomical proof of her role to be penetrated in sex.
Clearly, ancient cultures were steeped in patriarchy and gender hierarchy (male dominance is all arenas). These negative views and the sub-importance of women and the feminine form an inextricable backdrop to the first century meaning of malakoi as well as its 17th-century translation “effeminate.”
The historical meaning of malakoi is fairly easy to define by observing context and usage. Malakoi had many meanings, some which Bayly acknowledges in his book (like cowardice and soft clothing), but the word also describes dispositions associated with the negative traits of women that were held as true in ancient times.
Women were thought to be morally weak, lazy, unchaste, given to unnatural vices, lustful, impure, and submissive in sex--to be penetrated. But the word was also used to describe men who were weak in battle, strutted and dressed as “peacocks” for women, too bookish, fell in love with women and lost control of their passions, and men who neglected their businesses.
Beyond contextual meanings of malakoi, our knowledge concerning human sexuality and what defines male and female has greatly expanded beyond the above nonsense. And, taking a more expansive view, we know what it is to be male/masculine and female/feminine/effeminate has not been and is not stagnant for all times and all places.
Because the Scripture warns that being malakoi can bar one from heaven, Bayly holds firm that the “sin of effeminacy” has the same result. While the 1 Corinthians passage does not even slightly indicate the social or sexual behavior of actual women, Bayly freely extrapolates his “sin of effeminacy” to women by flipping an inverse posture: The “sin of hardness” keeps women from heaven.
Throughout his book, Bayly attempts to give guidelines and examples of what are and are not effeminate behaviors, though he never strictly defines them. He somewhat defines it as a refusal by a man to occupy the place and role he should in a given relationship. “Effeminacy is the denial of one's manhood decreed by God, and thus effeminacy is a sexual sin even when it is committed by a man who is all alone.” (p. 40) Bayly neglects most of the actual ancient concepts associated with malakoi and adds his own conditions he considers to be effeminate.
Should access to heaven be barred for those who read a lot of books, eat fine foods and drink fine wines, dress nicely, use nicer hair and skincare products, unbutton one too many buttons on their shirts, have long hair, are more passive in social situations, fall in love with women and “lose” themselves romantically and sexually, perform any sex act that is not procreative (By the way, Bayly is anti-masturbation too. He wants to call out “every form of sexual sin from fornication to effeminacy to adultery to incest to bestiality to masturbation.” (p. 30))
And let’s not forget that we need to be aware of “hard women.” Are they the ones with short hair who wear masculine clothing? Are they “too educated”? Maybe they’re the ones in traditionally male jobs, who can fix their own cars and plumbing, or take care of the family finances?
It is all rather subjective but the core message is apparently written in our anatomy. Bayly writes: “Hard is not what God made woman to be. Look at a woman's sexual organ and consider the simple truth that godliness for woman means living in obedience to her body. Her body is soft in receiving man's initiative and bearing the fruit of his initiative through her gift of life, and this is the reason hard women will not enter the Kingdom of God. They are in rebellion against God and who he made them to be.” (p. 54) There’s more: “Those with eyes to see the meaning our Creator has written into our body parts easily understand that man is made to initiate and women to receive. Again, the book of nature and the book of God agree.” (p. 62)
Why the focus on the sin of effeminacy? If unchecked, it may lead to the next listed sin, arsenokoitai/homosexuality. “What happens when a man gives himself to effeminacy and playing the woman? Not being able to say no to his lust, the effeminate decays until he finds himself in bed with another man. A man giving himself over to softness is well on the way to giving himself over to bedding another man.” (p. 64)
Bayly recounts a story where he failed to rein in an effeminate before he gave himself over to homosexuality. Pastor Bayly allowed the man, a countertenor in his congregation, to sing a “female aria” from Handel’s “Messiah” one Sunday morning during Advent. Some congregation members thought a woman was singing. (continued on my blog, or Amazon, easily found)
September 13, 2019
Must Read!! Truly a great book!
January 18, 2018
This book radically changed my thinking regarding how the church should be helping folks who struggle with homosexuality. Fabulous read. Can not recommend enough.
December 12, 2017
This book was heartbreaking.
God has had pastor Tim Bayly in strategic places for the duration of his ministry to love homosexuals. He currently pastors in Bloomington Indiana which is home to Indiana University which houses the perverse Kinsey Institute. Tim loves the students that go to the University and he does this by calling them to repent of their sins and turn to Christ. Many of those students are a part of his congregation. Part of turning to Christ however means loving the sex God has made you and repenting of the ways in which you have rebelled against God’s design for your life. For have you not read- “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” (Matthew 19:4)? There are only two options. Male and female. This is foundational for human flourishing and not because I say so, no, because God says so.
Pastor Bayly walks through story after story of tragic sins he has counseled people through but he also shows the hope that is found in Christ and in His Word. This book will have you crying because of the brokenness of our world but it will also have you rejoicing because of the glorious hope and healing that is found in Jesus. Tim isn’t coming out of nowhere on this issue. He has been around the block. He is in his 60’s, he has five kids and twenty-one grandchildren. He is a father and grandfather. He loves his wife, his offspring and his congregation. You can feel it in the book.
I highly recommend this book. If you struggle with sexual sin then you need to read this. If you are counseling others who struggle then buy this book. It will be foundational in a Biblical understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God, male and female.
God has had pastor Tim Bayly in strategic places for the duration of his ministry to love homosexuals. He currently pastors in Bloomington Indiana which is home to Indiana University which houses the perverse Kinsey Institute. Tim loves the students that go to the University and he does this by calling them to repent of their sins and turn to Christ. Many of those students are a part of his congregation. Part of turning to Christ however means loving the sex God has made you and repenting of the ways in which you have rebelled against God’s design for your life. For have you not read- “He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.” (Matthew 19:4)? There are only two options. Male and female. This is foundational for human flourishing and not because I say so, no, because God says so.
Pastor Bayly walks through story after story of tragic sins he has counseled people through but he also shows the hope that is found in Christ and in His Word. This book will have you crying because of the brokenness of our world but it will also have you rejoicing because of the glorious hope and healing that is found in Jesus. Tim isn’t coming out of nowhere on this issue. He has been around the block. He is in his 60’s, he has five kids and twenty-one grandchildren. He is a father and grandfather. He loves his wife, his offspring and his congregation. You can feel it in the book.
I highly recommend this book. If you struggle with sexual sin then you need to read this. If you are counseling others who struggle then buy this book. It will be foundational in a Biblical understanding of what it means to be made in the image of God, male and female.
December 26, 2017
This book is an absolute Must Read. The truth of which it speaks is vital for everyone to understand. Thanks to the authors for bringing clarity where there is much fog.
January 28, 2019
This is the best book I read in 2017 and I read it again in 2018. I met Tim Bayly one time a number of years before he wrote this book. I had read some of his blog articles and asked him about what I thought was his over-critical stand against Tim Keller. At the time I thought Keller was weak in some ways, but my question for Bayly was, "Why complain so much about someone who is doing so much good work? Why not rejoice that at the very least, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached?" I don't remember his answer, but it seemed weak at the time. Now having seen what soft-complementarianism (if that's not too generous a term for Keller) is doing in the church, I'm so grateful for Tim Bayly's wisdom and courage.
This book speaks to one the most important issues facing the church today--the sexual revolution, and homosexuality in particular. He not only addresses the biblical view of sodomy, but the sin of effeminacy that marks so many heterosexual men in the church. He details his own failing to disciple a man in his church who struggled with homosexuality, and calls out the cowardice that silences Christians, keeping them from loving their homosexual neighbors. This is the book to give your pastor and elders. It's really not about what's happening in the culture, but how the church is failing to take up the cross.
This book speaks to one the most important issues facing the church today--the sexual revolution, and homosexuality in particular. He not only addresses the biblical view of sodomy, but the sin of effeminacy that marks so many heterosexual men in the church. He details his own failing to disciple a man in his church who struggled with homosexuality, and calls out the cowardice that silences Christians, keeping them from loving their homosexual neighbors. This is the book to give your pastor and elders. It's really not about what's happening in the culture, but how the church is failing to take up the cross.
September 15, 2017
This is an excellent and much-needed rebuke for the Christian church and how it is failing to speak against homosexuality in a way that is truthful, biblical, and ultimately loving. Yes, even the conservative, "Reformed" community is failing in this area. The authors do an accurate job of critiquing such "brand names" (an apt label given by the authors) as the Gospel Coaliton, Desiring God, and Al Mohler. This is a must-read for the church today, as we all need to be admonished for yielding to political correctness. We do this so that we can love ourselves by avoiding the rebuke of those in the world who would call us "mean" and "bigoted" for boldly and lovingly speaking about sodomy in a way that accords with God's word. It needs to be widely read, but unfortunately, it probably won't be.
November 22, 2017
The idea that the feeling of shame is a grace to the person caught in their sin will seem scandalous to many I'm sure, as will what is exposed about a few respected bible teachers and even popular bible translations today. I can hardly think of a more timely book or one that took more courage to publish in the present cultural milieu. "The sin of effeminacy" has become a forgotten concept that needs to be reconsidered. The book highlights the hypocrisy and cowardice of those who refuse to speak God's words the way God uses them, choosing rather to sanitize sins that our culture celebrates and heal the wound lightly. Highly recommended reading.
October 15, 2017
"God gave us physical pain to protect our bodies and shame to protect our souls."
This is not a book for the faint of heart. It is rhetorically aggressive, calling out well-meaning pastors, ministries, websites by name when they fail to uphold what the Bible teaches about manhood and womanhood. If you think you're a complementarian and that does not apply to you - this book will make you think again. The authors do not dwell on abstract theological concepts. Instead, they confront particular instances of flawed preaching, thinking, counsel, and behavior.
This is not a book for the faint of heart. It is rhetorically aggressive, calling out well-meaning pastors, ministries, websites by name when they fail to uphold what the Bible teaches about manhood and womanhood. If you think you're a complementarian and that does not apply to you - this book will make you think again. The authors do not dwell on abstract theological concepts. Instead, they confront particular instances of flawed preaching, thinking, counsel, and behavior.
September 6, 2017
This book is well reasoned, well written, and deeply convicting. I hope it attracts a wide audience among evangelicals.
November 28, 2017
Every evangelical should read this book. It serves to reorient Christians who have listened to too much of the politically correct hogwash popular in the church concerning sodomy.
February 1, 2019
Pastors Tim Bayly, Joseph Bayly, and Jürgen von Hagen authored The Grace of Shame. The sub-
title of the book identifies its aim: “7 Ways the Church Has Failed to Love Homosexuals.” This is
a book about reformation in the church; and reformation always requires the hard work of
repentance. The Baylys and von Hagen effectively argue both for a change of theology and a
change of practice in how the church loves homosexuals. Laymen and clergy alike will find the
writing accessible to the mind and challenging to the heart.
Each chapter focuses on an error common in evangelical churches. Chapter 3 focuses on the
fact that most modern translations have edited out (read “deleted”) the word μαλακοὶ from 1
Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate (μαλακοὶ, “soft”), nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” This is significant in that it takes
out an entire category of “things that keep you out of heaven.” Chapter 4 follows up the textual
chapter with a focus on what effeminacy is, specifically looking at John the Baptist, Jesus, and
Rock n’ Roll.
You don’t have to search long before finding some evangelical discussing “gay Christian” as a
legitimate identity. Chapter 5 argues against this prevalent, evangelical idea. The basis of their
argument is the phrase, “such were some of you”, in 1 Corinthians 6:11. Their main assertion is,
“The gay identity, gay desires, and [not just] gay intercourse are rebellion against God” (69).
Chapter 6 responds to a phrase used by The Gospel Coalition and Living Out, “Godliness is not
Heterosexuality.” The authors charge TGC with cowardice in using this phrase, seeking to
appease the 70% of American millennials who now, since the Supreme Court Obergefell
decision, support homosexual marriage. While godliness does not equal heterosexuality, a
claim that no heterosexual Christian makes, it most certainly includes heterosexuality. The
authors write, “Godliness is living as the sex God made us and loving the opposite sex, and this
is what normal people mean when they speak of ‘heterosexuality’” (77).
Chapter 7 argues against Southern Baptist Al Mohler, who contends that homosexual
orientation does exist. The authors convincingly establish that the Bible recognizes only two
sexual orientations, male and female. The term, “homosexual temptation”, over and against
“homosexual orientation”, is preferable. Because temptations can be fled from, because men
and women can turn from long-standing patterns of sin, chapter 8 goes on to argue in favor of
reparative therapy for gays.
Chapter 9 engages with a Desiring God article that represents a general, evangelical push to
consider all sin the same and to consider men who lust homosexually not automatically
disqualified from the pastorate. Such a push seeks to minimize the shame of sodomy, its doing
and desiring. The authors argue, in accord with the Westminster Larger Catechism, that not all
sin is the same, that some sins are worse than others, and that great shame is a great grace for
those tempted by great sins.
Chapter 10 follows this with a focus on the goodness of shame. “It is not loving to minimize or
deny sodomy’s shame. It is God Himself who clothed sodomy in its awful shame, and none of us
have more compassion or love for those in bondage for this sin and temptation than He does.”
I give this book 5 stars. It is Biblically argued and critically timely.
title of the book identifies its aim: “7 Ways the Church Has Failed to Love Homosexuals.” This is
a book about reformation in the church; and reformation always requires the hard work of
repentance. The Baylys and von Hagen effectively argue both for a change of theology and a
change of practice in how the church loves homosexuals. Laymen and clergy alike will find the
writing accessible to the mind and challenging to the heart.
Each chapter focuses on an error common in evangelical churches. Chapter 3 focuses on the
fact that most modern translations have edited out (read “deleted”) the word μαλακοὶ from 1
Corinthians 6:9-10, which reads, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate (μαλακοὶ, “soft”), nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” This is significant in that it takes
out an entire category of “things that keep you out of heaven.” Chapter 4 follows up the textual
chapter with a focus on what effeminacy is, specifically looking at John the Baptist, Jesus, and
Rock n’ Roll.
You don’t have to search long before finding some evangelical discussing “gay Christian” as a
legitimate identity. Chapter 5 argues against this prevalent, evangelical idea. The basis of their
argument is the phrase, “such were some of you”, in 1 Corinthians 6:11. Their main assertion is,
“The gay identity, gay desires, and [not just] gay intercourse are rebellion against God” (69).
Chapter 6 responds to a phrase used by The Gospel Coalition and Living Out, “Godliness is not
Heterosexuality.” The authors charge TGC with cowardice in using this phrase, seeking to
appease the 70% of American millennials who now, since the Supreme Court Obergefell
decision, support homosexual marriage. While godliness does not equal heterosexuality, a
claim that no heterosexual Christian makes, it most certainly includes heterosexuality. The
authors write, “Godliness is living as the sex God made us and loving the opposite sex, and this
is what normal people mean when they speak of ‘heterosexuality’” (77).
Chapter 7 argues against Southern Baptist Al Mohler, who contends that homosexual
orientation does exist. The authors convincingly establish that the Bible recognizes only two
sexual orientations, male and female. The term, “homosexual temptation”, over and against
“homosexual orientation”, is preferable. Because temptations can be fled from, because men
and women can turn from long-standing patterns of sin, chapter 8 goes on to argue in favor of
reparative therapy for gays.
Chapter 9 engages with a Desiring God article that represents a general, evangelical push to
consider all sin the same and to consider men who lust homosexually not automatically
disqualified from the pastorate. Such a push seeks to minimize the shame of sodomy, its doing
and desiring. The authors argue, in accord with the Westminster Larger Catechism, that not all
sin is the same, that some sins are worse than others, and that great shame is a great grace for
those tempted by great sins.
Chapter 10 follows this with a focus on the goodness of shame. “It is not loving to minimize or
deny sodomy’s shame. It is God Himself who clothed sodomy in its awful shame, and none of us
have more compassion or love for those in bondage for this sin and temptation than He does.”
I give this book 5 stars. It is Biblically argued and critically timely.
August 15, 2022
Really solid, helpful book. It is the best book that I know of on this subject. I already recommended it to a friend before I had even finished it.
However, I didn't give it 5 stars for one main reason. He has a chapter in the book where he blasts Mohler and another important guy for their stance on conversion therapy based off of quotes from one specific event. In the beginning of the chapter, Bayly lays out a very broad definition of conversion therapy something along the lines of "Anything that tries to help a homosexual become a heterosexual." However, I did just 5 minutes of research on the event, and Mohler and the other guy say outright that they were working from a very specific definition of conversion therapy as founded by one man with a set of guiding principles. Fortunately for Bayly, some of his arguments in that chapter are still valid. But I find it disconcerting that he seems to set up a strawman and it makes me wonder if any other quotes in the book are taken out of context.
However, I didn't give it 5 stars for one main reason. He has a chapter in the book where he blasts Mohler and another important guy for their stance on conversion therapy based off of quotes from one specific event. In the beginning of the chapter, Bayly lays out a very broad definition of conversion therapy something along the lines of "Anything that tries to help a homosexual become a heterosexual." However, I did just 5 minutes of research on the event, and Mohler and the other guy say outright that they were working from a very specific definition of conversion therapy as founded by one man with a set of guiding principles. Fortunately for Bayly, some of his arguments in that chapter are still valid. But I find it disconcerting that he seems to set up a strawman and it makes me wonder if any other quotes in the book are taken out of context.
May 10, 2025
This short book packs a ton of rich theology into a single volume. I would put this as a go-to resource for anyone offering or receiving counsel for any sin issue, but especially for sexual sins in our androgynous and confused age. The big emphasis is to use biblical words for our sins and vices, rather than trying to spare anyone of the shame that would lead them to Christ. So the authors don't mince words, but it's far from 'cruel' - this is one big gospel presentation that refuses to paper over or make excuses for any sin, and instead continues to point the reader to Christ, the author and finisher of our salvation.
April 30, 2023
Needed work in our time. Some odd editorial choices that made reading feel kind of choppy, but otherwise readable. While I have not personally wrestled with the sins and temptations enumerated in Grace of Shame, the last couple of chapters were really good Gospel nourishment for my own soul. I would have enjoyed further discussion on the nature and usefulness of shame, but maybe that is another book for another time.
Pastors and laymen alike ought to read this book to know how to best minister to our homosexual neighbors.
Pastors and laymen alike ought to read this book to know how to best minister to our homosexual neighbors.
March 3, 2025
Very helpful instruction on how the church needs to view homosexuality Biblically and how to relate to those caught in this sin. The message is applicable to all types of sexual sin.
Bayly says, "Because shame is painful, our desire to avoid it keeps us from sin. God gave us physical pain to protect our bodies and shame to protect our souls. A man incapable of feeling physical pain runs the risk of destroying his own body. In the same way, a shameless man risks destroying his own soul. ........It can't be said too often that shame is God's grace."
Bayly says, "Because shame is painful, our desire to avoid it keeps us from sin. God gave us physical pain to protect our bodies and shame to protect our souls. A man incapable of feeling physical pain runs the risk of destroying his own body. In the same way, a shameless man risks destroying his own soul. ........It can't be said too often that shame is God's grace."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews