What do you think?
Rate this book
Four (and a half) Dialogues on Homosexuality and the Bible
Four (and a half) Dialogues on Homosexuality and the Bible explores four different interpretive approaches to biblical texts regarding homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Differences of interpretation are discussed openly, honestly, and charitably. The dialogues’ four characters maintain friendship with each other despite their disagreements, and so the book serves as a model of how difficult, potentially divisive conversations on a controversial topic might be conducted. Three of the four perspectives presented for examination are well represented in the existing literature; the fourth is not as familiar and is offered and developed as a proposal for bridging the divide that persists among theologically conservative Christians who honor the authority of Scripture over their thinking and their living.
Ongoing conflict over this issue is destructive of the unity toward which the Bible summons all believers to strive, and so the book includes also a call to create space for one another—both individually and institutionally—for differences in theological conclusions and in community practices.
Each of the dialogues begins with one of the characters telling their personal story regarding their sexuality, continues with that character’s case for their view, and concludes with a series of suggested discussion questions.
Ongoing conflict over this issue is destructive of the unity toward which the Bible summons all believers to strive, and so the book includes also a call to create space for one another—both individually and institutionally—for differences in theological conclusions and in community practices.
Each of the dialogues begins with one of the characters telling their personal story regarding their sexuality, continues with that character’s case for their view, and concludes with a series of suggested discussion questions.
- GenresQueer
170 pages, Paperback
Published February 7, 2022
3 people are currently reading
7 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 - 4 of 4 reviews
February 1, 2025
I like Platonic dialogues, so the format of this book in a similar fashion appealed to me greatly. Zeyl's choice to lay out four distinctly different views on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible had me asking questions, reflecting on my own experiences in the church and, most importantly, dwelling on what it means to have healthy conversation amidst disagreement. I was intrigued, impressed, endeared and educated in many ways by each story and the ways in which the characters interacted with each other.
Side note: The characters are college students but they feel so much more knowledgeable than I am at the same level, which I find amusing. It makes me want to be better at actually doing my research. 😂
Side note: The characters are college students but they feel so much more knowledgeable than I am at the same level, which I find amusing. It makes me want to be better at actually doing my research. 😂
October 18, 2022
Friends from my former church introduced me to this book by Donald Zeyl, Professor of Philosophy, Emeritus at the University of Rhode Island. The dialogues voice different perspectives debated by Christians regarding the morality or legitimacy of same-sex marriage. Three of the perspectives are articulated in widely available literature. The fourth presents a neo-progressive, affirming argument. The dialogue voices are embodied by: “Amanda”, a same-sex attracted lesbian; “Philip”, an engaged gay male; and “David” and “Stephanie” heterosexual male and female. They are all single college students attending a conservative mid-west Christian college. Their viewpoints represent: Conservative, Progressive, Neo-Conservative and Neo-Progressive respectively. Each dialogue ends with study questions, making this book an excellent resource for group conversation of a subject that is polarizing the church today. In a unique twist, at the end of the book, each voice recommends further reading consistent with their individual viewpoint. The dialogues only address the appropriateness of same-sex marriage, ignoring the acceptance of LGBTQ+ people into the full life of the church to employ their gifts as teachers, musicians, elders, deacons and pastors.
Amanda presents the first dialogue and identifies herself as “same-sex attracted” rejecting the terms lesbian and gay. She believes something is “baked-in” about the fact that she experiences same-sex attraction and advocates that her identity as a “new creature in Christ” takes precedence over her sin (i.e., gay/lesbian) nature.
Philip, the second presenter, plans to marry James next summer. He has done his due diligence in coming to the conclusion that God blesses their decision to marry—a conclusion very opposite of Amanda’s conclusion of God’s will for her life. Can both opposing conclusions be valid?
David, the third presenter, has had minimal interactions with gay people. His character is a straight, unmarried philosophy major. He is naïve in his understanding of human sexuality and builds his arguments from “a biblical basis”; that rejects “church tradition”. Yet, he argues that gay people can enter “spiritual friendships”. There were such rites within the middle-aged church. He argues that the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate (although the inability to procreate doesn’t disqualify one from marriage). David also argues that marriage is to represent the asymmetrical roles of Christ’s relationship to the church which according to him, same-sex marriage can’t inherently represent. Then he dodges the entire theological argument regarding headship:
“it is important within a marriage to distinguish the spouse who represents the role of Christ in Paul’s analogy from the one who represents the role of the church…. the respective roles of Christ and of the church are distinct and asymmetrical. I don’t think we need to get into the issue of ‘a wife’s subordination to her husband’ and that way of understanding the husband’s ‘headship’”. (p 66-67)
On the other hand, David’s voice introduces “sexual orientation”, as well as the need to consider both general (science) and special (scripture) revelation. He has read biographies of Christian gay people who illustrate that they discovered that they were homosexual to their core and it wasn’t a behavior or identity that was adopted at some point in time. He states: “but you are probably aware that your gayness filters through to how you think, your emotional life, your social interactions and your perceptions of your natural environment, and even how you experience God.” (72).
Through the fourth dialogue, Stephanie presents a neo-progressive point of view and clarifies aspects of the prior three. She redefines the purpose of the dialogues: “Given everything we know about homosexuality today, are we justified or not in claiming that God not only permits but also blesses same-sex relations built on vows of lifelong mutual faithfulness? (p-87). She concludes that although homosexuality is not God’s created order and that it is a result of our fallen nature, there is a legitimate place for same-sex marriage.
The dialogues’ primary question: Is same-sex marriage legitimate for Christians? The first two dialogues, presented by Amanda and Phillip, who are both same-sex attracted or gay, have opposite conclusions. The Philip dialogue takes the deepest dive into the six “Clobber Passages”, (those Scripture traditionally used to condemn homosexuality). The author builds on the marriage question, to then present various understandings of Romans 1, I Corinthians 6, Creation Order (Genesis 1 and 2), the effect of the fall on the human condition and ends with advocation that God accommodates us in our human fallen nature and desires that humans should thrive.
The dialogues well represent the four major voices found within churches that are still grappling (or not) with their response to LGBTQ+ Christians within their community. It ignored gender identity as well as the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people into the life of the church. Being able to see each voice or dialogue side by side crystalized my personal stance and helped resolve lingering angst that I carry. I spent decades attempting to change my sexual orientation based on my understanding of the scriptures, which was very resistant to modification or new understanding. During the 1980s and 1990s, I identified as “ex-gay”, a term associated with the ministries of Exodus International and one that predates the current use of “same-sex attracted”. Zeyl captured this point of view through Amanda (and a bit of David). With the focus on same-sex marriage, he overlooked the terms “Side-A” and “Side-B” used within the LGBTQ+ Christian community to distinguish between those who accept same-sex sexual activity (Side A) and those who advocate for celibacy (Side B) only. These dialogues would have been an excellent opportunity to introduce those terms to the broader Christian community who will hopefully read and discuss this important book
When Phillip or the others discuss same-sex marriage, they emphasize that all sexual activity would be monogamous and in the confines of a marriage. Although monogamy within marriage (“sexual expression is permitted only after, …the couple is legally married and in possession of a marriage certificate and…the couple has made a vow of mutual faithfulness ‘before God and these witnesses’” (p133)); I found this definition of marriage qualifications laborious. I think the author is trying to emphasize that many homosexual people of faith adhere to a traditional understanding of sexual activity within marriage. However, it is my understanding that many heterosexual people no longer adhere to that norm and freely engage in sexual activity prior to or even outside of marriage (if they get married at all). This works for building the ultimate arguments – but fails to consider how sex activity is practiced within (Christian) culture today. It sets up a higher standard for homosexual Christians. That is hypocrisy at its worse. I found it ironic that Stephanie, who ultimately has the most positive view of sexual activity within committed relationships, becomes uncomfortable when reflecting on the possibility of sexual activity with our glorified bodies. After all the book is dedicated to Lewis Smedes, whose views in Sex for Christians suggested, shall I say… a lot of freedom!
Reproduction was often presented as a primary role of marriage. The role of companionship, intimacy and enjoyment were not adequately addressed within the marriage discussions. As I recall from my college days, Augustine argued that sexual intercourse is only for procreation, and “rhythm” was intended to minimize the occurrence of sexual intercourse and maximize procreative intercourse. Further, John Calvin introduced companionship as a core component to sexual intimacy. I wonder how David’s views would be mitigated if he were married?
David’s voice introduced a few new concepts, including the distinction between orientation and behavior, General and Special revelation, and spiritual friendships. From the time I saw myself ex-gay, the orientation/behavior distinction gave me comfort, enabling me to split myself whenever I violated a Christian behavioral sexual norm. Ultimately this resulted great damage to my psyche and my ability to give and receive love to and from others. I am a gay male; I experience life, my social interactions, the natural environment, and even God from that perspective. Today I don’t distinguish between orientation and behavior as they flow seamlessly from one to the other. I write this book review as a gay man, and it is for me a gay behavior.
Stephanie rejects both Amanda’s assertion that “being gay is baked-in” and; Philip’s assertion that some people are created gay as variations of created order; she does however, assert that some people are created gay—an impairment, like being deaf, mute or blind--an effect of the fall that is still with us today. This is a very nuanced argument and requires patient reading. At times it is uncomfortably close to a disability model. All but Philip considers homosexuality as outside of God’s created order, and is something that, if possible, should be mitigated; that all gay people, or blind people, or deaf people ultimately desire to be heterosexual, to be sighted, to be hearing. Once in heaven, will we all be sighted? Hearing? Straight? Although the dialogues don’t go there, I am fearful that some may advocate for medical or psychological intervention, if such interventions would be found.
Stephanie advances her argument referring to a conversation between God and Moses in Exodus 4:10-11 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I the Lord?’” She concludes that the lack of conformity between God’s design and the way that he actually creates people propels her to advocate for same-sex marriage!
An aside, my informal theological training has been developed by studying European theologians of the Protestant Reformation—all white men. It is fairly recent for me to appreciate theology developed by the lived experience of Black, women, queer, Latinx, etc. theologians. The church must hear from all these theologians. I love Stephanie’s perspective built on Exodus 4:10-11. It helps me resolves the lingering angst I’ve experienced in trying to fully reconcile the Romans 1 and I Corinthian 6 passages in particular. I guess I’m saying, I haven’t fully embraced the Phillip arguments. Even though I have come to understand other passages to show that God’s love and full inclusion extends to the sexual minority and that God welcomes sexual minorities fully into his kingdom. (Ethiopian eunuch, Centurion’s slave are examples).
Stephanie argues that God accommodates his requirements for male with female marriage to allow for same-sex marriage for those with a God-created homosexual nature. Philip agrees that “the heart of God is always for inclusion” (123).
Her final argument is built on the concept of human flourishing, an idea articulated by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE. Without the possibility of same-sex marriage, homosexual people are denied to fulfill the God given call to flourish and thrive as human beings. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the church imposes an intolerable burden on gay people.
This is a worthy book for study and discussion by all Christians. Zeyl does a great job in incorporating the multitude of perspectives and thought within the church today regarding a complex and polarizing topic. As I have grappled with my own sexuality and God’s acceptance of me, I have transitioned from Amanda’s argument and spent an excessive amount of time (yes decades) attempting to change my orientation. Those efforts ultimately failed. Philip’s argument still left some questions in my mind. I’ve come close to accepting his theological understanding, but still have a check in my mind. Stephanie’s arguments address that check within me. Her conclusions of God’s accommodation reassure me and provides a biblical way for me to move forward in fuller embrace of myself as a gay Christian. I recommend this book to anyone to expand their perspective. Regardless of which perspective ultimately represents your point of view, Christians must still welcome queer people fully into the life of church and incorporate them into its ministries.
Amanda presents the first dialogue and identifies herself as “same-sex attracted” rejecting the terms lesbian and gay. She believes something is “baked-in” about the fact that she experiences same-sex attraction and advocates that her identity as a “new creature in Christ” takes precedence over her sin (i.e., gay/lesbian) nature.
Philip, the second presenter, plans to marry James next summer. He has done his due diligence in coming to the conclusion that God blesses their decision to marry—a conclusion very opposite of Amanda’s conclusion of God’s will for her life. Can both opposing conclusions be valid?
David, the third presenter, has had minimal interactions with gay people. His character is a straight, unmarried philosophy major. He is naïve in his understanding of human sexuality and builds his arguments from “a biblical basis”; that rejects “church tradition”. Yet, he argues that gay people can enter “spiritual friendships”. There were such rites within the middle-aged church. He argues that the primary purpose of marriage is to procreate (although the inability to procreate doesn’t disqualify one from marriage). David also argues that marriage is to represent the asymmetrical roles of Christ’s relationship to the church which according to him, same-sex marriage can’t inherently represent. Then he dodges the entire theological argument regarding headship:
“it is important within a marriage to distinguish the spouse who represents the role of Christ in Paul’s analogy from the one who represents the role of the church…. the respective roles of Christ and of the church are distinct and asymmetrical. I don’t think we need to get into the issue of ‘a wife’s subordination to her husband’ and that way of understanding the husband’s ‘headship’”. (p 66-67)
On the other hand, David’s voice introduces “sexual orientation”, as well as the need to consider both general (science) and special (scripture) revelation. He has read biographies of Christian gay people who illustrate that they discovered that they were homosexual to their core and it wasn’t a behavior or identity that was adopted at some point in time. He states: “but you are probably aware that your gayness filters through to how you think, your emotional life, your social interactions and your perceptions of your natural environment, and even how you experience God.” (72).
Through the fourth dialogue, Stephanie presents a neo-progressive point of view and clarifies aspects of the prior three. She redefines the purpose of the dialogues: “Given everything we know about homosexuality today, are we justified or not in claiming that God not only permits but also blesses same-sex relations built on vows of lifelong mutual faithfulness? (p-87). She concludes that although homosexuality is not God’s created order and that it is a result of our fallen nature, there is a legitimate place for same-sex marriage.
The dialogues’ primary question: Is same-sex marriage legitimate for Christians? The first two dialogues, presented by Amanda and Phillip, who are both same-sex attracted or gay, have opposite conclusions. The Philip dialogue takes the deepest dive into the six “Clobber Passages”, (those Scripture traditionally used to condemn homosexuality). The author builds on the marriage question, to then present various understandings of Romans 1, I Corinthians 6, Creation Order (Genesis 1 and 2), the effect of the fall on the human condition and ends with advocation that God accommodates us in our human fallen nature and desires that humans should thrive.
The dialogues well represent the four major voices found within churches that are still grappling (or not) with their response to LGBTQ+ Christians within their community. It ignored gender identity as well as the inclusion of LGBTQ+ people into the life of the church. Being able to see each voice or dialogue side by side crystalized my personal stance and helped resolve lingering angst that I carry. I spent decades attempting to change my sexual orientation based on my understanding of the scriptures, which was very resistant to modification or new understanding. During the 1980s and 1990s, I identified as “ex-gay”, a term associated with the ministries of Exodus International and one that predates the current use of “same-sex attracted”. Zeyl captured this point of view through Amanda (and a bit of David). With the focus on same-sex marriage, he overlooked the terms “Side-A” and “Side-B” used within the LGBTQ+ Christian community to distinguish between those who accept same-sex sexual activity (Side A) and those who advocate for celibacy (Side B) only. These dialogues would have been an excellent opportunity to introduce those terms to the broader Christian community who will hopefully read and discuss this important book
When Phillip or the others discuss same-sex marriage, they emphasize that all sexual activity would be monogamous and in the confines of a marriage. Although monogamy within marriage (“sexual expression is permitted only after, …the couple is legally married and in possession of a marriage certificate and…the couple has made a vow of mutual faithfulness ‘before God and these witnesses’” (p133)); I found this definition of marriage qualifications laborious. I think the author is trying to emphasize that many homosexual people of faith adhere to a traditional understanding of sexual activity within marriage. However, it is my understanding that many heterosexual people no longer adhere to that norm and freely engage in sexual activity prior to or even outside of marriage (if they get married at all). This works for building the ultimate arguments – but fails to consider how sex activity is practiced within (Christian) culture today. It sets up a higher standard for homosexual Christians. That is hypocrisy at its worse. I found it ironic that Stephanie, who ultimately has the most positive view of sexual activity within committed relationships, becomes uncomfortable when reflecting on the possibility of sexual activity with our glorified bodies. After all the book is dedicated to Lewis Smedes, whose views in Sex for Christians suggested, shall I say… a lot of freedom!
Reproduction was often presented as a primary role of marriage. The role of companionship, intimacy and enjoyment were not adequately addressed within the marriage discussions. As I recall from my college days, Augustine argued that sexual intercourse is only for procreation, and “rhythm” was intended to minimize the occurrence of sexual intercourse and maximize procreative intercourse. Further, John Calvin introduced companionship as a core component to sexual intimacy. I wonder how David’s views would be mitigated if he were married?
David’s voice introduced a few new concepts, including the distinction between orientation and behavior, General and Special revelation, and spiritual friendships. From the time I saw myself ex-gay, the orientation/behavior distinction gave me comfort, enabling me to split myself whenever I violated a Christian behavioral sexual norm. Ultimately this resulted great damage to my psyche and my ability to give and receive love to and from others. I am a gay male; I experience life, my social interactions, the natural environment, and even God from that perspective. Today I don’t distinguish between orientation and behavior as they flow seamlessly from one to the other. I write this book review as a gay man, and it is for me a gay behavior.
Stephanie rejects both Amanda’s assertion that “being gay is baked-in” and; Philip’s assertion that some people are created gay as variations of created order; she does however, assert that some people are created gay—an impairment, like being deaf, mute or blind--an effect of the fall that is still with us today. This is a very nuanced argument and requires patient reading. At times it is uncomfortably close to a disability model. All but Philip considers homosexuality as outside of God’s created order, and is something that, if possible, should be mitigated; that all gay people, or blind people, or deaf people ultimately desire to be heterosexual, to be sighted, to be hearing. Once in heaven, will we all be sighted? Hearing? Straight? Although the dialogues don’t go there, I am fearful that some may advocate for medical or psychological intervention, if such interventions would be found.
Stephanie advances her argument referring to a conversation between God and Moses in Exodus 4:10-11 “Then the Lord said to him, ‘Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I the Lord?’” She concludes that the lack of conformity between God’s design and the way that he actually creates people propels her to advocate for same-sex marriage!
An aside, my informal theological training has been developed by studying European theologians of the Protestant Reformation—all white men. It is fairly recent for me to appreciate theology developed by the lived experience of Black, women, queer, Latinx, etc. theologians. The church must hear from all these theologians. I love Stephanie’s perspective built on Exodus 4:10-11. It helps me resolves the lingering angst I’ve experienced in trying to fully reconcile the Romans 1 and I Corinthian 6 passages in particular. I guess I’m saying, I haven’t fully embraced the Phillip arguments. Even though I have come to understand other passages to show that God’s love and full inclusion extends to the sexual minority and that God welcomes sexual minorities fully into his kingdom. (Ethiopian eunuch, Centurion’s slave are examples).
Stephanie argues that God accommodates his requirements for male with female marriage to allow for same-sex marriage for those with a God-created homosexual nature. Philip agrees that “the heart of God is always for inclusion” (123).
Her final argument is built on the concept of human flourishing, an idea articulated by Aristotle in the 4th century BCE. Without the possibility of same-sex marriage, homosexual people are denied to fulfill the God given call to flourish and thrive as human beings. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the church imposes an intolerable burden on gay people.
This is a worthy book for study and discussion by all Christians. Zeyl does a great job in incorporating the multitude of perspectives and thought within the church today regarding a complex and polarizing topic. As I have grappled with my own sexuality and God’s acceptance of me, I have transitioned from Amanda’s argument and spent an excessive amount of time (yes decades) attempting to change my orientation. Those efforts ultimately failed. Philip’s argument still left some questions in my mind. I’ve come close to accepting his theological understanding, but still have a check in my mind. Stephanie’s arguments address that check within me. Her conclusions of God’s accommodation reassure me and provides a biblical way for me to move forward in fuller embrace of myself as a gay Christian. I recommend this book to anyone to expand their perspective. Regardless of which perspective ultimately represents your point of view, Christians must still welcome queer people fully into the life of church and incorporate them into its ministries.
October 12, 2023
Summary: A fictional dialogue between four students representing four different interpretive approaches to the Bible regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage.
It might come as a surprise to some readers of this review that theologically conservative Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible in their lives come to different conclusions about homosexuality and whether same sex marriage is morally permissible. Yet the fictional dialogue portrayed in this book represents actual positions (and some discussions) between believing people who take the Bible seriously enough to not dismiss its statements about homosexuality as archaic, culture-bound anachronisms, or as having nothing to do with present day expressions of homosexuality.
Donald J. Zeyl uses the classic device of a fictional dialogue (he’s a philosophy professor!) to not only tease out the different approaches to interpreting the key texts pertaining to homosexuality. He also models in this dialogue for Christians who really are committed to loving each other and maintaining the unity of the body of Christ across differences. Each person represents clearly thought-out and biblical supported convictions but is also open to questions, and listens carefully to others, treating them with respect. The four are students at a Christian college.
Amanda identifies as same-sex attracted and committed to living celibately, believing that scripture prohibits both same sex desire and intimacy, reading the passages as written. Phil identifies as gay and believes that homosexual intimacy is permissible in marriage and is engaged to a gay man. He holds that the binaries of scripture are not definitive statements and that gay persons are not “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones. David is heterosexual as is Stephanie. David believes that a person may be gay in orientation but only sins when engaged in any homosexual practice, that orientation per se, and even desire are not sin. Stephanie, while believing that by design, marriage was meant for men and women, holds that, post-fall, just as God creates others with disabilities (consider his statement to Moses), so he also accommodates those created but not creationally designed aspects of human experience, including homosexuality and thus God permits homosexual marriage.
This briefly summarizes their interpretive approaches. There were two things they all held in common. One was that Genesis 19 and Judges 19 were not relevant to the discussion. The other was that all agreed that sexual intimacies outside of marriage as they understand it were sinful–gay or straight. Their discussions focused on the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:18-27, and the vice lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as well as the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1:26-27 and the reaffirmation of these verses by Jesus in the gospels and Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5 about husbands and wives reflecting the relationship of Christ and the church.
Some of the interpretive questions they discuss include:
Do the prohibitions represent universal principles applicable for all time or may they be culturally contextualized?
Are the types of homosexual expression described and prohibited in scripture the same as covenanted same-sex relationships?
Is the male-female distinction supportive of an absolute binary or is their room for a continuum of gender and sexual identities?
When Paul speaks of “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones in Romans 1:26-27, how might this relate to gay and lesbian persons who never had opposite but only same sex attraction and never “exchanged” one for another?
Is it wrong in light of biblical teaching to identify as “gay” or “lesbian” (Amanda will only identify as same sex attracted and believes same sex desire as well as intimacy to be wrong and thus will not identify as lesbian)? Is there a distinction between desire and lust? Desire and sexual intimacy?
What bearing ought our scientific knowledge, which differs from Moses or Paul, have on our reading of texts, particularly given other instances where our interpretation of scripture takes science into consideration?
Can the idea that God creates mouths, ears, and eyes and can make mute, deaf, or blind a warrant for saying (at least post-fall) that God made someone gay? And does this warrant permitting marriage, as Steph argues)?
The four participants do not pull their punches in asking hard questions. And they sometimes mispeak and push back against others who mispeak. They don’t have this difficult conversation perfectly but they do remain committed brothers and sisters in Christ with each other. They don’t reach agreement, and while each gives the others much to think about, they do not change their minds in the course of this conversation. The final “half” conversation explores the question of how their practice of mutual respect and unity in Christ extends to churches and denominations. They raise another interesting question: can churches within a denomination hold to different understandings?
One “imbalance” in the book is the space given Stephanie’s interpretive approach (which reflect’s the author’s) versus the other three. While none is treated in a “straw person” fashion, this gets nearly double the space of the others. It is a more complicated argument, as indicated in the parameters she lays out (p. 88). Far more could be said about each of the other three positions (and perhaps has been, whereas this, the author believes, is novel).
Donald J. Zeyl offers a thoughtful and sensitive dialogue for those who think what the Bible says about homosexuality to be important. It won’t be satisfying for those whose “staked out” position is more important than what those who differ really think. It won’t be satisfying for those who want all the differences to be resolved. I’m glad that the students didn’t change their convictions, even while being driven back to the biblical text to search further to “see if these things are so.” I appreciated when each challenged the other on how much weight they were putting on a particular statement or an argument from silence. There is a wonderful model here of good argument–both in the reasoned statements of each and the respect afforded each other. It shows what students, and hopefully other adults ought, under God’s grace, be capable of doing.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
It might come as a surprise to some readers of this review that theologically conservative Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible in their lives come to different conclusions about homosexuality and whether same sex marriage is morally permissible. Yet the fictional dialogue portrayed in this book represents actual positions (and some discussions) between believing people who take the Bible seriously enough to not dismiss its statements about homosexuality as archaic, culture-bound anachronisms, or as having nothing to do with present day expressions of homosexuality.
Donald J. Zeyl uses the classic device of a fictional dialogue (he’s a philosophy professor!) to not only tease out the different approaches to interpreting the key texts pertaining to homosexuality. He also models in this dialogue for Christians who really are committed to loving each other and maintaining the unity of the body of Christ across differences. Each person represents clearly thought-out and biblical supported convictions but is also open to questions, and listens carefully to others, treating them with respect. The four are students at a Christian college.
Amanda identifies as same-sex attracted and committed to living celibately, believing that scripture prohibits both same sex desire and intimacy, reading the passages as written. Phil identifies as gay and believes that homosexual intimacy is permissible in marriage and is engaged to a gay man. He holds that the binaries of scripture are not definitive statements and that gay persons are not “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones. David is heterosexual as is Stephanie. David believes that a person may be gay in orientation but only sins when engaged in any homosexual practice, that orientation per se, and even desire are not sin. Stephanie, while believing that by design, marriage was meant for men and women, holds that, post-fall, just as God creates others with disabilities (consider his statement to Moses), so he also accommodates those created but not creationally designed aspects of human experience, including homosexuality and thus God permits homosexual marriage.
This briefly summarizes their interpretive approaches. There were two things they all held in common. One was that Genesis 19 and Judges 19 were not relevant to the discussion. The other was that all agreed that sexual intimacies outside of marriage as they understand it were sinful–gay or straight. Their discussions focused on the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:18-27, and the vice lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as well as the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1:26-27 and the reaffirmation of these verses by Jesus in the gospels and Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5 about husbands and wives reflecting the relationship of Christ and the church.
Some of the interpretive questions they discuss include:
Do the prohibitions represent universal principles applicable for all time or may they be culturally contextualized?
Are the types of homosexual expression described and prohibited in scripture the same as covenanted same-sex relationships?
Is the male-female distinction supportive of an absolute binary or is their room for a continuum of gender and sexual identities?
When Paul speaks of “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones in Romans 1:26-27, how might this relate to gay and lesbian persons who never had opposite but only same sex attraction and never “exchanged” one for another?
Is it wrong in light of biblical teaching to identify as “gay” or “lesbian” (Amanda will only identify as same sex attracted and believes same sex desire as well as intimacy to be wrong and thus will not identify as lesbian)? Is there a distinction between desire and lust? Desire and sexual intimacy?
What bearing ought our scientific knowledge, which differs from Moses or Paul, have on our reading of texts, particularly given other instances where our interpretation of scripture takes science into consideration?
Can the idea that God creates mouths, ears, and eyes and can make mute, deaf, or blind a warrant for saying (at least post-fall) that God made someone gay? And does this warrant permitting marriage, as Steph argues)?
The four participants do not pull their punches in asking hard questions. And they sometimes mispeak and push back against others who mispeak. They don’t have this difficult conversation perfectly but they do remain committed brothers and sisters in Christ with each other. They don’t reach agreement, and while each gives the others much to think about, they do not change their minds in the course of this conversation. The final “half” conversation explores the question of how their practice of mutual respect and unity in Christ extends to churches and denominations. They raise another interesting question: can churches within a denomination hold to different understandings?
One “imbalance” in the book is the space given Stephanie’s interpretive approach (which reflect’s the author’s) versus the other three. While none is treated in a “straw person” fashion, this gets nearly double the space of the others. It is a more complicated argument, as indicated in the parameters she lays out (p. 88). Far more could be said about each of the other three positions (and perhaps has been, whereas this, the author believes, is novel).
Donald J. Zeyl offers a thoughtful and sensitive dialogue for those who think what the Bible says about homosexuality to be important. It won’t be satisfying for those whose “staked out” position is more important than what those who differ really think. It won’t be satisfying for those who want all the differences to be resolved. I’m glad that the students didn’t change their convictions, even while being driven back to the biblical text to search further to “see if these things are so.” I appreciated when each challenged the other on how much weight they were putting on a particular statement or an argument from silence. There is a wonderful model here of good argument–both in the reasoned statements of each and the respect afforded each other. It shows what students, and hopefully other adults ought, under God’s grace, be capable of doing.
________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
May 5, 2023
This book was very well written and tried to present the four different perspectives in a gentle way. I did felt like I was being led in a certain direction at times, a direction I didn't agree with and perhaps that was the intention of the author, to get us to question our preconceived notions and to remove any barriers that prevent God's love from guiding us. Thank you Don for your gentle and thought provoking book and the time you spent to research these issues and to try to present all perspectives fairly.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews