Sam Allberry is a gay Christian who says his faith is "a wonderful source of comfort and joy." Yet that faith requires him to be single and celibate. Unless he changes his sexual orientation, he faces a life sentence of no sex and living alone. I can't imagine much joy in that, but to each his own.
A good marriage is one of the life factors most strongly and consistently associated with happiness, says psychologist Jonathan Haidt in The Happiness Hypothesis. Those who enjoy a good marriage and the experiences of raising children and of spoiling grandchildren understand what a harsh rule it is to deprive fellow believers of those life factors.
Allberry's faith offers only two hopes to gay Christians: 1) that their sexual orientation will change, or 2) that they marry someone of the opposite sex anyway without change. I wonder how straight Christians would react if they were presented with that Hobson's choice? Allberry makes a series of dubious assertions to justify that life sentence. Here are some of them:
▪︎Because the first marriage was between a man and a woman -- Adam and Eve -- therefore that is the only permissible form of marriage. The Old Testament patriarchs, however, typically had more than one wife at a time. Polygamy also diverges from the Adam-and-Eve model, yet scripture does not generally denounce these patriarchs as sinners for their polygamy So variance from the monogamous model was permitted, but purportedly not from the heterosexual model; this seems like an arbitrary interpretation rather than a principled one.
▪︎" We are simply not designed for miltiple sexual relationships," claims Allberry. Maybe not, but DNA analysis indicates that polygamy was the norm for long periods of human existence. That's why modern humans have almost twice as many female as male ancestors. While almost all women were bearing children, reproduction was reserved for a smaller number of men.
▪︎Jesus said marriage is exclusively for heterosexuals and is forbidden to homosexuals, according to Allberry's interpretation. Of course no verse to that effect exists. If it really were a significant rule, one would think Jesus would have clarified it. Ironically, a sexual sin Jesus did specifically condemn -- remarriage after divorce, which He called adultery -- is rarely talked about nowadays by Chistians, even though it is far more widespread than same-sex relations. In fact, four out of five evangelicals staunchly support an admitted serial adulterer in the White House.
▪︎The destruction of Sodom is proof that God rejects homosexuality, Allberry asserts. It is clear from Genesis 19 that the men of Sodom wanted to rape Lot's visitors. Allberry's error is in equating homosexual rape with consensual sex between married men.
Heterosexual rape is just as wrong, but no Christians claim that therefore consensual sex between men and women is wrong, too. Besides, later verses indicate that Sodom's sins included oppression, indifference to the poor, etc. In short, it's a scriptural perversion to cite the destruction of Sodom as proof that God condemns homosexuality.
▪︎Leviticus 18 and 20 call same-sex behavior an "abomination." That's also what Paul calls long hair on men (1Cor. 11:14.) The Leviticus verses may have referred to men abusing boys, as opposed to sex between consenting adults. But Allberry interprets these verses broadly, rather than narrowly.
▪︎Allberry cites Romans 1:18-32 where Paul condemns "shameful lusts" and "shameful acts" between men. Paul also calls it a disgrace when women don't cover their heads in church, saying such women should have their heads shaved.(1Cor. 11:6). He also condemns women who braid their hair or wear gold or pearls. (1Tim. 2:9)
Few Christians today subscribe to the Pauline views on head covering and hair braiding, dismissing them as applicable only in culture in which they were given. Yet they insist Paul's words about homosexuality are universal, even though in his day little was understood about sexual orientation and its profound psychological roots. It seems arbitrary to pick and choose, in the absence of a clear rule, which New Testament prohibitions don't count anymore and which ones do.
▪︎ Sex outside of marriage is forbidden to all Christians, regardless of their sexual orientation. A variety of surveys of evangelicals, however, reveal that the large majority do not practice what they say they believe. Young adults between the ages of 18 and 29 who identify themselves as evangelicals are almost as sexually active as their non-Christian peers.
Yet young gay Christians are expected to follow the rule that their straight counterparts commonly violate. Gays are more likely to be confronted about their sexual sin in the public square than are straight fornicators. In short, there is gross hypocrisy in insisting that gays must follow a restriction that most Christians don't. Like it or not, the traditional sexual ethic has collapsed. It won't be revitalized by books like this.
One Allberry statement I agree with is that "what the Bible says about homosexuality...needs to be looked at as part of the wider message of the gospel." We should view the handful of passages about same-sex relations in light of broad principles such as "love your neighbor as yourself," which is called the summary of the whole law. (Gal. 5:14)
This Golden Rule tells us to cultivate compassion. That compassion should affect how we read the few verses. Jesus often chose compassion over the law, by healing on the Sabbath, by eating with the unwashed, by not stoning the adulteress. As Jay Michaelson writes in God vs. Gay, “Leviticus does not shape the boundaries of compassion; compassion shapes the boundaries of Leviticus.” ###