This is a review of Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition, by Jack Rogers. (WJK Press, 2009)
Summary
Jack Rogers begins by telling his story. He once opposed homosexuality but later changed his mind to accept and affirm it. Then he moves on to a historical review, looking at ways Christians have used the Bible to defend slavery and subjugate women. They interpreted the Bible in a literal way rather than through the “lens of the life and ministry of Jesus.” Opponents of homosexuality are doing the same today, he says. He continues his historical survey with the change in the 20th century, as mainstream Protestant theology adopted Neo-orthodoxy and its Christ-centered approach to the Bible.
He summarizes seven principles for interpreting the Bible: 1) remember Christ is the center; 2) focus on the plain text of scripture; 3) depend on guidance of the Spirit; 4) follow the rule of faith and 5) the rule of love; 6) study the historical and cultural context; and 7) put the text within the whole story of the Bible. He reviews the main texts from the Bible used to oppose homosexual relations; none of them properly interpreted, he believes, condemn loving same-sex relations among gays and lesbians today. He recounts personal stories of gays and gay couples he has known, highlighting their loving, faithful lives in a society hostile to them. He notes that psychology no longer considers homosexuality a disorder. He gives specific directives for changing the constitution of the Presbyterian Church USA. In the last chapter he offers a sampling of queer theology, ending with the Ethiopian eunuch, who in this school of thought is a gay Christian.
Reaction
I am sympathetic to this book’s aim but not its approach. The book argues too much from historical analogies. It draws a moral equivalent, for example, between any current day opponent of homosexuality and 19th century slave holders and race bigots. But this comparison is too polemical and will only alienate the people Rogers needs to persuade. Also, the book’s interpretation of key Bible texts on homosexuality is not convincing. It’s best, I think, simply to admit that on the rare occasions when biblical writers mention same-sex relations, they portray it as a sin. The question is what to do with this and what is the larger purpose of the Bible.
A better approach, and one Rogers gives fragments of through the book, is to focus on Jesus and to root acceptance of gays and lesbians in gospel hospitality. It was surprising that a book with Jesus as the first word in the title said so little about him. The book needs a chapter at the beginning on Jesus in the Gospels, how he welcomed anyone who had faith in him, who turned their life over to God and began to perform good works. Rogers believes in the hospitality of Jesus, but it’s a minor theme in this book. Making it the main theme would be a more positive approach than drawing analogies to historical injustices.
I appreciated his seven principles for interpreting scripture and the stories he told of friendships with gays and lesbians over the years. One paragraph where he recounted a teaching relationship with a gay student at Fuller Seminary was sad and illuminating. Rogers needed more stories like this in the book. I also valued the occasional nod to other writers like Lewis Smedes. I think this book will appeal mainly to those already with Rogers on this issue, especially members of the Presbyterian Church USA. Rogers is a former moderator of the PCUSA General Assembly.
You know, whenever I see a headline like this, I generally hold my breath b/c you never really know what’s coming. I remain firmly entrenched on the middle with this issue. I hate being in the middle sometimes. Instead of being intolerant OR heretical, I’m both. (More of a commentary on the issue, not so much a pity poor me whelp.)
I aree with you on his 7 principles. I’ve always thought anecdotal episodes do more to confirm the beliefs of people who already agree with you but don’t really do anything for the people you’re trying to convince.
Nice to see you’re not wading in to any controversial waters so soon upon your return…
I wrote this post before we left for Crystal Lake. Didn’t think it would be good to drop it on the blog right before skipping town. Also needed to get it out of the drafts folder today soze I’d quit tweaking it.
I love the Dwellers In the Land of Middle. They keep the world from spinning apart. You could have your own T-shirt made up: The Intolerant Heretic!
Jack Rogers was one of my professors and an executive at SFTS while I was there. He has campaigned for many years for ordination of people who are gay. I remember his arguments that the Bible supports it.
I don’t think many people find those arguments persuasive, even if they support ordination of gay people and same-sex marriages.
In the PCUSA divorce is no big deal. Many pastors encourage it if they believe it will make one or both of the person’s lives better. And yet, scripture is quite strict on this topic. If the PCUSA can consider divorce no big deal, it can certainly embrace gay marriage and ordination, in spite of the words of the Bible. I believe that is happening now and will happen fully in due time. Nevertheless, if I were gay, the words of the Bible would continue to worry me, just as they do on the subject of divorce and many other subjects as well. The PCUSA’s assurance that such things are no big deal is not comforting.
Gay marriage and ordination are two very different issues to me. I think of this in terms of the Golden Rule. How would I wanted to be treated if I were gay? And if I were gay, I would want all vocations open to me, and if this involved being clergy then that would include ordination. I would want to be able to live in peace with a life partner, and I would want the same legal benefits as a married person, but I wouldn’t expect society to consider this relationship a marriage. I would have deference to the history and meaning of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. So I would not covet the term.
I had a professor at Princeton who told us he thought divorce can be a form of repentance. It is a change of mind that allows new life to develop, if the intention of the original marriage is utterly frustrated. He took divorce very seriously, though, and the pastors I know do too. Yes, Jesus’ words on divorce are difficult. I would have to study them more to say something intelligent about it. I think, at the very least, he was trying to protect women from capricious husbands; it is sad that his words have also had the effect of keeping women tied to abusive husbands. These are hard things.
I led a Bible Study at our church on the Sermon on the Mount. When it came time to discuss the divorce section, I struggled. I knew many in the room had been divorced. I’m a Gen-X’er so, of course, my parents are divorced. I’ll tell you what I told them. I have known many people who didn’t give God a second thought until they met their 2nd spouse. If you believe, as I do, that God’s grace is the result of him coming to us, then it’s hard for me to square their second marriage being a bad thing.
I have less of an issue with gay marriage than I do with gay clergy. I figure, if it all washes out that homosexuality is a much bigger sin in our eyes than God’s- then opponents of gay marriage are a stumbling block by causing gays to “fornicate” outside of marriage. I have no idea why I put fornicate in quotation marks. But it looks good so I’m leaving it. With gay clergy, I don’t always trust the motives. By that I mean, does the person in question want to serve God or do they want to be a gay person who serves God? Sometimes it seems the agenda trumps the call.
Not that I’m in much of a position to judge.
Intolerant heretic indeed.
Well at least you didn’t use “air quotes.” Although there would be no way of doing this in a comment since no one can see your fingers. In general I am bemused by all the ways people use quotation marks today, often for emphasis it seems, like underlining. And… this is the first time in 1000+ comments here that anyone has used the word fornicate, and it appears twice even, so this is a bit of a milestone, I think.
I view ordination as less significant than marriage. I see little support for ordination in the New Testament, at least in the ways we practice it now, creating a clergy guild who wear special clergy garb.
Sheesh. Of all the things to trailblaze with…
In solidarity:
fornicate
I just wanted to comment on the maturity of the conversation here, regarding the issue. We rarely see it discussed so peacefully – especially in the blogosphere. Maybe that’s a compliment to the maturity of the blogger.
I agree with some of your criticisms of the method of this book. I recently read Daniel Helminiack’s “What the Bible REALLY Says About Homosexuality,” and it’s guilty of some of the same weak arguments. Not that the arguments themselves are actually weak – I’m quite comfortable with them. But they aren’t useful in dialogue with fundamentalists. But maybe nothing is. Chapman’s “Thou Shalt Not Love” is frustratingly anecdotal. And a lot of emerging Queer Theology (Stone, etc…) is just a little too raw. A little too shocking to be useful (“Fisting in the Song of Deborah?”).
Ultimately, the problem lies in trying to force premodern writers of Scripture to think the way we do. Yes, there are some very good caveats and lacunas in traditional arguments that at least help us justify being progressive and egalitarian, but no one is going to convince me Paul the Apostle was pro gay. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be. Just like we shouldn’t be pro slavery. We should be pro women’s equality, and I’m not convinced the Gospel of Luke is really all that emancipating.
What do we do with the Bible? What do we do with the Holy Spirit? What do we do with the hearts and minds, the compassion and love God has instilled in us?
Hmmm… can’t quite finish my thought. All to say, good dialogue. Nice post. Keep on.
Peter, thank you for the kind comments. Yes, the Gospels seem less egalitarian to me than we make them out to be. Jesus was kind to women and had women disciples, but then he chose 12 men to be the official leaders of his movement.
I agree it’s important to let the ancient writers of the Bible be who they were. We can let their testimonies of faith guide us as we listen to the inward testimony of the Spirit today. It puts things in perspective, though, to remember that people will still be reading these ancient writers long after my blog is forgotten and my body is dust and ashes.
Peace to you today.