Customer Reviews

Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

The issue of whether to allow ordination and marriage of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is being debated in almost every major Christian denomination. This book is essential reading for anyone who wants to be informed about this issue. It's meticulously researched (483 footnotes!) but also very clear and accessible. It's thoroughly Biblical--something that I believe will be appreciated by people on both sides of the debate. Dr. Rogers wrote the book from his own Presbyterian perspective but it will be a wonderful resource for people of all Christian denominations. Looking at each chapter in turn:

Chapter 1, "Studying Homosexuality for the First Time," describes Dr. Rogers' background as an evangelical and how he first began to study the issue of homosexuality in his local congregation.

Chapter 2, "A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Oppression," documents how leading theologians, for two hundred years, misused the Bible to try to justify the enslavement of people of African descent and the subordination of women to men.

Chapter 3, "A Breakthrough in Understanding the Word of God," shows how Biblical interpretation has changed for the better over the last two hundred years.

Chapter 4, "Interpreting the Bible in Times of Controversy," outlines the 7 guidelines on Biblical interpretation officially adopted by the Presbyterian Church and applies them to the issue of homosexuality.

Chapter 5, "What the Bible Says and Doesn't Say about Homosexuality," takes a close look at each of the passages that supposedly condemn people who are LGBT and shows that much of the conventional wisdom about these passages is simply incorrect. There's also a great discussion in here about how Acts 10-15 provides a helpful model for how the church can resolve this issue.

Chapter 6, "Real People and Real Marriage," shares the stories of actual gay and lesbian Christians and debunks the stereotypes and cliches that so often characterize this debate.

Chapter 7, "Healing the Church," includes recommendations for what the Presbyterian Church needs to do to make things right and to heal the divisions in the church.

If we choose to listen, the thoughtful scholarship in this book presents a tremendous opportunity for the church to affirm its biblical and confessional tradition while also welcoming people who are LGBT as full and equal members.

This book has much to commend it, but the author's summary of Barth on male-female relationships (and his subsequent rejection of same-gender love) disregards Barth scholarship of the past 10 years, and is a superficial reading of Church Dogmatics in any case. A brief conversation with George Hunsinger at Princeton--one of the leading Barth scholars in North America--would have cleared this up and resulted, I think, in a very different argument. Eberhard Busch, Barth's longtime secretary and a respected theologian in his own right, would also have been helpful.

Barth, in the last months of his life, dictated a letter to a pastor struggling with the issue of homosexuality, in which he said that while he was too old to give the issue the attention it deserved, he suspected that if he were to rewrite the offending paragraphs in Church Dogmatics III.4, he would have said that homosexual relationships, too, shared in "freedom for community." That comment is brief, but striking, since "freedom for community" is precisely the divine gift in which heterosexual married partners participate, according to Barth.

To argue that Barth believed that the male or female is incomplete without the other does not mean that Barth concluded heterosexual marriage was normative for everyone. In fact, in the context of Protestant theology in the early 50s when Barth wrote III.4, he rather boldly praised vocational celibacy and reminded the reader that Jesus had no wife. Therefore, if Rogers is right, Barth believed that Jesus was "incomplete" or "not fully human" because he was unmarried.

On the contrary, if you dig deep enough, you can see a trajectory leading from III.4 to the comment near the end of his life that same-gender relationships might also be seen as a divine gift that leads to "freedom for community." So Rogers missed an opportunity to approach the issue constructively in a Barthian context: instead, he merely concedes Barth to those Barthians whose reading, like his, of Church Dogmatics is one-sided. Thus, Barth has to be rejected as a theologian of "male superiority" who has nothing to contribute to the debate. The sad thing is that up-to-date Barth scholarship--which would have called this view into question--was available to the author in his own church.

Jack Rogers has written a concise articulation of how a Christian can (and should) seek equal rights for those in the gay and lesbian communities. Rogers approaches this issue from a variety of different angles, not restricting his case or discussion to one area such as Biblical references to homosexuality. Here are several of these perspectives or angles and some of what he states concerning them:

--The pattern of misusing and abusing the Bible in order to justify oppression: Rogers focuses in on slavery (or Black civil rights) and woman's rights. In both cases, these groups were viewed as inferior based upon a biblical curse, their moral character, and their willfully sinful nature. Rogers briefly attempts to explain how seemingly upright individuals could come to hold such repugnant views, concluding that it was a mixture of bad biblical interpretation and philosophical presuppositions. He finally notes that the same pattern has reappeared in the LGBT controversy with gays and lesbians simply taking the place of Blacks and women.

--Biblical interpretation methodology: On this issue, Rogers contends that the general or persistent themes surrounding the life and purpose of Jesus are to be given interpretative priority over individual passages isolated from this overarching narrative. As he states, "The Bible is a story, and its central character is Jesus Christ" (56). Rogers thinks that these general themes should be held in the forefront when interpreting each passage of Scripture, especially passages referring to narrow commandments or moral prerogatives. In light of this, he holds that Jesus' words on divorce should be seen as ideals desired to be held but not slavishly enforced. Regarding homosexuality, the centrality of God's love and the need to love one's neighbor is seen as providing good grounds for equal treatment of homosexuals.

--Specific Biblical texts related to homosexuality: Here he argues that all of the texts proffered as evidence for the immorality of homosexuality fall short of establishing this. His primary claim is that none of these passages address homosexuals involved in committed and loving relationships. The homosexual activity referred to in these passages always have some other element (e.g., prostitution, ritual uncleanliness, etc.) that makes them disanalogous to the contemporary homosexual.

--Engaging living examples of homosexual commitment: Rogers thinks that actually meeting and witnessing the commitment and love present in homosexual relationships can serve as evidence for accepting God's blessing of such a relationship. Following several New Testament scholars, he thinks that Acts 15, in which the gentiles were included in the blessings of the covenant, can serve as a precedent for accepting a formerly rejected class based upon seeing God's spirit at work in and with them.

Coming to the book from a traditional perspective, I found his arguments to be interesting, enlightening and challenging. He presents a good case within a small framework. The strength of the book, I think, is in his exposition of the "problem verses." Though his presentation is brief and one-sided, the cultural issues surrounding these passages does at least give one (or at least me!) a moment's pause before coming to the traditional conclusions. There were still, however, several aspects of the book which I found wanting.

Rogers' particular methodology for interpreting Scripture isn't exactly clear and maybe even inconsistent. Coming to the text from a big picture perspective (absent a belief in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture, which I don't think Rogers' has) presents the problem of discerning which Biblical particulars are to be authoritative--or morally imperative--and which aren't. This approach leads him to hold the view that Jesus' statements about divorce are to be taken as ideals but aren't expected from his followers. Yet when it comes to sexually promiscuous behavior, Rogers seems to think that the Biblical condemnation of this is to be taken at face value. The reasoning on this goes as follows: proper sexual conduct is restricted to married (or at least committed) relationships because that is how God structured human sexual conduct, and we know this from the Bible. But I could envision a proponent of sexually promiscuous behavior presenting a case very similar to the one Rogers presents for homosexuality. If this problem is insuperable (though I doubt it is), the texts specifically related to homosexual behavior would be even more important.

Numerous times Rogers appears to argue with non-sequitors, that is, arguments in which his premises don't support his conclusion. For instance, at one point he exclaims: "Can you imagine Jesus turning away someone who is despised, discriminated against, and distraught to the point of attempting suicide?" with the concluding remark that we "see everyone in this discussion of homosexuality as our sister and brother in Christ" (57). But even if one agrees with Rogers on what Jesus would do in this example, it doesn't follow that one should believe that homosexual behavior is permissible or morally acceptable. Jesus himself proclaimed that many of the people he ministered to were sick and in need of a doctor. In a similar fashion, he references John 7:53-8:11 as supporting his position on homosexual equality (44), but this story ends with "Go and sin no more," so even though there is an accepting and forgiving tone to the story, there is still the call to refrain from sinful behavior. Not too different from these cases, Rogers appears to be confused when discussing the work of Richard Hays, who views homosexuality as an aspect of our fallen and sinful nature. Rogers states, "by singling out a particular group of people, Hays is contradicting the essential Christian message that we are all broken people, saved through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ" (85). There is clearly no contradiction here. Rogers doesn't appear to recognize the possibility that--though we are all fallen--each of us is fallen in a different way and that some of us may be fallen in similar ways, that is, we have similar fallen tendencies. This is quite evident on the Christian doctrine of man and entails no contradictions. Hays may be mistaken that homosexuality is an aspect of being fallen, but it's not because this contradicts some core truth on sin and redemption as Rogers claims. To a lesser extent, some of Rogers' arguments pertaining to the history of biblical justification for oppression are misguided. In short, though these examples should humble us and our ability to see through our cultural prejudices, they're only relevant to the case at hand if--in fact--the traditional view of homosexuality is mistaken, which is the very thing that is at issue.

One minor complaint I had was that he focuses in on debates within the Presbyterian Church too much for a book devoted to healing "The Church." He constantly references various disputes and decisions reached throughout the history of this church, including some involving homosexuality. Though Rogers is Presbyterian, this issue of homosexuality is relevant to the whole of the Christian church (as Rogers knows), and it would've been better if the book had been presented from a broader Christian perspective.

Lastly, the book doesn't include many dissenting voices. It would've been nice if Rogers could have dug into the other camps' literature a bit more, but given the length of the book this is understandable. He does, however, refer to Gagnon and Hays' works.

In the end, this book is recommended for those interested in this debate. The writing and presentation are clear such that one is able to understand the whats and whys of Rogers' positions. Also, the book is short enough that one can have a decent understanding of how a Christian can welcome homosexuals while (attempting to be/) being faithful to the Biblical witness. It should be noted, though, that the sections pertaining to the Presbyterian Church can be hard to get through for one not too interested in that church's historical disputes.

From the moment one begins to read Dr. Roger's book, "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality:Explore the Myths, Heal the Church," there is a sense of being in his presence engaging in a conversation about a topic through which he has struggled and, obviously, has well researched. He writes with a keen understanding of church history as well as one who is quite knowledgeable of the Biblical texts that people have claimed to be expressive on the topic of homosexuality. He writes with great sensitivity, knowing that this topic is one that elicits deep-seeded emotional responses. In his writing, one gets the sense that he is saying to the reader, let's explore this "defining issue" without judging or demonizing one another. His approach is multifaceted. He uses history, the creeds, and the Bible to develop his argument. This approach helps to broaden one's thinking about the subject. I would highly recommend this book for groups and individuals who want to work with the texts, confront the issues, and engage in open and honest reflection and/or discussion. It would also be helpful to read it with Freda Gardner's and David Maxwell's companion study guide.

Jack Rogers takes a fresh look at what the Bible says and doesn't say about homosexual people and relationships, in this very readable and greatly needed book. With the clarity born of a lifetime of teaching and the passion born of a lifetime of bible study, he lays out the principles of Reformed biblical interpretation and then takes on each of the famous verses most often used to demean and exclude.

As a happily married, Bible-believing church member, I am deeply saddened when people misuse the Bible to drive people away from the church. And I'm very tired of hearing the erroneous claims that the Bible "clearly condemns" anything other than mom-pop-two-kids-&-a-dog families. The clearly presented scholarship in this book could open conversations with many people who take the Bible seriously and want to know how they can accept their gay relatives or neighbors. I'll be giving a copy to my church library and to several friends.

Significant! Eye opening. This is an important read for any person who wants to be a disciple of Christ in this Post Modern Era. Missional Churches, intra cultural communicators, and ministers prepare your hearts and read this book. Jack Rogers affirms that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but offers insight on man's interpretation of "the word." If you are gay, read this book. If you are anti-gay, read this book. If you are homo-phobic, read this book. If you are a minister looking to reach out to the homosexual community, read this book.

The Bible is cut and dry on this issue, right? There is no wiggle room. Jesus condemned homosexuals and said they were going to dwell in the lake of fire prepared for Satan and his angels. It's all there in the Book, isn't it?

The first half of Rogers' book, "Jesus, the Bible, And Homosexuality" actually recounts the historical stand of the Presbyterian Church - USA, and it's forebears, in regard to three issues: slavery, women's rights, and divorce and remarriage. I found the account to be both fascinating and lamentable.

It has only been recently that I have even allowed myself to consider that all that I thought I knew about gays and their sins and their place in the Church might not have been correct. Sometimes it's hard to let go of long-held beliefs, even when they're wrong.

But, praise God! He is able to do what people by themselves cannot. I have no hope in this world apart from Christ and his grace. How, then, could I even consider withholding that grace from others?

Should you read this book? I can't answer that for you. Are you willing to let God show you something that you had not considered before? If you are, this book is wonderful. If you think you already know what God thinks, you probably won't like it much. I'm hoping you'll read it.

In an age of hype, hyperbole and misinformation Jack gently guides the reader on his journey supported by extensive research and clearly footnoted sources. He is able to illuminate cultural biases and a history of using the bible to support oppression allowing the reader to feel enlightened. The review of the current divorce rates among all Americans particularly among religious fundamentalist, traditionally opposed to gay marriage on the grounds it weakens the institution and fabric of society among other biblical claims, was quite an eye opener. As a heterosexual who simply wishes to support all persons in finding love, comfort, welcome within our churches and our society I welcome Jack Rogers substantial contribution to the ongoing debate. Buy this book for someone you know.

How I wish this book would have been written 25 years earlier. It would have saved lots of grief in many families torn by the issue of homosexuality. It was helpful to see how the church changed its mind on other divisive issues over the years. Particularly helpful was the way the author brought new insights to the "clobber passages" of scripture that are constantly used to keep gays and lesbian from feeling accepted in the church. We are sending copies to our three children and to our grandchildren now in college. The book is most readable and ideal for small group discussions. Yes, explode the myths and heal the church.

This treatise, from a conservative Christian, uses the Bible to show how un-Christian is the current homophobia among much of the radical right. He reviews his own development of understanding from being an anti-gay advocate to a realization that gays and lesbians are peolple who need to be treated as people and not as a despised minority. The way he approaches this issue is very revealing - and quite Biblical.