|Digital List Price:||$14.00|
|Print List Price:||$18.00|
Save $8.01 (45%)
Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church Kindle Edition
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
"A valuable book has gotten even better in this new revised edition. Rogers's new prefatory relating of particular stories is compelling, the appendix draws important information together from other denominations, and the new chapter 8 will be useful to many. I strongly recommend this book." —J. Philip Wogaman, Professor Emeritus of Christian ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary, and former senior minister at Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington, D.C.
"Searching Scripture even more widely, sharing the progress towar d equality across a broad range of denominations and describing his encounters with so many devout LGBT folk, Jack shows us how we can biblically and truthfully include all our children in the gospel promise, 'Jesus loves me, this I know.'" —Rev. Janet Edwards, Parish Associate, Community of Reconciliation, Pittsburgh, PA
"Rogers is more than a professor. He is one of the great evangelists of our time. He has heard the good news of God's love for all people, and he has given his life to sharing that news with others. This is a book that saves lives." —Ted A. Smith, Assistant Professor of Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt Divinity School --This text refers to the paperback edition.
"Rogers offers both a rigorous yet accessible theological study and a model of spiritual discernment that is essential reading for anyone struggling to reconcile their faith with the needs of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community." —Harry Knox, Director, Religion and Faith Program, The Human Rights Campaign
"The compelling biblical and theological case Jack Rogers makes for the full acceptance of gay couples is simply impossible to ignore." —William Stacy Johnson, Princeton Theological Seminary, author of A Time to Embrace: Same-gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics.
"Rogers's biblical scholarship, humane love, and openness to evidence helps us discern what Jesus would do, and what we, his people, should do." —David G. Myers, Hope College, co-author, What God Has Joined Together: The Christian Case for Gay Marriage.
"I'm overflowing with gratitude for this work. Jack Rogers continues 'to equip the saints for the work of ministry,' directing his gifts as prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher to building new understandings and relationships in the church." —Rev. Deborah A. Block, Pastor, Immanuel Presbyterian Church, Milwaukee, WI --This text refers to the paperback edition.
- ASIN : B004ASOY7I
- Publisher : Westminster John Knox Press; Rev Exp edition (April 14, 2009)
- Publication date : April 14, 2009
- Language : English
- File size : 1473 KB
- Text-to-Speech : Enabled
- Screen Reader : Supported
- Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
- X-Ray : Not Enabled
- Word Wise : Enabled
- Print length : 257 pages
- Lending : Not Enabled
- Best Sellers Rank: #468,953 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
- Customer Reviews:
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
I love the author's heart on this matter and I am not unsympathetic to his desire for inclusion. However, I do feel like while many of his scriptural conclusions are correct, many are simply him sharing his opinions and desires and placing them on scripture.
An example of this is his treatment of the word Eunuch in scripture. I don't believe that Eunuchs are the equivalent to homosexuals in scripture. This is an example of the acrobatics the author does.
While I think you can make an argument for inclusion, and this book does very well on that front in many places, I don't know that all of the exegesis in this book is done from an objective perspective.
Worth reading but it does have some problems. It is however one of the better book I have read on the subject.
This is the kind that says let us not look at what the verses say, but let us look to the attitude of Christ. Now naturally, we should look to the attitude of Christ, but if all the verses say the same thing and there is no movement of progression or change or any counter-examples of what a verse says, then perhaps we should consider that that is what Christ would have us say on the matter. If the Scripture is silent, then we can be silent, but if it is not, we should listen to it.
Rogers wants to give us seven guidelines for interpreting Scripture. I will be presenting my response to each. I found some of them problematic simply for being so subjective.
The first is to recognize that Jesus is the center of Scripture. Always realize that with the Old Testament themes of Messiah and covenant. Keeping Christ as center aids in interpretation. (p. 53)
Now there can be no question for the Christian that Christ is the focal point of Scripture, but that also doesn't provide us with much information for interpretation. I also encourage Christians when reading the Old Testament to at first NOT be a Christian. What I mean is don't read it with the Christian lens on. Read it as you would a person at the time who knows nothing about a coming Jesus and decide how you would interpret it then based on where you are. Would you immediately conclude Isaiah 53 is Messianic? Maybe. Maybe not. What purpose would you see in the Levitical Laws? How would you see a prophecy like that of Daniel 9?
So with the first, I do think it's good to keep Christ as central, but the problem can be in our society, we can all say we do that and all say we're right as a result. It's the classic problem of the church coming together for a vote and vote as "The Spirit leads you to vote." Unfortunately, the Spirit can't seem to decide what He wants in those cases.
On p. 56 we find the second that says to let the focus be on the plain text of Scripture with the grammatical and historical context instead of allegory and subjective fantasy. For the most part, I don't have much problem with this. However, I do wonder about the "plain text." What is plain to us is not necessarily plain to the original readers and vice versa. I doubt that that would be seriously objected to however.
Yet here, Rogers will come up with a point of contention in the debate. Is it wise to take statements that condemn idolatrous and immoral sexual activity and apply them to contemporary Christians who are gay or lesbian and neither idolatrous or immoral? (p. 57) I have no wish to quibble by saying we're all idolatrous to some extent, but I think we can on immorality. The very question at the heart is "Is this immoral?" and you don't answer that by arguing "They're not doing anything immoral." Of course, if we take the Levitical Laws, we could go across the board with them. What about the incestual relationships? Are those okay provided they're loving and committed and not done in idol worship? Would bestiality be okay? Was Paul wrong in 1 Cor. 5?
When we get to guideline 3, I start getting concerned. Rogers's rule is "Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message." (p. 57) The problem is many of us can do what I call, punting to the Spirit, where we don't have any basis for our claims and just say that this is what the Holy Spirit is saying. Of course, we're back to the church problem again. How many people disagree on what the text says and say the Holy Spirit is telling them what it says?
P. 59 says to be guided by the doctrinal consensus of the church, which is the rule of faith. Now to an extent, I don't disagree with this. If you are coming up with a new interpretation, you need to have some basis for it especially if it goes against what the church has taught for a long time. Of course, there can be new information found such as when we found the Dead Sea Scrolls that can shed new light and of course, the new claim can be right, but it had better have good evidence for it.
On p. 61, we get to the fifth that says that all interpretations be in accordance with the love of God and the love of neighbor. Again, most anyone would not disagree, but what is love? So many people today say that if you oppose homosexuality, then you are not being loving. Aren't God's people supposed to love? It's this bizarre idea that love means that you don't ever say that anyone or anything is wrong.
In reality, if you love anything, you will have to hate. You will hate because you love what you love and want the good of what you love and will be opposed to anything that goes against that. Love is not a rule that says anything goes and you don't condemn. If you have children, you will not let them play with matches or guns because you love them and you will not tolerate the schoolyard bully punching them because "You need to show love to him."
The next is on p. 62. It is that the Bible requires earnest study to establish the best text and interpret the influence of the historical and cultural context. Of course, this is absolutely true. One must seriously study the Bible, a lesson it would be good to see internet atheists learn. Rogers already has an example citing Furnish on Romans 1 with the idea that same-sex intercourse compromises what would be seen in a patriarchal society as the dominant role of males over females.
I find this claim problematic. There were writings that referred to nature, such as in Cicero, that point to the idea that the male and female body fit together. (It's hard to think that no one back then ever noticed that.) The second century physician Soranus wrote about parts of the body not being used as they were meant to be in homosexuality. Furthermore, Paul is writing this from a Jewish perspective and in Judaism, the opposition to homosexual behavior was the most intense. Why if they were just copying the culture around them? It's furthermore difficult to think that the wrath of God was pouring down on the world because they were questioning patriarchy.
On p. 64, we read that we are to seek to interpret a passage in light of all of the Bible. Again, I can agree to a point. I think we should interpret the passage on its own merit first and then in the end go to the whole, but I doubt Rogers would disagree with that. Rogers does say later that "When we recognize that all of us, of whatever sexual orientation, are created by God, that we are all fallen sinners, and that we can all be redeemed by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, homosexuality will no longer be a divisive issue."
I don't know anyone in the debate who is contesting that. I hold that homosexual practice is wrong, but that the people are made by God and are fallen sinners and can be redeemed. Of course, if he's wanting to say they were created that way, that could be contested and that would need to be established and to my knowledge, it hasn't, but I know of no one who is denying the power of Christ with redemption.
When Rogers gets to the text, it's not much better. Rogers argues that the Levitical statements are all about male superiority and if you undermine that, then that leads to the death penalty. It's hard to think of how all the other incestual laws and the laws against child sacrifice and bestiality go against male superiority, but somehow Rogers thinks they do. It's also hard to think that the other nations, as the ending of Lev. 18 and 20 indicate, are being judged for going against male superiority. Does Rogers want to argue that God is sexist?
On p. 73, Rogers says that the Gospel Paul is proclaiming does not center on sexuality but the universality of sin and grace in Christ. Sure, but so what? The issue of what we can and cannot eat should not be read the way it is because of the Gospel? Paul after all did not write this whole letter just to say you can eat X kinds of food. There's a lot more to it. Paul did not write the letter just to condemn homosexual behavior, but what if that is a part of what he did?
Rogers also argues that for Paul, unnatural was a synonym for unconventional. Rogers points to the illustration of the olive tree in Romans 11 as his example. This doesn't really work since the olive tree is not an entity with its own will and desires. When we speak of what is natural for it, we speak of what will happen following the course of nature. By the course of nature, shoots from another tree would not walk on over and attach themselves to the olive tree. When we apply this to humans, we are not talking about convention, as if olive trees grow by convention. We are talking about design and this time the participants can choose to act according to their design.
Rogers also argues that this was about passion and having too much of an excess. I find this an odd argument. While Paul can say in 1 Cor. 7 that he wishes all were as he was and willing to be celibate, he doesn't ever talk about an excess of sex. He never says to the married couples "Hey! You two! Let's not have too much of that hanky panky going on! Please try to desire your spouse a little bit less!" Instead, if he has any danger he wants to warn against, it's married couples having too little sex. Paul is saying "If you want to avoid sex, do it by mutual consent and then only for a short time." Of course, Paul would condemn sex outside of the covenant and he does, but it is not the case that we have Paul saying people are desiring sex too much. It's what they do with it. Thus, I find Rogers's argument strange and lacking.
Rogers says that if Paul walked into the Playboy Mansion today or observed college students "hooking up" he would condemn such an action not because heterosexual sex is wrong, but because of the context. I can't help but wonder at this point if Rogers would say the same if he was told that these were "loving relationships." That does seem to be the qualifier for him.
To his credit, Rogers does interact with Gagnon and points out that Jesus said some are born eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Again, this is an odd response. Rogers and others will say that the ancient world knew nothing of homosexual orientation (see p. 58 of his book) and yet here, Jesus is talking about people with a homosexual orientation supposedly. Which is it? Furthermore, these people are people who in fact do not just avoid sex with women, but rather sex with ANYONE whatsoever. If Rogers was consistent, then he would be saying that those who are born eunuchs then should avoid all sex. Jesus never says anything about these eunuchs having sex with others.
Rogers also says that Gagnon thinks all homosexuals have willfully chosen their orientation. No source is given for this and from my interactions with Gagnon, this is not the case. In fact, about Rogers's statement, Gagnon points to what he has said in his book The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
"The latest scientific research on homosexuality simply reinforces what Scripture and common sense already told us: human behavior results from a complex mixture of biologically related desires (genetic, intrauterine, post-natal brain development), familial and environmental influences, human psychology, and repeated choices. Whatever predisposition to homosexuality may exist is a far cry from predestination or determinism and easy to harmonize with Paul’s understanding of homosexuality. It is often stated by scholars supportive of the homosexual lifestyle that Paul believed that homosexual behavior was something freely chosen, based on the threefold use of “they exchanged” (metellaxan) in Rom 1:23, 25, 26. The use of the word exchange may indeed suggest that Paul assumed an element of choice was involved, though for the phenomenon globally conceived and not necessarily for each individual. Certainly, the larger context in which these verses are found indicates a willing suppression of the truth about God and God’s design for the created order (1:18). And indeed who would debate the point that homosexual behavior is void of all choice? Even a predisposition does not compel behavior.
Romans 1-8 indicates as well that Paul considered the sinful passions that buffet humanity to be innate and controlling. Corresponding to the threefold “they exchanged” is the threefold “God gave them over” (paredoken autous ho theos) in 1:24, 26, 28. Rather than exert a restraining influence, God steps aside and allows human beings to be controlled by preexisting desires.Paul paints a picture of humanity subjugated and ruled by its own passions; a humanity not in control but controlled. . . . Based on a reading of Rom 5:12-21 and 7:7-23, it is clear that Paul conceived of sin as ‘innate’ . . . . Paul viewed sin as a power operating in the ‘flesh’ and in human ‘members,’ experienced since birth as a result of being descendants of Adam. . . . For Paul all sin was in a certain sense innate in that human beings don’t ask to feel sexual desire, or anger, or fear, or selfishness—they just do, despite whether they want to experience such impulses or not. If Paul could be transported into our time and told that homosexual impulses were at least partly present at birth, he would probably say, ‘I could have told you that’ or at least ‘I can work that into my system of thought.’” (pp. 430-31; boldface added) "
For the sake of argument, Gagnon could be wrong in what he says. You could disagree with him entirely here. There is something he cannot be wrong on. He cannot be wrong in that this is what he believes. This does not indicate that he thinks this is willfully chosen. We might as well ask if Vietnam vets chose to have PTSD.
Rogers also thinks Gagnon goes beyond Scripture in pointing to design, but this is interesting because much of the rest of the book is Rogers talking about interacting with homosexual couples. This can be touching I'm sure, but what does it have to do with interpretation? Would the argument work if I introduced you to several couples of mothers and sons living together in a loving incestual relationship? Obviously not. So what difference does seeing "loving homosexual couples" have to do with this? Just list any group down the line and see if you would apply the same standard.
In the end, Rogers does not really have a convincing case. It looks more like he knew what he wanted to find and he went to find it. It's easy to go along with the culture many times in Christianity, but he who marries the spirit of the age will be destined to die a widow.
Deeper Waters Christian Ministries.
I would highly recommend this book to any open minded person whose interested in their traditional sacred cows of traditional beliefs.
Top reviews from other countries
There is certainly a trajectory for freedom from slavery in both the OT and NT, even Paul is egalitarian to women in 1 Cor 7:2-5 also Gal 3:28, and regarding Gentile inclusion, scripture was used to justify this (Acts 15:16), however, there is no such trajectory in either the OT and NT for inclusion in the church of practising homosexuals, see 1 Cor 6:9, when it refers to the malakos and arsenokoites, past tense. The scripture goes counter-culturally on the issue of male-male sex in both the OT and the NT.
In his discussion of arsenokoites (1 Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:10) p70-71, what he fails to tell us that is that Robin Scroggs in his 1983 book (The NT and homosexuality) tells us that the Greek word "arsenokoites" was derived from the Septuagint version of the Levitical prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, a fact confirmed by David F Wright in 1984, which means that in Paul's mind the Levitical moral prohibitions applied in his day, otherwise he could not judge the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, the problem was that the church was being too tolerant. Also Scroggs shows that the Hebrew equivalent of "arsenokoites" is "mishkav zakur" it is a technical term used by Rabbis of homosexuals. Instead, his star witness is the gay professor Dale Martin and his article "arsenokoites and malakos", who has deliberately tried to confuse the issue because it helps his cause, Martin is aware of Scroggs and Wright as he cites them, but he does not enter into a dialogue, which is a pity.
He (Rogers) also gets the definition of the Hebrew word "toevah" (abomination) wrong by saying that it only refers to ritual uncleanness (p69). A quick look at the BDB Hebrew lexicon shows that "toevah" can be used in both a ritual and an ethical way. Also, the death penalty was applied to those who commit male-male intercourse in Lev 20, so it hardly sounds like "just" ritual impurity.
In his discussion of Rom 1, what he fails to point out is that the Greek word for impurity used in Rom 1:24 (akatharsia) is also used by Paul in Rom 6:19, where he seems to be speaking to those who were formerly guilty of impurity in Rom 1:24. Most people who read Romans on this issue only get as far as Rom 2. Rom 6 can be read in a new light, as Paul's teaching to those who were formerly impure in Rom 1, in this light Rom 6 makes fascinating reading.
Perhaps, people should be more like the Bereans, who examined the scriptures daily to see if these things were so. I gave Rogers two stars for effort, not his theology.