Book Briefs: July 20, 1979

Homosexuality And The Church

This survey of several books on homosexuality is by Robert K. Johnston, associate professor of religion, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, Kentucky.

The flood of books and articles on homosexuality is unstanched. Here are evaluations of several titles that were issued last year by major religious publishers. Previously reviewed in these pages were Williams, The Bond that Breaks (Regal), and Scanzoni and Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (Harper & Row), in the May 5, 1978, issue and Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (Seabury), and Philpott, The Gay Theology (Logos), in the November 3, 1978, issue. Williams’s is the best source currently available for the Christian who wants a solidly evangelical and biblical exposition on the topic, but little concrete help for counseling is provided. Scanzoni-Mollenkott rightly argue that Christians need greater understanding of and compassion toward homosexuals, but their biblical “solutions” seem strained.

A book by Jerry Kirk, The Homosexual Crisis in the Mainline Church (Nelson, 192 pp., $3.95 pb), will be of real service and is on an elementary level. Kirk is a pastor experienced in counseling homosexuals, and he writes about them and their homosexuality (the distinction is important) in a style that is both biblical and compassionate. Kirk’s particular focus is the issue of ordaining homosexuals in the United Presbyterian Church, but he broadens his discussion beyond that question as it relates to his denomination.

Kirk rightly understands the ultimate issue at stake in this discussion is one’s faithfulness to God’s authoritative, revealed will. He also understands that Christians can only discover this by a careful reading of Scripture in its rightful context. In declaring that Scripture opposes homosexual activity, moreover, Kirk does not only criticize those who are homosexual: he also castigates those of us who are not, but who react with blatant or subtle forms of hatred of homosexuals. This also is unbiblical. Mutual repentance is the order of the day.

Richard Lovelace, a professor at Gordon-Conwell seminary who served on the United Presbyterian task force on homosexuality, has written Homosexuality and the Church (Revell, 158 pp., $6.95). His book provides an able summary of the classical and contemporary theological discussion. After capsulizing the relevant writings of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Barth, and Thielicke, Lovelace concludes that homosexuality must indeed be considered a sin. Although he mentions several modern writers who challenge this assessment, Lovelace concludes that their growing acceptance of homosexual practice is because of a “false religion” that is opposed to biblical revelation, a “cheap grace” that ignores repentance, a “powerless grace” that denies the possibility of cure, and an “antinomian ethic” that undercuts the balance between law and gospel.

Lovelace’s synopsis of theological opinion will prove useful, but the book could have been better. At times he seems to hint that homosexuality is uniquely heinous. Also, one wonders why his biblical discussion begins with the specific texts on homosexuality before turning to the wider context of human sexuality in general. Moreover, Lovelace wrongly ties human sexuality in Genesis to marriage rather than first grounding it in the image of God. Doing it Lovelace’s way affects one’s attitude toward the sexuality of all people, young and old, who are unmarried.

A very different kind of book is Homosexuality and the Christian Faith: A Symposium, edited by Harold Twiss (Judson, 110 pp., $3.95 pb). This is a collection of representative articles on the subject of homosexuality that have appeared recently in leading periodicals. This is an excellent book for those who want to be stimulated by a cross-section of the current arguments over homosexuality in the wider Christian church.

Tom Horner’s Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times (Westminster, 163 pp., $5.95 pb) suffers from all the defects the title might suggest, and more. Horner inundates the reader with information and surmise, some pertinent and some not, but all intended to challenge the common view that the Bible considers homosexual practice to be a sin. His basic methodology seems to be: if one dubious argument isn’t sufficient, perhaps there is greater strength in ten. He believes that Gilgamesh (in the epic Mesopotamian tale) could have been a homosexual, that there might have been homosexual relations between David and Jonathan and between Naomi and Ruth, that Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” might have been homosexuality, that Jesus didn’t marry because he might not have been the “marrying kind,” that Jesus thought highly of eunuchs (“who were most often homosexually inclined”), and that most, if not all of the biblical condemnations against homosexuality, are in reality attacks against idolatrous practice. Therefore, says Horner, it is wrong to conclude that the Bible is against genuine homosexual love. This book will win few converts, but it does show the extent to which biblical texts are being twisted.

Understanding Gay Relatives and Friends (Seabury, 128 pp., $3.95 pb) is by Clinton R. Jones, an Episcopal minister who pleads with readers to empathize with and accept homosexuals. According to Jones the problems homosexuals encounter are caused by blind prejudice, faulty stereotyping, and dreams unrealized because of social pressure. Questions of morality or of sin never surface in the book. Gay ministers are advised that they might have to deceive their congregations. Monogamous homosexual relationships are stressed, but Jones is open to bisexual and extramarital relations as well. Theology seems irrelevant; biblical “literalists” are, of course, chastised. A Christian approach to homosexuality is reduced to that of empathy, sensitivity, and concern. While these are important and too often lacking, they hardly constitute an adequate Christian response.

We Speak for Ourselves: Experiences in Homosexual Counselling (Fortress, 146 pp., $4.75 pb) is by Jack Babuscio, a homosexual who heads a counseling service. Like Jones, he believes that problems among his clients “spring from negative societal reaction to homosexuality rather than from anything inherent in the homosexual orientation itself.” But unlike Jones, he does not seek to base this half-truth on “Christian” sentimentality. In arguing his case, Babuscio uses the personal testimonies of some seventy practicing homosexuals. They discuss such topics as stereotyping, identity, social pressure, sexual ambivalence, civil rights, marriage, family, religion, “coming out,” and participation in the gay community. Evangelicals can learn from the testimonies (hence, this book is more useful than those of Horner or Jones), but will disagree with many of the conclusions.

At the other end of the spectrum of books on homosexuality is Tim LaHaye’s The Unhappy Gays (Tyndale, 207 pp., $4.95 pb). Although LaHaye, a well-known pastor and author, does not overlook or attempt to explain away the moral and spiritual aspects of the topic (as Horner, Jones, and Babuscio do), his book is faulty for three reasons. First, LaHaye asserts his willingness to listen to homosexuals and to learn from them, but his conclusions show little evidence that he has done so. For example, he rightly recognizes that there are wide differences among gays, yet he presents a stereotypical description. Second, LaHaye at times is self-contradictory. He criticizes Kinsey’s findings as unreliable, for example, only to use them later in support of his contention that homosexuality has become epidemic. Third, throughout his book LaHaye uses cavalier, cruel, and false generalizations: those who are single are said to have their happiness seriously threatened by the lack of posterity; those who “pump iron” are probably homosexual; artists who draw nudes might be motivated by homosexuality. LaHaye has failed to treat the topic responsibly.

Greg Bahnsen’s Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Baker, 152 pp., $6.95 pb) is superior in every way to LaHaye’s work. Bahnsen is a theologian who until recently taught at Reformed Seminary in Mississippi. He takes the biblical texts seriously, and he evidences a wide knowledge—albeit conservative and idiosyncratic—of the political process. Moreover, Bahnsen truly wants to treat the homosexual fairly and with compassion. Nevertheless, the book strikes me as unnecessarily unbending and unintentionally unloving. Bahnsen communicates self-righteousness, despite protests to the contrary. Unfortunately, in this he mirrors the vast majority of Christians. Although he does interact with opposing viewpoints (his bibliography is excellent), Bahnsen’s style is to focus on the weakest arguments of his opponents, not their strongest. Bahnsen believes that homosexual desire as well as actual behavior is sinful. He denies the validity of attempts to distinguish orientation or propensity from cultivated desire and lust. A crucial question, and raised by homosexuality as but one example, concerns a merging of private morality and public legality that Bahnsen seems to advocate. He argues that Christian conviction is based in “God’s universal and objectively valid moral standards,” and as such, should be the goal of all public policy. Christians know what others need, he claims, and should seek legally to impose their will on society. But if this is true, should we not require everyone to worship and arrest those who use profanity? Bahnsen admits his book will be inflammatory to many, and he is only partially justified in believing that this will happen because he is proclaiming the whole counsel of God.

Somewhat better than LaHaye and Bahnsen is another evangelical contribution, which is notable in its attempt to speak both theologically and pastorally. The Gospel and the Gay (Nelson, 202 pp., $3.95 pb) is by Kenneth Gangel, president of Miami Christian College. Theologically, Gangel believes that “the issue of homosexual practice boils down to one simple question: ‘Do you believe the Bible?’ ” This promising beginning, however, is undercut by his seeming suspicion of all forms of biblical scholarship. He realizes, for example, that the citizens of Sodom were bisexual and wanted to commit a violent, gang rape, but he fails to demonstrate these insights in his exegesis.

Pastorally, there are sound aspects to Gangel’s advice and he seeks to be balanced. But his major case study of a “cure” is of a bisexual, not an exclusive homosexual, hence, his generalizations are suspect. Gangel does stress that homosexuals need interaction with receptive Christians who practice acceptance and love, although his cautions to heterosexuals about being ensnared could cancel his exhortation.

The issue of homosexuality will tire many Christian readers. We are entitled to wonder if the topic has not been blown out of all proportion both within society and within the church. But as with the question of racial justice, the failure of the church to deal adequately with an important dimension of human experience, as well as the heightened consciousness of those who feel oppressed, has forced the topic high up on the agenda of church and society. This is as it should be. The Christian church is daily demonstrating rejection and lack of true love to a segment of society that particularly needs it. On the other hand, sentimentality in the guise of Christian love is no substitute for a biblically defined faith. The contemporary pressure on the church’s position regarding homosexuality should be welcomed, for with it comes the opportunity to clarify our understanding of biblical teaching. Christians must struggle to be both lovingly critical and critically loving as they address both homosexuality and the homosexual. Toward that end books such as some of these, and more to come, can help us to discern and apply God’s will in this matter.

Rebuking The Wcc

Amsterdam to Nairobi: The World Council of Churches and the Third World, by Ernest Lefever (Ethics and Public Policy Center [1211 Connecticut Ave., Washington, DC 20036], 128 pp., $10 and $5 pb) is reviewed by Carl F. H. Henry, lecturer at large, World Vision, Arlington, Virginia.

This is a very significant volume. It is an unsparing evaluation and criticism of the World Council and its actions toward the Third World by the director of Georgetown University’s public policy center, who was once associate director for international affairs of the National Council of Churches and who holds a doctorate in ethics from Yale.

Lefever believes that justice, freedom, and peace are indeed matters of Christian concern. He gives no encouragement to withdrawal from social involvement, but he also has no illusory visions of social utopia.

The author criticizes the WCC for the disproportionately prosocialist composition of its Geneva headquarters staff. He notes that the WCC’s mounting interest in the Third World has been marked by increasingly radical theology to the extent that it now contributes to Marxist guerilla groups. He deplores repeated WCC protests against violations of human and political rights directed against Western democracies and their allies while more grievous infractions in Marxist or Third World countries are ignored.

“The course of wisdom and moral responsibility for the WCC would be to recognize the peaceful and lawful forces that are trying to deal constructively with the problems of poverty, injustice and lack of freedom,” he writes. “Many Western Christians feeling guilty that they are rich while most of the rest of the world is poor, are prone to exaggerate the sins of their own society and play down the greater evils of the Marxist solution.” Lefever notes that liberation theology underrates the values of a market economy versus a socialist economy. Instead of being a root cause of poverty, industrial capitalism shaped societies that could hope to eliminate stark poverty.

Lefever calls the WCC to rebuild its disordered vision of social ethics by holding a profounder regard for the truly Christian inheritance, and by developing a fuller understanding of the respective roles of church, state, and citizen. The WCC would profit by reflecting the divergent views of professional specialists within its own circles, he rightly stresses, instead of leaping over available research resources in deference to preconceived positions.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.