Summary: A fictional dialogue between four students representing four different interpretive approaches to the Bible regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage.

It might come as a surprise to some readers of this review that theologically conservative Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible in their lives come to different conclusions about homosexuality and whether same sex marriage is morally permissible. Yet the fictional dialogue portrayed in this book represents actual positions (and some discussions) between believing people who take the Bible seriously enough to not dismiss its statements about homosexuality as archaic, culture-bound anachronisms, or as having nothing to do with present day expressions of homosexuality.

Donald J. Zeyl uses the classic device of a fictional dialogue (he’s a philosophy professor!) to not only tease out the different approaches to interpreting the key texts pertaining to homosexuality. He also models in this dialogue for Christians who really are committed to loving each other and maintaining the unity of the body of Christ across differences. Each person represents clearly thought-out and biblical supported convictions but is also open to questions, and listens carefully to others, treating them with respect. The four are students at a Christian college.

Amanda identifies as same-sex attracted and committed to living celibately, believing that scripture prohibits both same sex desire and intimacy, reading the passages as written. Phil identifies as gay and believes that homosexual intimacy is permissible in marriage and is engaged to a gay man. He holds that the binaries of scripture are not definitive statements and that gay persons are not “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones. David is heterosexual as is Stephanie. David believes that a person may be gay in orientation but only sins when engaged in any homosexual practice, that orientation per se, and even desire are not sin. Stephanie, while believing that by design, marriage was meant for men and women, holds that, post-fall, just as God creates others with disabilities (consider his statement to Moses), so he also accommodates those created but not creationally designed aspects of human experience, including homosexuality and thus God permits homosexual marriage.

This briefly summarizes their interpretive approaches. There were two things they all held in common. One was that Genesis 19 and Judges 19 were not relevant to the discussion. The other was that all agreed that sexual intimacies outside of marriage as they understand it were sinful–gay or straight. Their discussions focused on the prohibitions of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:18-27, and the vice lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11, as well as the creation of man and woman in Genesis 1:26-27 and the reaffirmation of these verses by Jesus in the gospels and Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5 about husbands and wives reflecting the relationship of Christ and the church.

Some of the interpretive questions they discuss include:

Do the prohibitions represent universal principles applicable for all time or may they be culturally contextualized?

Are the types of homosexual expression described and prohibited in scripture the same as covenanted same-sex relationships?

Is the male-female distinction supportive of an absolute binary or is their room for a continuum of gender and sexual identities?

When Paul speaks of “exchanging” natural relations for unnatural ones in Romans 1:26-27, how might this relate to gay and lesbian persons who never had opposite but only same sex attraction and never “exchanged” one for another?

Is it wrong in light of biblical teaching to identify as “gay” or “lesbian” (Amanda will only identify as same sex attracted and believes same sex desire as well as intimacy to be wrong and thus will not identify as lesbian)? Is there a distinction between desire and lust? Desire and sexual intimacy?

What bearing ought our scientific knowledge, which differs from Moses or Paul, have on our reading of texts, particularly given other instances where our interpretation of scripture takes science into consideration?

Can the idea that God creates mouths, ears, and eyes and can make mute, deaf, or blind a warrant for saying (at least post-fall) that God made someone gay? And does this warrant permitting marriage, as Steph argues)?

The four participants do not pull their punches in asking hard questions. And they sometimes mispeak and push back against others who mispeak. They don’t have this difficult conversation perfectly but they do remain committed brothers and sisters in Christ with each other. They don’t reach agreement, and while each gives the others much to think about, they do not change their minds in the course of this conversation. The final “half” conversation explores the question of how their practice of mutual respect and unity in Christ extends to churches and denominations. They raise another interesting question: can churches within a denomination hold to different understandings?

One “imbalance” in the book is the space given Stephanie’s interpretive approach (which reflect’s the author’s) versus the other three. While none is treated in a “straw person” fashion, this gets nearly double the space of the others. It is a more complicated argument, as indicated in the parameters she lays out (p. 88). Far more could be said about each of the other three positions (and perhaps has been, whereas this, the author believes, is novel).

Donald J. Zeyl offers a thoughtful and sensitive dialogue for those who think what the Bible says about homosexuality to be important. It won’t be satisfying for those whose “staked out” position is more important than what those who differ really think. It won’t be satisfying for those who want all the differences to be resolved. I’m glad that the students didn’t change their convictions, even while being driven back to the biblical text to search further to “see if these things are so.” I appreciated when each challenged the other on how much weight they were putting on a particular statement or an argument from silence. There is a wonderful model here of good argument–both in the reasoned statements of each and the respect afforded each other. It shows what students, and hopefully other adults ought, under God’s grace, be capable of doing.

________________________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher. ( )