The Bible and Homosexual Practice: My conclusion

Here's my honest-to-goodness conclusion after finishing The Bible and Homosexual Practice.

Put diplomatically, Robert Gagnon's book is a very thorough investigation of how same-sex relationships were perceived in ancient Near Eastern cultures before and during the time the Bible was written, along with every possible biblical reference to same-sex sexual activity. It exposed me to a lot of significant information and analysis I wasn't aware of before. In that sense, it was helpful. It was challenging. I'm glad I read it.

But one thing that stood out to me, and honestly surprised me, is that Gagnon does not seem to be working with Scripture in the way the typical conservative evangelical who recommends this book probably imagines he is.

At least as I understand him, he seems comfortable with many conclusions of critical scholarship that a lot of conservative evangelicals would find deeply unsettling. The creation story functions as myth. The Pentateuch was not simply written by Moses in the straightforward way many were taught. There are words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels that the historical Jesus most likely did not say. And some letters in the New Testament that claim to be written by Paul may not have been written by Paul.

I'm personally absolutely fine with all of those fascinating discussions. I think Scripture is more interesting, not less, when we take seriously the complex ways it came to us.

But for me, once you believe Scripture is composed in this way, and yet still claim it is "inerrant," the foundation from which you claim to know God's perspective on modern homosexual relationships starts to feel much less certain. It feels like the frame of inerrancy adapts only as far as it needs to adapt in order to preserve the underlying dogma.

From what I understand, Gagnon's method becomes something like this: since we can only trust some parts of Scripture in certain ways and to certain degrees, the goal is to infer what the biblical authors, and Jesus, would have thought about modern homosexual relationships. And then that inferred answer becomes the rule of life for Christians today.

That's where I really start to part ways with him.

For example, Gagnon includes an imaginary letter that the Corinthians may have written to Paul in response to 1 Corinthians. And to me, this exercise of imagining how biblical authors might have responded to the modern idea of loving homosexual relationships is, first, absurd, and second, irrelevant.

It's absurd because it involves bringing a modern question to ancient authors and then imagining how they might answer it. That kind of thought experiment can so easily become a projection of our own preconceived notions. And to be fair, I would say the same thing about my side too. Yes, I would like to imagine that if I could go back in time and sit down with Jesus, he would be cool with me and with the LGBTQIA+ community I value. But I simply have no way of knowing that.

And it's irrelevant because, as Christians, I don't believe we are asked to make decisions that way.

I don't believe our task is to imagine how biblical authors might answer modern questions if they had been given our language, our research, and our cultural assumptions. I believe our task is to thoughtfully interpret God's word in the form it has actually come to us, with all its beauty, inspiration, tension, and textual complexity. And then, according to the law of Christ as described by Paul, I believe mature believers are called to discern God's best for us.

Another thing that stood out to me is how much Gagnon's argument depends on connecting homosexual relationships with violence, disease, promiscuity, and harm. To him, these seem to be among the reasons God forbids homosexual activity: God is protecting his children from destruction.

That instinct shows up elsewhere too. His discussion of Ham and Noah, for example, seems to depend on the idea that Ham must have done something far more serious than simply seeing Noah naked, because otherwise the curse that follows would feel too severe.

Now, I’m actually of the view that God often does what he will, to the bewilderment of humankind. We don’t need to understand the reason behind everything God does or commands. But I also do believe God loves his children and wants the best for them.

So if we are going to make that kind of reasoning relevant to the discussion of modern homosexual relationships, then I have two thoughts.

First, even giving Gagnon the leeway of having written this book several decades ago, the science he relies on often struck me as selective, dated, and unpersuasive. At times it felt painfully clear to me that he was looking for research to support his side of the argument, rather than allowing the research to challenge the argument.

And what makes this especially frustrating is that the broader body of research simply does not support the idea that loving same-sex relationships are inherently marked by violence, disease, promiscuity, or harm. Gay people are not broken heterosexuals. Research on relationship quality has often found same-sex couples reporting similar levels of commitment, satisfaction, and emotional intimacy as different-sex couples.

Of course there are real disparities. Gay and bisexual men have been disproportionately affected by HIV. LGBTQ people can experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance use, violence, and other forms of harm. But the serious question is why. And again and again, the answer is not, "Because same-sex love is inherently destructive." The answer is stigma, shame, family rejection, discrimination, lack of access to affirming healthcare, and the stress of living in a world that often tells people their love is disordered.

So if Gagnon wants to argue that God forbids homosexuality in order to protect people from harm, I think the evidence points in the opposite direction. The harm is not produced by gay people being free to love. Much of the harm is produced by gay people being told that they must not.

Second, when it comes to God being reasonable and wanting the best for his children, I actually think Scripture speaks to this directly in a way that is very relevant to homosexuality.

Paul writes:

But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Cor 7:9)

I believe Paul is being reasonable and pastoral here. He is saying, in effect, "If you cannot remain single and fully orient your life around spiritual service because of your libido, then by all means, get married."

So then it seems reasonable to ask: how does this apply to people with a homosexual orientation? What are they supposed to do when they "burn with passion"?

One non-affirming answer I hear quite often is: "Trust God to meet all your needs and desires." But that answer seems to be in direct tension with Paul's instruction here. Because if that were a reasonable path for everyone who burns with passion, Paul could have simply recommended it to everyone.

The other answer is: "Marry a woman." But for a man attracted to men, marrying a woman is not going to quench his passion. And who wants to be on the other end of that marriage? Who wants to be the woman chosen as someone else's theological workaround?

The natural affirming answer is that gay Christians should be free to seek a same-sex partner.

And I believe that is not a rejection of Scripture. I believe it is the choice most faithful to Scripture and to God’s love for his children.

There is a lot more to say, obviously. Here I'm only responding to Gagnon's argument that God forbids homosexuality to protect his children from harm.

The Bible and Homosexual Practice was a challenging and helpful read, if only because of how thoroughly it engages the topic inside and outside of Scripture. But I not only remain convinced that loving homosexual relationships should be welcome in the Christian community. After reading this book, I'm even more convinced that allowing gay relationships in the church is the scriptural and loving choice.