Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships

I had the privilege a couple weeks ago of hearing Dr. James Brownson, professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, speak in Washington, DC, on the topic of the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality--in particular, how it might inform our thoughts on the relatively new phenomenon of gay covenanted (married) relationships. I was so impressed with Brownson's careful, thorough approach, combined with a calm demeanor that eschewed the often pitched emotionalism surrounding this issue, that I decided to read his book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality.I have to say it's the first book I've read in the last couple of years that I thought added anything new and meaningful to the discussion, and it rightly earned its starred review from Booklist. Brownson spends roughly 300 pages asking not just what the Bible says regarding gender and sexuality, but why. What is the moral logic behind what the biblical authors say, because only in rightly understanding that will we know how to apply scriptural teaching to our own cultural context today.Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can't think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed. True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as "pro-gay" and "anti-gay"--terms that incite more than they describe--but as "traditionalist" and "revisionist." And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon's focus on the gender noncomplementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon's argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner.)What I think I appreciated most about the book is what Brownson doesn't say. He doesn't conclude by telling churches what they must believe. He ends by explaining why churches must wrestle. Yes, Brownson is now affirming of covenanted (married) gay relationships (a change from his previous position), but you never get the sense that he's insisting that you must be. And so the book wraps with an exhortation to think about these things in new ways, always asking not just what the Bible says, but why. This is a book for anyone who wants to delve into the thick of the church's most urgent moral discussion. And it's a book that every church leader, regardless of his or her position on the matter, should rush to read.

I just finished Jim Brownson's book, Bible, Gender, and Sexuality. I will begin by saying that I know Jim Brownson. I studied under him at Western Seminary, and found him to be both an astute, critical thinker and a deeply spiritual Christian who listens to his heart as well as his head. He not only studies Scripture; he prays it. So when he wrestles deeply with an issue, I'm inclined to listen. That's what I see him doing here - wrestling, struggling, trying to come to terms with this most troubling, divisive situation tearing our denominations, churches, and families apart - and what greater, more urgent impetus could there be than to reconcile God's will with your own son's dilemma?I've read the other reviews and will not rehash their depictions of Brownson's arguments, which I find both concise and accurate - particularly John Byron's. I'll content myself with describing what Brownson is trying to do in general terms. While claiming neither any real expertise in this area, nor a broad reading of the pertinent literature on my part, I am familiar with the usual arguments from both sides and I have read Gagnon's book. I disagree with J. White who claims that "there is honestly nothing new here." The newness in Brownson's book is that he really does not choose sides; his book is not polemical, and, to me, that does feel new. Brownson takes kind of a "dialectical" approach, the traditionalist view constituting the "thesis," the revisionist view the "antithesis," Brownson attempting to find some sort of "synthesis" to guide us in our corporate quandary. He seeks to accomplish this through discerning the "moral logic" of the writers of Scripture for their own times, then extrapolating what that logic might imply for our own.I just finished leading a class at my church (which just gained "gracious dismissal" from the PCUSA, largely over these issues) through some of Andrew Marin's materials (Love Is an Orientation; The Marin Foundation). Marin, an evangelical Christian, seeks to provide safe places for people on both sides to "elevate the conversation" - for evangelical Christians and those in the liberal-progressive camp and the LGBTQ communities to have meaningful dialogue, each validating the others' experience and living together "in the tension" while seeking God's will for all God's children, whatever their sexual orientation. I see Brownson trying to do something similar here, in a scholarly way.I don't hear Brownson trying to provide answers. What I do hear him doing is: 1) suggesting to both camps that they might need to back up and re-evaluate their entrenched positions, 2) asking some deeply probing and engaging questions, and 3) offering some other lenses than the ones we are used to using to prayerfully navigate our way through Scripture in trying to discern God's will for our particular time and situation regarding these contentious issues.I have found the traditional camp to be a bit glibly dismissive of other points of view and a little inconsistent in their high regard of Scripture when it supports their argument, but ignoring all those other parts of Scripture (the purity codes in Leviticus, for example) that we all, including most traditionalists, choose to ignore with impunity. But I often hear the revisionist camp resorting to rather extreme sorts of rationalization in their attempts to deal with Scripture at all regarding sexual morality. Brownson does neither.The truth is that none of us really knows what God's will is in these matters, and the answer, to be at all satisfactory, will need to be both nuanced and complex enough to fit a situation that is by no means simple. I hear Brownson trying here to give us some more tools to use in digging into God's Word in search of God's will, which is, after all, what we all seek to know. I applaud his effort, and highly recommend his book for reflection on these matters.

I’ll say at the start that of Christians trying to write from a position that is affirming of same-sex relationships, Brownson’s is the best that I have read. I think if you want to tackle a position that is affirming, this is the best one to read. He deals with a lot of the critics of his position and tries to pay attention to relevant scholarship.And still, it just falls short.Let’s start at the beginning. On page 9, Brownson tells us that we do not interpret rightly any Scripture until we locate the text within the larger fabric of the Bible. To an extent, I understand, and my disagreement could be what Brownson would agree with as well. I think a text can be understood on its own. If I read a Psalm about David drowning his couch with tears, I think I understand that alone. I think a deeper understanding for a fuller Biblical understanding could be found by comparing that with all of Scripture. I doubt Brownson would disagree with a point like this.On the next page, he tells us that often, people have had to go back to Scripture when changes take place in society and culture to see if they were wrong. Again, I have no problem with this. It could have been that in the case of the passages seen as espousing the traditional view of homosexuality, that our interpretation was wrong. We should always be willing to go back to the text and examine it.It’s when we get into the arguments that I start to wonder. For instance, Brownson on pages 29 and 33 wants to say marriage is not trying to get back to the primordial garden. There is some truth to that. Marriage also looks forward to the new creation found in the new Jerusalem. It is used at the end of Revelation and in Ephesians 5 with this in mind.What I disagree with him on is that marriage is simply a kinship bond. Of course, marriage establishes a a new kinship bond. Brownson says that what is important in Genesis 2:24 is the kinship bond and that does not necessitate male and female. I find this a bit problematic. When Jesus speaks of the passage after all in Matthew 19, he refers to the male and female component which he didn’t need to do at all.Second, with regard to kinship bonds, if all this is is about forming new relationships, I have to wonder why it is that this is supposed to be an exclusive kinship bond. Why limit it to one person? Why, unless the sexual union does a bit more than that? Of course, some Jews did not do that, but Jesus held to the strict interpretation and said male and female are joined together and what God has joined together let no man separate.Third, Brownson thinks physical differences cannot be in view since this passage is used to describe Christ and the church and obviously, that church is composed of men partially. I do not think that this is a convincing argument. The same could be said of God and Israel, but the point is that the man is in the giving position and the woman in the receiving in the paradigm. It’s using the patriarchal system of the past to make the point and it does not require a one-to-one correspondence. In relationships with God, we are all on the receiving end and we receive the life of God in us.Finally, it looks like sometimes the Bible has a problem with kinship bonds becoming too close. That’s why we have prohibitions against incest and lo and behold, when we get to the list of sexual practices that are condemned, we find homosexual practice right there. Of course, Brownson has something to say on that and we will have something to say in response.Now to be fair on the patriarchy point, Brownson does rightly point out that one sees exceptions to patriarchy. He is indeed correct. You have Deborah in the book of Judges, Huldah at the time of Josiah, and of course women like Ruth, Esther, Rahab, and others being glorified. We also find right in the beginning that male and female are created in the image of God. When we get to Jesus, Jesus regularly associates with women openly. When we get to Paul, Paul has women in the church in positions of authority like Phoebe and Junia. In the house rules in Ephesians 5, it is true women are to submit, but men are given a much longer list of what they are to do.When it comes to slavery, we find something similar. Slavery is a sort of necessary evil in Bible times, but as we keep going, we find a change going on. Compared to the society of the time, ancient Israel was quite progressive. Philemon can be seen as the Emancipation Proclamation of the New Testament. All of this can be found in William Webb’s excellent, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals. What do we find with homosexuality?We find no homosexual couples looked at as examples in the Bible. We find no change moving along those lines. We find the New Testament is even stricter on sexual matters than the Old Testament is, such as polygamy is not really an issue in the New Testament and Jesus ups the ante of adultery to not even looking at another person’s wife with lust. On a traditional interpretation, matters are exactly the same. While there is a line for slavery and women moving towards more freedom and dignity, the line on sexual practice is getting tighter.In fact, Brownson realizes a danger. On page 83, he tells us that when we get to Romans 1, he realizes that if it refers to lesbian intercourse in the passage, then his interpretation of patriarchy would be ruled out. He will argue he finds this unlikely. I will argue that I find it very likely.On page 91, Brownson tells us that divorce is essentially the severing of kinship bonds and the obligations that come with them. I find this still odd. Why is it then that we only find divorce going on with marriage? Do we find siblings divorcing one another or parents divorcing children or vice-versa? It looks like divorce refers to one thing specifically. Brownson thinks that this is confirmed in the Jesus tradition, but again, I frankly don’t see it. When Paul talks about one flesh, he talks about sexual union between a man and a woman. When Jesus talks about one flesh, he references Genesis 1:27 with it.While I am disagreeing for now, I want to say that on page 103 he quotes Rowan Williams before he became the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have to quote the passage in full. It is a passage about the sexual bond and it is simply too beautiful so that paraphrasing would not do it justice.“Any genuine experience of desire leaves me in this position: I cannot of myself satisfy my wants without distorting or trivializing them. But in this experience we have a particularly intense case of the helplessness of the ego alone. For my body to be the cause of joy , the end of homecoming, for me, it must be there for someone else, must be perceived, accepted, nurtured. And that means being given over to the creation of joy in that other, because only as directed to the enjoyment, the happiness, of the other does it become unreservedly lovable. To desire my joy is to desire the joy of the one I desire: my search for enjoyment through the bodily presence of another is a longing to be enjoyed in my body. As Blake put it, sexual partners “admire” in each other “the lineaments of gratified desire.” We are pleased because we are pleasing.”I also agree with Brownson’s commentary on this:“Sexual desire, on the other hand, requires another person, and if sex is to achieve what the body most deeply longs for, one must enter into deep communion with the other — the kind of communion that the Bible speaks of as a one-flesh union. In that union, one relinquishes self-determination and one’s own happiness is bound up in the happiness of the other.”I often tell men who are about to get married that they certainly desire sex, but they really don’t have a clue. You don’t know how much this experience will change you until it happens. Once you get caught in the world of another person on this intimate level, life is never the same. Brownson is right on 104 when he says that the language of the body cannot be avoided. Our faithfulness as Christians depends in part on how we use the bodies that God gave us. We will either use them to speak love or use them to speak destruction.When we get to Romans 1, Brownson’s argument is that the passage condemns excessive lust and this excessive lust leads to homosexual practice. I do not see how this can come from the text. Paul does not really speak about excessive desire anywhere else. Where in a passage like 1 Cor. 7 do we see “Now you married couples, do not be getting it on too much in the bedroom. Your desires don’t need to be excessive!” In fact, he says they should come together and the only reason they should avoid it is by mutual consent and then only for a short time and then only devotion to prayer. If someone in the church is burning with desire, he doesn’t say to shut down the desire. He says to get married. Keep in mind all of this is also without mention of procreation.If anything, it also looks like Paul is condemning the result of what has happened and if it is excessive lust he’s saying “Do you see where it gets you? It gets you to homosexual practice.” A Jewish audience would look and say “Yep. Sure does. Our Scriptures are crystal clear on that. You tell them Paul!”Brownson also wants to see this as an indictment of the emperor at the time. Again, I don’t see how this follows. Paul is writing about the whole of the Gentile world and not one small segment, even one as important as the emperor. In fact, as people like Gagnon and Sprinkle have pointed out, the language of Romans 1 several times mirrors Genesis 1. You have terms like creator, creation, male and female, and the idol descriptions match the descriptions of creatures in Genesis 1. Paul is making a contrast with creation. What he is saying is that when we look at the creation, it is apparent that there is a creator, but mankind in wickedness chose to make images of created things rather than honor the creator, which is a disruption of design on the vertical level. They then did the same on the horizontal level and the clearest example of this is homosexual practice.For the lesbian issue, Brownson points to “their women” and says that the women are being thought of in relationship to men. Unfortunately, there is no interaction with someone like Bernadette Brooten who has shown that yes, female same-sex eroticism was indeed a part of the world of the New Testament and it was known about. I can’t help but think that Brownson approached the text wanting to find what he found and then found it.When we get to a passage like 1 Cor. 6:9, on page 271, Brownson says that attempts to link the word translated to refer to those who practice homosexuality to Lev. 18 and 20 is speculative. Really? Let’s take a look. Here’s the Greek word.αρσενοκοιταιNow let’s go to Leviticus 18. When we get to verse 22, what do we see?και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστινAnd when we get to 20:13….και ος αν κοιμηθη μετα αρσενος κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα εποιησαν αμφοτεροι θανατουσθωσαν ενοχοι εισινYep. That’s speculative alright. You don’t have to be a Greek scholar to see that relationship. By the way, I also find the idea of Leviticus 18 and 20 not referring to homosexual practice but cult prostitution also highly speculative. Am I to think that the writer of Leviticus would have no problem with bestiality or incest or child sacrifice if they were done at home instead of in a cult? (Sprinkle has also called into question that cult prostitution was around.) I also question that it has anything to do with pederasty since from what I understand, that was a later Greco-Roman practice.In conclusion, Brownson has made the best case that there is, and yet he has still fallen short. If you want to tackle a case for same-sex relationships, this is the one to tackle. I still walk away convinced that those who affirm same-sex relationships are reading something into the text.In Christ,Nick Peters

I debated on the stars - 5 because it will be such a worth while book for those pastors, laity, churches struggling with the issues of homosexuality, same sex marriage, the use of Biblical text to understand a side left unrepresented when someone announces the Bible said it and that's the final word on Biblical text regarding this issue. I had heard - for at least 20 years - that there is another side- than the traditionalist point of view- another way to look at what the Bible has to say about homosexuality -- and later what it has to say - or not say about same - sex monogamous unions. So if you are a Bible says it and that's it - this book is for you-- and if you are a person standing on the other side of a traditionalist argument and your proposition has to do with fairness and true love- this book is for you - for it challenges you to root your position in scholarship. If you are unsure about the Bible passages - what they say - why they say what they do - and how history and culture impact those passages- this book is for you. Dr. Brownson includes opposing views, clearly states the issues he does not cover, his personal reasons for writing the book, and is respectful of others' opinions. He clearly draws lines in the sand for both heterosexuals and homosexuals in the areas of monogamy, commitment, and intimacy. I learned much particularly about looking forward to the New Creation - Bible lessons that had nothing to do with gender. Every reader will not agree with Brownson, but the book is of value for every reader.I said at the beginning I debated on the star level - I could not decide between a 4 and a 5. The 5 won because of the merits of the book itself and the usefulness it has for professionals, and people struggling with this issue, but 4 stars because I have been reading it since February (other things interferring :-)). I am neither theologian, nor philosopher, and it has been a long while since I have read something this dense. I almost think I would recommend beginning in Part III and then backing up to read Parts I and II. To read only the summaries at the end of the chapters or just the intro and conclusion though would be to miss the detail of the evidence on which his argument rests.The traditionalist argument is - in its popular version anyway - easy to make and understand and we are familiar with it. Brownson's work really does reframe the discussion, but it is hard to summarize in a meeting in a quick way :-). I do wish there were a Cliff Notes version - easily read and easy to hand to someone -- that would then lead him or her, if interested, to the full text.Now, I think I will look for a Julia Spencer-Fleming mystery.

I really appreciated this book. Of the ones I have read, this book is by far the most well researched. Brownson communicates with humility, so he is clearly holding himself to a very high level of rigor.That said, there are many books to choose from on this topic. This one is for you if you like in depth theological analysis, looking at Greek and Hebrew words and how they are used in different parts of the Bible and other ancient texts. Brownson also explains how traditionalist scholars read these scriptures and argues his perspective alongside theirs. He spends 4 chapter focusing just on Romans 1!If you care about rigorous study but feel overwhelmed by its theological depth, each chapter ends with a series of bullets providing an overview of the insights from the chapter. I read through all the end of chapter summaries in about an hour and then went back and read the whole chapter in places where I had gaps in understanding or wanted more depth.This is not the book for you if you are looking for more straightforward, lighter reading or personal story. If that’s what you want, I recommend Torn by Justin Lee or The Bible and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines.

Given that this book treats a topic that is presently very controversial, the reviews are going to be polarized. But Brownson does a great job of speaking to all Christians where they are in an insightful, humble and sensible way about some ideas that have serious and important implications for the church at large. If you are the slightest bit open to re-examining the church's assumptions about homosexuality, this will be a great read for you.Brownson takes a very careful and thorough approach but manages to keep the content accessible at the same time. The book draws directly on the available body of scholarly literature but isn't at all in the "monotonously academic" vein. Brownson instead takes this information and synthesizes it very well and expands upon it with his own valuable contributions.My favorite aspect of the book is its aforementioned sensibility. Brownson's arguments call for some serious change in the church's teachings on homosexuality, but he doesn't throw the baby out with the bath water. His ultimate point (as far as I see it) is that our fixation on gender as a moral seat is not biblical. But beyond that, he leaves Christian sexual morality intact, calling for us to champion monogamous, long-lasting relationships and stand against promiscuity and other forms of excess. In all things, Brownson reveres and reaffirms the value of Scripture. If you are uncertain of your own stance on same-sex relationships, you may be surprised how much you already agree with James Brownson right out of the gate.

This is the best academic-level treatment on the subject I've read, both from an affirming perspective and for any perspective. It's very well researched and argued, taking its time to flesh out the important ideas in each argument.For opposing arguments, Brownson interacts primarily with the works of Robert Gagnon, the go-to author for non-affirming theology (for Protestants, at least). Brownson shows quite well how Gagnon's arguments are a great example of the saying "brevity is the soul of wit". In other words, Gagnon is a perfect example of someone whose arguments are fundamentally weak and so ends up writing overly verbose works as a way to mask how flimsy their evidence is (not *intentionally*, of course). Brownson consistently gives well-balanced analysis of each passage used by Gagnon and co., detailing how exactly their readings are the kind of surface-level readings of Scripture that conservative evangelicals insist is "the only faithful way to read the Bible" but are fatally flawed due to their refusal to take historic context into account.If you're interested in the subject and want to read something that is more rigorous and in-depth than the popular-level stuff (not that there's anything wrong with them, obviously -- just two different intended audiences), this is the best book I can recommend. It's fair to the opposing side but doesn't pull any punches and gives a truly excellent foundation for full affirmation of LGBT rights in Christianity.

Brownson is a Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary (Reformed Church of America). His book takes an exegetical approach to both sides of the debate, showing the scriptural bases for each side and identifying tensions for both.He does a great job of explaining the texts (1) within their original contexts, (2) alongside other scripture and contemporary ancient texts (for calibration of meaning), (3) within possible hermeneutical connections to today, and (4) within the overall themes of the Bible.It’s scholarly but readable, and I found it both engaging and dispassionate. That dispassion was especially key for me, as I never felt like anyone was trying to convince me of anything while reading. I was challenged to consider evidence, but conclusions are left up to the reader. Ultimately, I found in this book a Biblically sound basis for affirming same-sex committed relationships as blessed by God. That had remained a hang-up for me – the potential “seems right to me” vs “is right to God” tension.

If you are looking for a detailed, thoughtful and biblical approach to these crucial issues for the church today, this is the book. It is the best book of its kind I have read. What impressed me greatly is the thoughtful and critical way it examined traditional views on homosexuality whilst not engaging in the triumphalism or vitriol that characterises some of the debate. This is an important and humane biblical interpretation and exploration of the moral logic that informs biblical views. It also manages to remain readable and to hold onto the deep value of scripture. A seriously impressive book for anyone looking to deepen one’s understanding of how the Church can speak hope afresh in this generation.

I am so amazed at this book; I learned so much and that is significant, because I have been reading on this subject for many years. This book, a major contribution, examines honestly and fairly the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the debate. Many excellent books have been written on this subject and some of those focus tightly on the so-called seven "clobber texts"--those texts with which well-meaning Christians assault their LGBTQI friends and family. Little do they know how the harm they have done because of their well-intentioned assaults. But this author has gone well beyond those texts and has done something much more challenging: he has also examined the larger arc of Scripture. That is not only very pertinent, but it is also much harder to do. I have waited for years to read what I found in this book--such as learning the over arching principle of the Levitical prohibitions. I sensed right away that this author had nailed it though it was new to me me. The author explains in what way the arc of the New Testament is different from that of the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old Testament) and even how that in the Hebrew Scriptures the arc was already hinting of change. For instance, while the Levitical rules prohibited eunuchs from entering the temple, the prophet Isaiah already proclaims to the eunuchs that God has not forsaken them. That is what gives such great poignancy to the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in the New Testament. Our sovereign God is indeed leading His people and in every generation He has some Present Truth--some truth very pertinent to the time that His children must learn. In the 19th Century, it was slavery. In the New Testament times, the first Jewish Christians were lead to include Gentiles into full fellowship. Who knows how God may be leading today and how God may be using this book to move us all forward?

The author goes to great lengths to explain how we need to examine the meanings of words and how interpretation changes with greater knowledge. We can't read literally because we often don't know the context in which something was written nor the culture or languages of the day it was written to make an absolute determination. Excellent book for leading future discussion and thinking.

This is a well written and accessible book that addresses head-on the contemporary issues in the Church and wider culture that will define this generation. In one concise book issues including gender equality, whether marriage is only legitimate when it is based around procreation, celibacy, and what it means to be in the image of God, before looking in detail at homosexuality in the Bible.This book really breaks new ground in moving the conversation on and giving new starting points for further exploration and discussion.

This book is an important read for all people who are searching for biblical answers on sexuality and an in depth understanding of what the bible says concerning appropriate human sexuality.