Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality
by Jack Rogers
Westminster John Knox Press
Jack Rogers is 'one of us.' A former moderator of The Presbyterian Church (USA), a seminary professor and a self-confessed evangelical Christian, Rogers identifies himself as “a Christian who cares deeply about Christ's church. The church is being torn apart by controversy over whether people who are homosexual can have full rights of membership. Not just my own Presbyterian Church, but all of the denominations … Are divided.” Rogers is a respected Presbyterian leader who has written a readable, accessible and important book for Presbyterians about one of the most significant issues confronting the church today.
After being asked to sit on a task force dealing with the issue of whether gay and lesbian people could serve as deacons and elders in a local congregation, Rogers began an intensive exploration of the criteria for evaluating the issue of homosexuality in the church. Over the course of more than a decade, Rogers moved from a position of opposition to the acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, to a position advocating their full acceptance as members of the Church of Jesus Christ in general, and of the Presbyterian Church in particular. This change of mind and heart — which he describes as a process that was serious and painful — was not the result of an easy acceptance of cultural norms, nor a result of pressure from academic colleagues or pressure groups. Rather, as Rogers writes, “I changed my mind initially by going back to the Bible and taking seriously its central message for our lives.” Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality offers the fruit of that long period of study and reflection. By embracing a Christ-centered approach to the interpretation of Scripture, as well as a fascinating exploration of the history of biblical interpretation, Rogers' conclusions are worthy of serious consideration.
One of the great strengths of the book is that Rogers does not intend — or expect — the reader to casually accept his conclusions. Because of that openness, the book presents a thorough exploration of a contentious topic, written from the perspective of a person who understands the sensitivities of both sides of the issue.
Although one does not need advanced theological training to benefit from this book, there are sections which are not necessarily a quick read. This is particularly true of those sections that delve into detailed commentaries on the confessional basis of the reformed tradition. This is also the weakest section of the book because, though helpful, there are times when Rogers makes arguments about the implications of those confessional on the issue of human sexuality—even though the confessional documents being cited are not directly concerned with the issue. Our interpretations of those confessional statements are important, however, as they have dramatic effects on the ways that we interpret Scripture.
While the book is written out of the context of The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the parallels between our national churches are obvious. Our shared culture—and our shared histories of the interpretation of biblical texts, including the re-evaluation of biblical passages relating to women, slaves and divorced people—underline the relevance of Roger's analysis.
What is particularly interesting about this book is that it adopts much of the same methodology used by our denomination's Church Doctrine Committee in its report on human sexuality in 1994. The exploration that Rogers offers of the biblical, experiential, rational and traditional/confessional perspectives on the issue of homosexuality parallels the methodology used by our Church Doctrine Committee, and makes this book a worthwhile study.
To cite only a few examples of these parallels: Rogers examines the main biblical passages dealing with homosexuality, as does the Church Doctrine Committee Report (1994). Both the report and Rogers' book essentially dismiss the Genesis 19 and Judges 19 passages as offering significant insights into the modern understanding of homosexual behaviour, since both of those passages deal with inhospitality, sexual violence and the rape and abuse of women.
The oft-cited passages from the Holiness Codes in Leviticus, however, are interpreted differently. Although the Church Doctrine Committee Report confesses that “the use of the Holiness Code in Christian ethics needs further exploration,” such exploration did not take place within that report. Rogers, by contrast, offers such an exploration. By placing the holiness Code within the cultural, religious and socio-political context of its time, Rogers concludes that the nature of “abomination” that was associated with homosexual behaviour likely referred to the need for the Israelite people to distinguish themselves from the practices of their pagan neighbours. “Ritual purity was considered necessary to distinguish the israelites from their pagan neighbours.” Roger's desire to offer a Christ-centered mode of biblical interpretation leads him to conclude that a modern Christian sexual ethic that is based on an ancient holiness Code—whose primary purpose was to create a distinct cultural and religious society for an emerging community—leaves much to be desired.
In a similar way, Rogers' exploration of the verses from Romans 1 offers parallel explorations but contrasting conclusions to the Church Doctrine Committee Report. Where the committee's report acknowledges that there are complexities to Paul's discussions of “natural” and “unnatural” sexual behaviours, and that there are other passages in which it is unclear whether Paul's use of “natural” refers to the created order or to social conventions, the report nonetheless concluded that “while we note this different use by Paul, his intention in Romans 1 is clear.” Rogers does not share this confidence in the clarity of Paul's intention. By contrast, he offers a far more elaborate discussion of the context and use of terms, and concludes that Paul's primary intention was to critique idolatry — likely in the city of Corinth from which he was probably writing — and not to offer a definitive understanding of the “natural” or “unnatural” basis of human sexual behaviour. As Rogers states, “Paul's condemnation of immoral sexual behavior is not appropriately applied to contemporary gay or lesbian Christians who are not idolaters, who love God, and who seek to live in thankful obedience to God.”
Regardless of whether or not the reader agrees with Rogers' conclusions, such differences in emphasis and interpretation reveal the relevance of his book. Perhaps what is most noteworthy about this work is that after offering a far more comprehensive, intensive exploration of the criteria for evaluation than the Church Doctrine Committee presented, the book arrives at the opposite conclusion than the one recommended by the committee and subsequently adopted by our General assembly.
