The current issue of Theology Today (Vol. 63, No. 3, October 2006) contains a review of my book Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church and a review of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon. The review was written by Princeton Theological Seminary professor, William Stacy Johnson, who is also an ordained minister and an attorney. Dr. Johnson is one of the finest scholars in the church today and he brings an astonishing clarity to complex issues. From the review:
"It is certainly true that there have been people with homoerotic desires in all times and places, and in all cultures, races, and religions. Nevertheless, the way such same-gender desire works itself out practically and culturally has differed dramatically through the centuries. There is really no such thing as the singular abstraction we call 'homosexuality.' Instead, there are many homosexualities, which differ profoundly according to time, place, social condition, and culture. Classifying this conduct enables us more clearly to perceive why Rogers is right and Gagnon is wrong...."
"Scholars typically divide homoeroticism into three types:
age-differentiated, status-defined, and egalitarian. First,
age-differentiated homoeroticism is that exemplified by the pederasty
of the ancient Greeks, where an older male served as the model of virtue
for a younger student, who in turn provided sexual favors to his
mentor. Its purpose was to turn young men into educated, acculturated
citizens. Second, status-defined relationships are those in which one
partner performs a sexual role that is active and the other a passive
and usually stigmatized role. This was the form of homoeroticism of the
Roman world. Both of these types the Bible rightly rejects."
"The third type, egalitarian, is what Western societies are being asked
to approve today. As Rogers and others have made clear, there is no
biblical text that explicitly addresses this egalitarian type.... The
fact is that in the Roman world in which the New Testament was written,
male homoerotic sex acts were performed by social superiors upon social
inferiors. Egalitarian notions of sexuality are simply not be to
found. For a freeborn male to allow himself to be sexually penetrated
by another male was considered shameful, even criminal, but for him to
gratify his own sexual urges with a male slave or other social inferior
was considered appropriate, even expected. It was to this specific
status-defined form of homoeroticism--and to it alone--that the Apostle
Paul was referring in his letters."
"Gagnon misguides the reader not only by assuming that all
homoeroticism is the same but also by wrongly conceiving the reason for
the biblical prohibitions as 'gender complementarity.' The very idea
that male and female genders 'complement' each other is more modern
than ancient. In standard histories of sexuality, in fact, premodern
societies are characterized as thinking in terms of gender hierarchy,
not gender complementarity...."
(Theology Today, Books Reviews, October 2006, p. 386-394)
The complete article can be ordered from Theology Today by clicking (here) or found at local seminary bookstores or libraries.
