Welcome Committee

Why Does the Bible Divide Us?

A Conversation With the Bible
on Same Gender Attraction
Reading the Bible Together: New Testament

by Don Blosser

The New Testament opens a more familiar and often more intense area of discussion. While reading material on this topic, several things began to become more clear. One of the more interesting things was something most writers who dealt with the Biblical text were not trying to say. The study of the Bible should shape our beliefs, but not a single writer admitted that their study of the Bible had changed their beliefs. In every case the writer held theological or sociological beliefs that guided their study, and the work they did in the Biblical text only proved the correctness of the beliefs they had before ever beginning the study!!! This is not intended as a critique of the writers, but rather, an observation that the Bible is often used to support what we already believe rather than as a source of instruction for our own spirit.

What are the basic concepts of God that we hold which influence how we think about God, about the scriptures, about life, and about how God relates to us as God's children? If we can keep these questions in focus and acknowledge their influence upon us, they might help us better read the texts together, learning from each other what it is that God is saying to us.

Jesus?

There are no recorded words of Jesus on the topic of same gender orientation. Scholars argue vigorously among themselves about what this means, and all claim that the silence of Jesus supports their beliefs. One group says that same gender orientation was such an obvious sin that there was no need for Jesus to speak: All Godly Jewish people knew such sexual activity is explicitly forbidden. Others argue that Jesus did not see same gender orientation as a moral issue in the kingdom of God. There were same gender-oriented persons in the Jewish community and by his silence, Jesus accepted them. Their conclusion is: As followers of Jesus we should not create an issue out of something Jesus has already indicated is not an issue.

Arguing from silence is always dangerous. Therefore the most appropriate response is simply to report: ?In the scriptures we have no direct word from Jesus on this topic.?

Paul?.

Rom. 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9-11, and I Tim. 1:10. Since I Corinthians was written several years before Romans we will begin with this text. The Ist Timothy text duplicates both the words and thought used by Paul in I Cor.6, so the same discussion of specific words would apply to I Tim. in exactly the same way as used in I Corinthians. It is not necessary to repeat the discussion.

I Corinthians 6: Who will inherit the Kingdom of God?

I Cor. 6 opens with a discussion of differences within the congregation at Corinth, and states very strongly that it is improper for Christians to sue one another in the public courts. Rather, we should settle our differences within the congregation by talking together. That counsel has somehow been lost as we now talk about each other rather than with each other, with the result being that persons are rejected and whole congregations have been expelled from fellowship.

Paul begins with a theme statement: ?Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?? Then he lists ten explicit examples of unrighteous behavior, four of which are sexual offenses, and two are often thought to refer to specific same gender sexual contact. The RSV translates these last two words ?adulterers and homosexuals? (6:9), making it relatively easy to read the text and believe that we know exactly what was in Paul's mind. But unfortunately, English translators are not that positive about the specific meaning of the original text. The words used are more descriptive of behavior than of precise identity. The following chart shows the diversity of translation for the four sexual words in the list. The first two words are relatively simple, but the last two are much less precise, forcing translators to create their own descriptive meanings.

The chart shows that (pornoi) ?fornication? and (moixoi) ?adultery? have a common, stable meaning, but that malakoi "malakoi? and arsenokoitai "arsenokoitai? are much less clear or precise. In fact, the RSV combines two Greek words, using one more general English word for the translation. A more careful look at these words is essential to know exactly what is being discussed.

Both malakoi and arsenokoites are masculine plural nouns. In Ist Century culture, their usage had sexist and pejorative overtones against women that we today find very offensive. I am aware of that, and regret it, but it is important to report accurately how the words were used in that culture.

The Traditional Understanding:

Malakos has the primary meaning of ?soft?, as in soft, luxurious feminine clothing, or ?effeminate? referring to soft, smooth-skinned boys or young men who accepted the passive role in sexual intercourse. The most common uses referred to men or boys who attempted to look or act like women, or who accepted the woman's role in sexual activity. This was interpreted to be beneath normal masculine dignity, thus it clearly was not a compliment. Early English translations used words that carried the general meaning of degeneracy, or weakness in character, ?similar to a woman? <my apologies!!!>. In the mid-twentieth century a shift occurred; ?Effeminate? disappeared and ?male prostitute? or ?sodomite? began to be used [1]. The word developed the meaning of a man who assumed the woman's role in sexual activity, allowing the easy transition to ?homosexual.?

Arsenokoites is made up of two Greek words arsen = male and koites = bed. Schmidt argues that Paul took the word directly from the Lev. 20 Septuagint text (a man should not lie with a man as with a woman meta arsenoj koiten gunakioj.)))))))) He insists that the same sex meaning is clear, and would have been widely accepted [2]. Others agree, saying that Paul's use of this text shows that the Christian church adopted the Old Testament teaching on sexuality and same gender sexual practices in particular, reaffirming the Holiness Code's condemnation of same gender sexual practice in Lev. 20. This reading of the text supports the beliefs of those who insist that same gender sexuality is and always has been a violation of God's intention for humanity. They find compassion and hope in vs 11: ?This is what some of you used to be, but you are washed, sanctified, justified?,? meaning that by the saving grace of God one can be freed from this sin and be transformed. The verbs used are passive, emphasizing that this transformation is accomplished through the power of the Spirit of God. The summary of Schmidt's argument is relatively simple: The New Testament prohibition of same sex relationships is deeply rooted in the Old Testament materials, and is carried through into the New Testament with equal intensity.

Romans 1:26-27

The Traditional Understanding

The Romans 1:26-27 text is important because it gives a theological approach to the issue. Both male and female persons are included in the discussion. (The Corinthian discussion is strictly a male issue.) This passage has a three-fold condemnation of Gentile vices, each noting that because of these things ?God gave them up?(1:24,26,28).

Schmidt says this identifies the direct connection between idolatry as lying about one's relationship with God, homosexuality as lying about one's relationship with your own body, and murder as lying about one's relationship with the life of another person [3]. The proof that we are no longer worshipping God is that we degrade ourselves by becoming something other than what God created us to be. When we do that to ourselves, to God, or to others, that is a sure sign that we are no longer a Godly people.

Here in Romans, Paul is describing voluntary sexual conduct. Persons ?exchanged, gave up, committed? and this conduct is in violation of what is considered ?natural?. Paul is describing people who are heterosexual (both male and female) who have rejected their heterosexual identity to become involved in same gender sexual behavior. Note that the sin is not in giving up heterosexual activity, it is in being active in same gender activity, thus celibacy is an acceptable option.

In this text Paul talks about being unnatural or going against nature (para fusin) ?para foosin?. Traditionally it is argued that this shows all persons are either male or female, and the natural order for sexual identity is to be exclusively one or the other. This puts persons in categories reflected by our own stereotypical attitudes, so that persons of same gender orientation are put in a ?not normal? category in need of healing (salvation) from their sinful condition [4]

These writers believe that Paul made no distinction between same gender orientation and voluntarily chosen same gender behavioral patterns. All same gender sexual expressions are a perversion of the natural creation of God for human beings. Simply by looking around us, they believe we can see that the traditional distinction between male and female is the normal condition for humanity. The rejection of God's intention for male-female marriage creates an unnatural vacuum into which rebellious humanity inserts these defiant, sinful, same gender sexual behaviors[5]. In summary of this position, the contrast is striking. We see the harmonious revelatory will of God in and through the creation of male and female. But when humanity turns its back on God, what emerges is false worship, false sexuality, and a false respect for human dignity that leads to defiance of God and the loss of one's salvation.

There are several general conclusions drawn by persons who read the text in this way:

1. The Bible contains a uniform condemnation of same gender sexual activity that runs throughout the scriptures. It is an abomination before God, it is unacceptable for Christians and it should never be seen as an acceptable variation of human experience in the life of the church.
2. Christian people can be healed or delivered from homosexuality, and can be set free to remain celibate or to enter into a normal heterosexual marriage relationship.
3. The Bible focuses on overt conduct. There is no mention in scripture of ?orientation?, and no consideration of genetic causes for same gender orientation. There is a very strong assumption that persons with same gender attraction are actively promiscuous.

This position has an appealing quality to it, for it appears to accept the clear, obvious reading of the Biblical text, and it provides easily understood categories for making decisions about what is right and wrong. Thus, we know what the text says, the only issue facing us is whether we have the courage to be faithful to the text.

Let's Look at Both Texts Again:

There are other Christian scholars who also care deeply about a faithful reading of the text, but who do not agree with this approach to reading the Bible. They also wrestle very carefully with the meaning of the text, and yet come to different conclusions. They argue that a careful reading of the Bible provides a different set of conclusions that are actually more faithful to the basic message of Jesus. So, what do they find?

Malakos does have the meaning of ?soft?, but evidence shows it is used much more broadly than simply in a sexual manner. Historically, malakos referred to persons who were cowards, or lazy or, specifically to men who lived a life of ease, decadence and luxury. Epictetus used the word to describe men who ?take life easy rather than endure the rigors of philosophic enquiry?[6]. In Greek literature, malakos referred to men who ?prettied themselves up? by shaving their bodies and using perfume in order to make themselves sexually more attractive to women, believing that women would prefer this more tender-appearing, sweeter-smelling male over the crude, unwashed, outdoorsman type. Chrysostom once wrote that the common folk refer to persons who love to study as malakoi [7], (much like small children today might call a young boy who would rather read a book than play football ?a sissy?).

Josephus used malakos to describe a person who is ?weak in battle?, or ?reluctant to commit suicide? [8]. These scholars agree that in sexual contexts, malakos does refer to men who assumed the feminine role in intercourse, but they insist that this refers to a very specific experience of sexual exploitation that we would all find repulsive.

Corinth was located in a thoroughly Greek culture that was dominated by abusive and repulsive sexual activity. Rome was also heavily influenced by Greek culture and the sophistication of Roman power. Thus it is quite believable when Plato, Plutarch, and other philosophers debated among themselves whether the love of a woman is superior or inferior to the love of a young boy[9]. There is also a disturbing number of references to philosophers, teachers, and men in positions of power who took young boys as sexual partners and used them (the literature refers to this as ?teaching them?) in the intricacies and techniques of sexual intercourse [10]. These boys were required to be submissive and accepting while older men initiated the sexual activity and enjoyed the self-gratification they received. The relationship was terminated when the young boys matured (began growing beards) and were no longer pleasurable. The older men would then search for another malakos , while the young man who was now reaching adulthood, would find his own malakos and the sexual cycle began all over again.

How widespread was this practice? It is difficult to put numbers with it, but there is sufficient evidence to be certain it did exist. How widespread is sexual prostitution in our own communities? Hopefully, Christians have no personal experience with the American prostitution scene, yet we all know the practice does exist. We also believe that sexual prostitution is not an acceptable option for Christian people.

This same parallel may be drawn with Paul. He is talking about an abusive sexual activity that people knew existed, and he identified it as a vulgar, dehumanizing practice that should have no place in the church. To argue that this condemnation encompasses all forms of caring, mutual same gender relationships stretches the accepted rules of language use. What must be said is that the church should join with Paul in condemning all forms of sexual abuse, promiscuity, and slavery in our own culture.

Arsenokoites is a rare word in both biblical and cultural literature, but when it does occur it provides important insight. It usually appears in lists of sins. These lists are not simply random lists of evil things; they usually have a clustering order to them, so that scholars, by studying these lists can learn a great deal about these sins by seeing how they are clustered together. In most lists there are sexual sins (adultery, rape, prostitution), sins involving violence (murder, maiming, physical abuse), and economic or justice sins (stealing, destruction of property, etc.). In these lists, arsenokoites does not appear with the sexual sins, but rather is clustered with the sins of exploitation and economic justice. There is a growing number of Biblical scholars who believe that arsenokoites refers to a very specific form of sexual exploitation and abuse that has no connection with same gender attraction as commonly experienced today.

One of the clearest expressions of this word comes from a Greek writing about 100 years after Paul:

?Do not accept a gift earned from doing unjust deeds, do not steal, do not betray information, do not arsenokoiten, do not oppress a poor man, pay the person who works for his wages, make provision for widows and orphans?. (Sibylline Oracle 2.70-77).

arsenokoites appears in the middle of a list of economic sins, actions related to oppression and exploitation. This leads to the conclusion that arsenokoites specifically prohibits economic exploitation through sexual activity (prostitution, child abuse, child pornography, etc.) This conclusion is supported by the fact that later in the same letter, another paragraph contains a list of sexual sins: abortion, stealing the virginity of a young woman, promiscuity, adultery, etc.[11]. If arsenokoites was intended to condemn same gender sexual behavior, one would expect it to appear here, rather than with the economic sins. This is instructive in several ways: Same gender sexual activity can be oppressive and exploitative just as heterosexual activity can be abusive and sinful. Such abusive exploitation should always be condemned by the faith community.

The same principle is seen in the 2^nd Century Acts of John where the writer condemns the rich men of Ephesus and specifically identifies the ?poisoner, robber, swindler, arsenokoites, thief, tyrant and warmonger? as being sinful activities. Here arsenokoites is again listed with the economic and social sins of the day. The Acts of John has a later section that denounces sexual sins, but arsenokoites is not included in that list [12].

Again, the conclusion reached is that ?arsenokoites? refers to a sinful practice that should be condemned. But confusing that specific practice with same gender relationships today is like taking the biblical command on moderation in drinking (which has a specific reference to alcohol), and then saying that this call for moderation applies even to water and milk.

One additional concept needs attention as we look at the Biblical material, even though it is not a Biblical teaching. What is the root cause of same gender identity? Biblical writers had no concept of sexual orientation, they saw only sexual practices. They believed that all sexual practices were the result of conscious choices made by persons who had freedom of choice. This belief is still held by many sincere Christians. Some argue that ?sexuality as a free choice made by the person? must still be true because it is the position assumed by Biblical writers.

Jesus once said; ?The one who believes in me will also do the works that I do, and in fact, will do greater works than these?.?(Jn 14:12). Jesus knew there were many things that his followers would later learn that would lead to a positive extension of the work that he was doing. It is appropriate to say that our knowledge of the world and how it works goes far beyond much that Paul knew in his day. Paul was a highly educated person, but he wrote within the limitations of knowledge that were present in his day, and God, working though Paul, honored those knowledge limitations in the inspiration process.

The exact causes of same gender attraction remains a very heated subject among theologians, psychologists, and scientists. But it is appropriate to say that same gender identity is not something one casually chooses at some point in their life. It is much more probable that gender identity is strongly influenced by genetic formation very early in conception. Christian psychiatrists are wrestling with the expanding world of genetic formation and its influence upon personality and development. As yet there is no consensus, but the emerging belief appears to be moving toward a very complex interaction of genetic patterns. A child may have a vague feeling that he or she does not fit in with the general expectations of their own culture. In their late teens and early twenties, these persons begin developing sufficient internal ego strength to reflect on how they feel and who they are. Depending upon their personal situations, they may feel forced to stifle their emerging self-understandings because of subtle or overt family, church, and community rejection. Others begin slowly to reach out, and when they find a safe, accepting friend or environment, they risk stating what they are feeling and what they are discovering about who they are. This is not a choice they are making about their identity, it is simply finding the personal courage and community security to risk identifying what they have been feeling for years. The distinction between male and female must be put on a continuum, rather than being seen as two separate, non-overlapping realities. This also means that there are individuals who find themselves at the center of this continuum, and given a particular environment, may feel very confusing sexual identity signals within themselves. It is important to recognize that everyone's story will likely be different, and it is therefore inappropriate to jump to conclusions, to use stereotypical language, or build upon false assumptions about someone else's personal experience.

These emerging understandings of causation have profound theological implications. If sexual identity has a strong genetic formation, then gender identity in itself, is not sinful, for it is formed in the womb. Jesus calls us to accept, love and nurture all persons. It is dreadfully destructive and terribly painful when we say to a person that the way you were born makes who you are unacceptable. In doing this the faith community is telling persons they must reject one of the central inner cores of their being. When we condemn in this way, we are moving sin from being choices we make to being the condition of our genetic formation.

Here it is essential that we understand how Paul is thinking when, in Romans 1, he talks about going ?against nature.? Modern genetic thinking was not part of his worldview. He simply looked at the world and labeled what he saw as normal (overwhelming majority), and not normal (not meshing with the majority). He believed all gender attraction was heterosexual, thus all other attractions were ?against nature? (para fusin) so that those who felt a same gender attraction were actually violating their own (assumed) heterosexual identity given at creation.

We now know that for a certain percentage of the population (even within our local congregations) this is not true. Thus, what we are doing to same-gender-attracted-persons is forcing them to do the very thing that Paul said they should not do---go against their own birth nature. Paul was critical of persons with hetero-gender attraction for rejecting their instinctive nature and experimenting with same gender sexual activity. If we follow his reasoning, we should not force same gender persons to violate their own genetic nature by demanding that they move into hetero-gender relationships. This would, in fact, expect them to deny their own God-given identity.

Within our faith communities there are young people who at ages 12-14-18 have honestly and totally committed themselves to follow Jesus and have stated their desire to be members of the faith community with us. In most cases, their faith identity preceded any adult awareness of their own intricate sexual identity. How can we possibly deny the integrity of their faith and reject them as brothers and sisters simply because their genetic formation differs from that with which most of us feel comfortable?

The Bible would never permit us to reject or dismiss persons simply because of a genetic difference in their page identity formation. When we see Biblical statements as identifying specific sexual behaviors that we now know were present in 1^st century culture, then we can affirm the Biblical instruction that these specific behaviors should not be found within the faith community. This makes it possible, even necessary, that the accepting love of Jesus be extended to all persons, including those whose personal gender identity is different from the gender identity of the overwhelming majority within the church. The call of faith is exactly the same for all of us ? to claim Jesus as Lord, to commit ourselves to follow Jesus, to work for justice and peace, to bring healing to a suffering world, to offer hope and salvation to all people, and to live celibate lives until we enter into a life-long monogamous covenant relationship with one other person who shares faith with us.

When we do this, we demonstrate that we truly are the people of God, nurturing faith, expecting wholeness, purity, and maturity in Christ in our personal relationships, loving those people for whom Christ died, and living in the joy of the kingdom of God which has burst in upon us.

A Word From the Early Church:

When we acknowledge that there are differences within the faith community in how the scriptures are being read, the Bible still offers counsel on finding a faithful resolution of our differences. Within twenty-five years of its beginning at Pentecost, a crisis hit the church due to differing interpretations of religious experience. What began as a wonderful community of God's people gathered together in unity under the leading of the Holy Spirit, had become a community divided by sharp differences over who could be a member of the new people of God, and what kinds of membership regulations would be enforced. These sharp differences led to even sharper words being used to attack others within the church .

There were a variety of strong voices stating their claims. One group, the traditionalists, argued that circumcision had always been the will of God and it is still required for members in the new community. This meant placing some rather severe restrictions on Gentiles who might wish to become members. The second voice, coming from a more progressive group, argued that with the conversion of Cornelius and the affirmation of the Spirit upon that event (Acts 10:44-48), this ancient requirement no longer applied.

Leaders of the two groups met in Jerusalem to discuss this serious matter. Could a person be a committed follower of Jesus without first become culturally and religiously Jewish (being circumcised)? The meeting was tense, with both sides arguing that faithfulness dictated acceptance of their point of view. After long debate and intense argument, after hearing personal stories from Paul and Peter, James (the moderator of the meeting) went back to the scriptures to acknowledge that the inclusion of gentiles without special membership requirements aimed directly at them had always been the will of God. He demonstrated this by quoting from Amos 9, Jeremiah 12 and Isaiah 45 (Acts 15:16-18).

These texts had been in the Jewish canon for centuries, and presumably they had been read on occasion in the synagogue. Yet no one had understood these texts to be making this point until the experience of Cornelius forced the church to consider including gentiles. It was only then that James recognized there was something in these texts that they had never seen before. The experience of God's presence among them called them to go back and re-examine how they had been reading the scriptures. It was only than that they saw the ancient scriptures saying that God had always intended that gentiles should be included as people of faith. The scriptures had not changed, but rather God changed the people who were reading the scriptures to see God's will in a new way.

When the Jerusalem conference heard the experience of gentiles who been saved by the grace of God; when they heard the Old Testament scriptures confirming that this was God's will; they took the very radical step of obedient faith and declared that they would accept people who previously had been very unacceptable. They agreed they would no longer demand the ancient religious tradition of circumcision as a requirement for membership in the people of God. Note that they did not forbid the practice of circumcision, (and some did continue its practice), but circumcision no longer controlled entry into the church.

In this situation, the church believed the Spirit of God was leading them in a new direction, and in fact challenged a practice that had ALWAYS been a central declaration of Jewish faith. What gave them that authority? The Holy Spirit confronted them in the form of persons who had experienced the grace of God. This challenged them to re-examine how they had been reading some specific texts in the scriptures. In reading the texts out of this new experience of God's grace, they came to a new understanding; and this changed a specific practice, thus allowing them to include uncircumcised Gentiles into the faith community.

In his concluding remarks, James said that this had not been an easy decision and he implied that it would be difficult for more traditional groups to accept it. He asked for understanding on the part of these newly accepted believers because ?in every city there are those who proclaim the law of Moses, and have it read weekly in their synagogues?(Acts 15:21).

What might the church today learn from this conference in Acts? How does our experience parallel theirs?

1. They felt the call of God to accept the work of God in their midst ? even though not all saw God's work in exactly the same way.
2. They took the Bible very seriously?even though not everyone agreed with how the Bible was being interpreted and applied to this situation.
3. They believed they had to include persons who were being saved by God's grace?even though this grace had fallen on persons whom they had a very hard time accepting.
4. They urged understanding on both sides of the issue---even though they knew some people did not fully understand.
5. They also asked all persons involved to participate actively in the new decision, so that offensive behavior would be kept at a very minimum.

We look back at that event and say, ?How simple it was, God's leading was so clear!? and we wish that it would equally clear for the church today. But for members present in that conference, things were not as simple, harmonious and pleasant as we sometimes think it was. But they did not separate from each other, they stayed in the process, and the result as a clear indication of God's leading. Most of us (we who are the gentiles) are now part of the faith community because of their courage to accept us!

How might we be drawn together toward a common, faithful response? These observations are offered with the goal of helping us talk together so that we might move toward unity.

1. I hear the concern expressed that if we accept same gender attracted persons, that will threaten family life in the church. But this happens only when persons read the scriptures with judgement and separation rather than with love, hope and inclusion. I am mystified by the comment: ?If the church accepts persons of same gender attraction, we are telling the world that we no longer care about family.? What do we do when these persons are family?
2. We are created in the image of God ? all of us, even those whom we experience as being different from us.
3. We are committed to a high view of sexual morality which says that sexual intercourse is different from holding hands, and that sexual intercourse belongs within monogamous covenant relationships, whether this is a traditional marriage, or a covenant relationship between two believing Christians. Sexual promiscuity before covenant, and infidelity within covenant are violations of God's intention for all marriage and covenant relationships.
4. The foundation for membership in the believing community is the commitment JESUS IS LORD. We should open ourselves to be true cities of refuge for those who have been cast out, or who do not feel they have a safe place to worship God. It would be helpful for us to examine how our worship and corporate life creates barriers that keep others from experiencing the refreshing, healing grace of God in their own lives.
5. We should recover the biblical message that all of us stand before God in need of grace and mercy. None of us has the divine right to pronounce judgement on another person simply because they are different from us. We are called to nurture, to love, and to walk with those who confess that Jesus is Lord. While we walk together we can learn from and share with each other so that we might all become more Christlike.
6. We will not assume that persons who read the Bible differently than we do are not Biblical. Rather, we will share openly with them from our own understandings, and listen to what God might be saying to us through them. We will commit ourselves to talk with (rather than about) persons whose life experiences are different from our own.
7. It would be a step of grace for us to acknowledge that we do not always know what we claim to know---that our understandings of scripture have been (and still are) influenced by cultural and religious pressures that sometimes do, but often do not, reflect the spirit of Christ.
8. We can join together in worship and prayer, trusting the Holy Spirit to speak to us, both individually and collectively, allowing God's love and grace to flow through us to others, being thankful for what God has done for us, and pledging ourselves to be agents of grace for others, so that we too might be healed.

Endnotes:

[1] Martin, pp. 124-125

[2] Schmidt, pp 95-96

[3] Schmidt, p, 67

[4] Consiglio, William, Homosexual No More, and Bergner, Mario, Setting Love in Order are two examples among a list of psychological/theological writers who promote healing and deliverance from the sin of homosexuality.

[5] Schmidt, pg. 81

[6] Epictetus, 3.6.9, 4.1.25

[7] Dio Chrysostom 66.25

[8] Josephus. Wars 7.338, Antiquities 5.246

[9] Plato. Symposium 192A, Plutarch, Dialogue on Love 748-771E

[10] Martin, pg. 127

[11] Sibylline Oracle 2:70-77

[12] Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vol II, pg. 224

Bibliography

There are many resources available for those who have interest in further reading. These listed here are not intended to be comprehensive, or even representative of the scope of discussion on this topic. The simply reflect the various positions represented, or mentioned directly, in this study.

Bergner, Mario. Setting Love in Order, Hameworth Books, Grand Rapids, MI. 1995

Bettenson, Henry. The Later Christian Fathers, Oxford University Press, London, 1977

Brawley, Robert, ed. Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality, Listening to Scripture. Westminster, John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1996

Collins, John. The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, SBL. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, 1972

Consiglio, William. Homosexual No More, Practical Strategies for Christians Overcoming Homosexuality. Victor Books, Wheaton, IL. 1991

Geis, Sally B. & Donald Messer. Caught in the Crossfire Abingdon Press, Nashville,TN. 1994

Gomes, Peter. The Good Book Reading the Bible with Mind and Heart Ch 8 ?Homosexuality, the Last Prejudice? Morrow Press, New York, NY. 1996

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament, ch 16: Homosexuality Harper Collins, San Francisco, CA. 1996

Hennecke, E. New Testament Apocrypha Vol. II, SCM Press, London, 1975

Hershberger, Anne Krabill, ed. Sexuality, God's Gift. Herald Press, Scottdale, PA. 1999

Josephus. The Jewish Wars, Books IV-VII, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 1979

Mennonite Church. Sexuality and the Sacred. Faith and Life Press, Newton KS. 1985

Nelson, James. Sexuality and the Sacred. Westminster/John Knox Press, Louisville, KY, 1994

Plato. Dialogues of Plato, Bantam Books, New York, NY. 1986

Schmidt, Thomas. Straight and Narrow. Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL. 1995

Showalter, Roberta. From Wounded Hearts, Chi Rho Press, Gaithersburg, MD. 1998

Smedes, Lewis. Sex for Christians: The Limits and Liberties of Sexual Living WmB.Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1992

White, Mel Stranger at the Gate. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 1994

Wink Walter, Homosexuality and Christian Faith. Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA. 1999

Return to Part I: Introduction and Biblical Stories (OT)

It is offered with the hope that it will stimulate conversation among persons who do not agree on how we read the Bible.

It should not be reproduced or circulated without written permission from the author.

Introduction

Open Letter

More signatures

Booklet Series

Booklet Orders

Book Project

Resources