Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by res_curans
Changing Our Mind by David P. Gushee
3.0
Takes a moderate-liberal view on the homosexuality issue, and takes a little longer to argue for it than it should. The first half of the book is spent proving that gay people exist, and that this poses a problem that the Church must grapple with, and then also provides some prefatory remarks for the form his argument will take. It isn’t until Chapter 10, more than 50 pages in, that he begins his argument proper.
The argument boils down to essentially four key points:
The condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and the incident recorded in Judges 19, seem to deal with homosexual rape an abomination more because of the social implications having to do with a sexist and classist society, rather than a condemnation of homosexual activity as such. (Also, in each case, it’s rape — not any sort of committed, monogamous, etc., relationship.)
Passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality and imposing the death penalty for it may have been more or less intended to set Israel apart culturally from the surrounding societies, rather than intended to condemn homosexual activity as such. Since so much Old Testament law is no longer observed, it is at least an open question whether these particular laws should still apply.
A word that Paul uses in Corinthians and Timothy that is commonly translated “sodomites,” “homosexuals,” “pervert,” etc., is actually a neologism he made up that could be translated in a number of other ways that would still make sense in context — Gushee suggests “sexual predators” or “pimps.” The most straightforward condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 could be (and likely is) in reference to the really messed up things going on in the Roman Empire at the time. Considering that Paul was writing around the emperorships of Nero and Caligula, I think this is a fair point. Again, this is a far cry from any sort of committed, monogamous relationship.
Lastly, the complementarian vision of a man-woman marriage is rooted in Genesis 1-2, pre-fall creation. But the fact is that we live in a Genesis 3 world, post-fall, one in which divorce is allowed, etc. And here is where I finally have a problem with Gushee’s argument. Allowance does not imply endorsement. Just because we live in a fallen state does not mean that we endorse fallen behavior. He himself makes the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive ethics (28), so it’s shocking that he would try to make this move.
This book was a quick read, especially since I skipped over much of the early chapters, and I was glad to have read his explanations of some of the key Biblical verses. It raises very good questions, and takes a reasonably cautious/balanced view on the issues. But his discussions were quite brief — I plan on investigating some of his footnotes — and in its final move, the argument falls flat on its face.
Extra points though, for this quote:
“I was doing my devotional reading while on vacation last summer—I made sure to say both of those things so readers wondering about my salvation are at least aware that I still read the Bible devotionally, even on vacation…” (107)
The argument boils down to essentially four key points:
The condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19, and the incident recorded in Judges 19, seem to deal with homosexual rape an abomination more because of the social implications having to do with a sexist and classist society, rather than a condemnation of homosexual activity as such. (Also, in each case, it’s rape — not any sort of committed, monogamous, etc., relationship.)
Passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality and imposing the death penalty for it may have been more or less intended to set Israel apart culturally from the surrounding societies, rather than intended to condemn homosexual activity as such. Since so much Old Testament law is no longer observed, it is at least an open question whether these particular laws should still apply.
A word that Paul uses in Corinthians and Timothy that is commonly translated “sodomites,” “homosexuals,” “pervert,” etc., is actually a neologism he made up that could be translated in a number of other ways that would still make sense in context — Gushee suggests “sexual predators” or “pimps.” The most straightforward condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27 could be (and likely is) in reference to the really messed up things going on in the Roman Empire at the time. Considering that Paul was writing around the emperorships of Nero and Caligula, I think this is a fair point. Again, this is a far cry from any sort of committed, monogamous relationship.
Lastly, the complementarian vision of a man-woman marriage is rooted in Genesis 1-2, pre-fall creation. But the fact is that we live in a Genesis 3 world, post-fall, one in which divorce is allowed, etc. And here is where I finally have a problem with Gushee’s argument. Allowance does not imply endorsement. Just because we live in a fallen state does not mean that we endorse fallen behavior. He himself makes the distinction between descriptive and prescriptive ethics (28), so it’s shocking that he would try to make this move.
This book was a quick read, especially since I skipped over much of the early chapters, and I was glad to have read his explanations of some of the key Biblical verses. It raises very good questions, and takes a reasonably cautious/balanced view on the issues. But his discussions were quite brief — I plan on investigating some of his footnotes — and in its final move, the argument falls flat on its face.
Extra points though, for this quote:
“I was doing my devotional reading while on vacation last summer—I made sure to say both of those things so readers wondering about my salvation are at least aware that I still read the Bible devotionally, even on vacation…” (107)