Bible Gender Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. James V. Brownson. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013.
Same-sex relationships are being debated across the country from classrooms to coffee shops. There are many voices in the debate attempting to sort out how the church should respond. James Brownson’s book contributes to the conversation of same-sex relationships by interpreting Scripture according to the hermeneutical principle of moral logic. According to Brownson, moral logic allows interpreters to take into consideration the current culture’s opinions about moral issues. Therefore, the commands and prohibitions of Scripture are interpreted through the existing culture’s understanding of same-sex relationships.
Based upon this hermeneutical principle Brownson makes many assertions about same-sex relationships. Yet, for the sake of this review I will focus upon two assertions that I think adequately set the stage for how he interprets what the Scriptures say about same-sex relationships.
The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) teaches that, according to Scripture, homosexuality is a distortion of the one-flesh union between a husband and wife. Jesus clearly communicates this to the Pharisees, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh” (Matthew 19:6-5). The LCMS and several other Christian denominations accept the differentiation between male and female in a one-flesh union.
Brownson, however, ignores the male and female distinctions and moves the reader to accept a cultural understanding that says there is no difference between men and women. He argues that being a male or a female no longer defines a person’s identity. The distinction of male and female, according to Brownson, was an important cultural distinction during biblical times, but today we have advanced in ways that no longer limit us to think in categories such as male or female. His argument quickly moves the reader to ignore the male and female distinctions so that he can focus upon what he titles “kinship.” Kinship does not limit the one-flesh sexual relationship to just men and women, but it can include any combination of people. Therefore, two men can be in a one-flesh sexual relationship because it is a kinship bond not limited by gender. He even makes the claim that kinship is more important than procreation in the one-flesh union.
The foundational understanding of kinship clears the path for Brownson to reinterpret passages in the Bible that specifically address homosexual behavior. Consider Romans 1:24–27. It would seem that this passage clearly condemns homosexuality: Paul says that it is not natural for women to engage in sexual relationships with other women or men to engage in sexual relationships with other men. But remember, according to Brownson, we can no longer use gender to define relationships; it is only a matter of kinship. Sexual relationships are no longer defined by being a man or a woman. Therefore, according to Brownson, Paul is not speaking about homosexuality. Brownson argues that Paul is addressing excessive sexual desires, lust, among any kinship that involves a sexual relationship. Therefore, he makes the case that all sexual relationships are permitted as long as sexual desires are controlled and not in excess.
The hermeneutical principle of moral logic focuses upon human logic to interpret Scripture. I would make the argument that the approach of moral logic is nothing more than rationalism or humanism. Anytime we begin with human logic we will end up interpreting Scripture in a way that will ignore God. Paul says it this way: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen” (Romans 1:24).
Remember the question of the serpent in the garden, “Did God really say…”? Adam and Eve were deceived by the serpent because they were encouraged to question the voice of God and instead listen to their own voice. Brownson is using the same hermeneutical principle as the serpent by questioning God’s Word. As I read the book I could hear the same questioning serpent asking me: Did God really say? Did God really say a one-flesh union is limited to a man and woman? Did God really say the focus of marriage is procreation? Did God really say homosexuality is a sin? Did God really say unnatural relations are sinful between people of the same gender? The hermeneutical approach used by Brownson questions the Word of God through the means of moral logic, human logic, so that you can make the text say whatever you desire. Using the approach of moral logic, Brownson makes conclusions that are personally satisfying (to some) rather than scripturally accurate. This is the fundamental problem with the book.
