People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue
Christians who are confused by the homosexuality debate raging in the US are looking for resources that are based solidly on a deep study of what Scripture says about the issue. In People to Be Loved, Preston Sprinkle challenges those on all sides of the debate to consider what the Bible says and how we should approach the topic of homosexuality in light of it.
In a manner that appeals to a scholarly and lay-audience alike, Preston takes on difficult questions such as how should the church treat people struggling with same-sex attraction? Is same-sex attraction a product of biological or societal factors or both? How should the church think about larger cultural issues, such as gay marriage, gay pride, and whether intolerance over LGBT amounts to racism? How (or if) Christians should do business with LGBT persons and supportive companies?
Simply saying that the Bible condemns homosexuality is not accurate, nor is it enough to end the debate. Those holding a traditional view still struggle to reconcile the Bible’s prohibition of same-sex attraction with the message of radical, unconditional grace. This book meets that need.
Reviews (131)
Compassionate, but multiple holes in arguments raise multiple unanswered questions (Part I)
As a gay, married Christian who has studied several resources on both sides of the issue, I opened this book knowing I wasn’t going to agree with Preston’s current conclusion regarding same-sex relationships and marriage. However, because our church is currently wrestling with how to better include LGBT individuals, married couples and families, we need to study resources that reflect why non-affirming Christians think the way they do. Regarding the tone and posture of his arguments, there’s a level of compassion and humility that I was grateful to see throughout the book. More than once, Preston expresses that this isn’t necessarily his final word on the subject, and it’s possible he might change his position in the future. Considering he’s talked with gay people and studied a variety of different resources along with the Bible, you get the sense that he’s a thoughtful person who’s done some homework… which unfortunately makes his vague, careless, inconsistent, or willfully ignorant moments that much more obvious. Before he even starts discussing Scripture, here are some of the big ones (from the paperback version, just in case the page numbers differ other versions): Page 17: “That’s the real question Christians are asking… the question is whether two men or two women can date, fall in love, remain sexually pure before their wedding day, and commit to a life-long, consensual, Christ-centered, self-giving, monogamous union.” I agree. However, one of the many problems with this book is that Preston apparently hasn’t bothered to develop deep friendships or speak with *any* gay people who are in such unions! After reading this book cover-to-cover two times in a row, I witnessed Preston lift up the personal stories of multiple gay Christians… all of whom were either single, committed to lifelong celibacy, or married to an *opposite* sex partner. Considering that Preston wrote a Christian book questioning the morality of same-sex marriage, gay or bisexual Christians *in actual same-sex marriages* should’ve been an essential part of his answer. Because they apparently weren’t, it calls into question just how willing he is to have his beliefs or his narrative challenged, even though he insists he’s “devoted countless hours to studying the Scriptures with an open mind,” as he says in page 19. Speaking of which… Page 19: “Like flying an airplane with only one wing, reading about homosexuality is necessary - but dangerously insufficient. We need to listen to gay and lesbian people. Throughout my study, I have made many gay friends who have solidified my belief that homosexuality… is about people. With some topics, it’s easy to keep the Bible at arm’s length from real people. But I can’t, and I won’t.” Except Preston apparently did. In a large way, he failed to follow his own (admittedly good) advice by keeping the Bible at arm’s length from real people - real gay Christians in committed, life-long, consensual, Christ-centered, self-giving, monogamous same-sex marriages. Their stories are nowhere to be found in this book, which is puzzling when you consider the question Preston put forth earlier in page 17. Page 17-18: “I’m a product of the Protestant Reformation, which upholds Scripture - not tradition - as our ultimate authority. Sometimes church’s tradition needs to be corrected and reformed by Scripture. For many years, the church stood on the wrong side of the question of slavery…. [and] stood on the wrong side of science… It’s not that tradition is bad or doesn’t carry any authority. I think it does. But all evangelical Christians agree that the Bible stands over tradition as our ultimate authority.” What Preston seems to be ignoring is how tradition is heavily influenced by Scripture (or more specifically, *how people interpret Scripture*). Rather than saying “It’s tradition,” a Christian slaveowner could easily open up a Bible, point to Leviticus 25:44-46 / Deuteronomy 20:10-11 / Ephesians 6:5 / Colossians 3:22 / 1 Timothy 6:1 / Titus 2:9 / 1 Peter 2:18 and say “Scripture is my ultimate authority.” Likewise, rather than saying “It’s tradition,” a Christian who believes Earth is the immobile center of the universe could easily point to Psalm 93:1 / Psalm 96:10 / Psalm 104:3 / 1 Chronicles 16:30 / Ecclesiastes 1:5 and say “Scripture is my ultimate authority.” Preston doesn’t get into *how people interpreted Scripture* to allow for slavery or believing in geocentrism, nor does he question if that same method of interpreting Scripture is currently being used to deny the Holy Spirit’s presence in same-sex marriages. Page 22-25: Preston lists several terms that should either be avoided or “used with care and precision” when talking to or about gay people. Among those terms are “homosexual” / “homosexuality” / “lifestyle” / “gay lifestyle”. His reasons for decrying the use of those terms are right on the nose, particularly with the use of “homosexuality” : “When we say ‘homosexuality,’ what exactly do we mean? Again, we’re talking about a diverse group of people… homosexuality, as you can see, is a broad term that has the potential of erasing the faces of real people with different stories.” Again, I agree… which makes it disappointing when Preston again fails to practice what he preaches. Both before and after this section, he constantly uses the term “homosexuality” without (A) explaining what he means by the term in that specific context, or (B) choosing to use a more specific term instead. One of the worst examples is on page 182: in a section titled “Educate Others About the Complexities of Homosexuality,” Preston uses the term “homosexuality” 9 times in 4 paragraphs, and in none of those instances does he specifically explain what he means by the term. Gay sex specifically? Gay people in general? If it’s gay people, does he specifically mean gay people pursuing marriage, or those committed to lifelong celibacy? Does he mean gay Christians, or gay non-believers? Page 24: “Can a non affirming church truly love gay people without affirming same-sex behavior?” “Same-sex behavior” is another vague term that Preston uses several times throughout his book, and it should’ve been included in his list of terms to be avoided when talking about gay people. Regarding the terms “lifestyle / gay lifestyle,” Preston says, “It’s one of those one-size-fits-all phrases that ignores the vast diversity of actual LGBT people.” He’s absolutely right, but the same thing applies with “same-sex behavior”! Preston might as well just use the term “gay lifestyle,” a term that he himself said to avoid in his own book. As you read, pay attention to how often he uses the term “same-sex behavior” throughout the book without specifying exactly what he means. All of the above are critiques only from Chapter 1. From there, Preston spends a lot of time discussing Scripture and how he interprets it. All throughout, much of what he says either exposes holes in his argument, or raises major questions that he doesn’t bother to answer: Page 36-37: “Paul maps the roles of husband and wife onto Christ’s relationship with the church [Ephesians 5:31-32]. The analogy should not be pressed too far, which is why I’m cautious about applying this passage to the homosexuality debate. After all, Christ is God and the church is human: Does this mean that husbands are the divine partner in marriage? …what about the singularity of Christ and the multiplicity of people in the church? Does the analogy support polygamy? And half the members of the church are men. Could their marriage to Christ be taken as support for same-sex unions?” As long as he’s going to make Ephesians 5:31-32 part of his argument, all of these are fair questions, but he answers none of them. The implication is that Preston would answer No to all of these questions, but he doesn’t give a rationale as to *why* he might say No to those questions. Furthermore, while he admits Ephesians 5:31-32 is an analogy that “should not be pressed too far,” he doesn't explain what "too far" means, nor does he acknowledge that Christians can differ on what pressing the analogy too far looks like. Christians who affirm same-sex marriage could just as easily argue that Preston is taking the analogy too far by insisting “the analogy demands some sort of difference, and it appears Paul has sexual difference in mind.” Page 38-39: “[In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16]…the equal yet different relationship between God the Father and God the Son parallels in some way the equal-yet-different relationship between men and women. Paul urges the Corinthians to celebrate and not erase the differences between male and female, since differences exist within the Trinity.” For Preston to bring something as mysterious as the Trinity into this makes absolutely no sense. How exactly is the Trinity - by definition, made up of *3* beings - suppose to parallel a marriage that is made up of *2* beings? Also, the differences between male and female are *sexual* - how is that supposed to parallel with the differences in the Trinity, which are traditionally understood to be *familial*? If it were a math equation, it’d look like this: [1 male husband + 1 female wife] = [1 "male" Father + 1 male Son + 1 Holy Spirit-whose-gender-is-ambiguous] At this point, if Preston didn’t want to admit he pressed the analogy too far in saying sexual difference is essential to marriage, he could’ve at least tried to make sense of the above equation. Because he doesn’t even bother, it’s especially hard to take him seriously when he insists that 2 male husbands or 2 female wives would somehow keep said equation from adding up properly. Page 47-48: Preston brings up an interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13, which states that the reason male same-sex acts are forbidden is because it feminizes the passive partner, which obviously would be seen as a bad thing in an ancient Israelite culture that saw women and femininity as inferior. If that is the underlying logic, then the commands held up by them should not be authoritative for Christians today… unless, of course, those same Christians are willing to defend patriarchy. It seems Preston is unwilling to do that, so instead *he effectively dismisses and denies patriarchy’s influence on Scripture,* like so: “The ‘low view of women’ view assumes a view of the Old Testament that is hardly consistent. For instance, Genesis 1:27 makes a fundamental claim about women that was radical in the ancient world: women, not just men, are created in God’s image. It’s not clear that the biblical writers considered women to be inferior to men… there is nothing in [Leviticus] that says women are inferior to men.” And this is where Preston is simply being ignorant… almost to the point where one wonders if he's being *willfully* ignorant. Does Preston need a verse in the Old Testament where every English translation says, word-for-word, “Women are inferior to men” before he takes patriarchy’s influence on Scripture seriously? When reading the Old Testament, Genesis 1:27 is a nice thing to bring up if you want to make a case for gender equality, but to simply leave it at that completely glosses over other Old Testament laws concerning women, particularly Deuteronomy 22:23-29. Christian professor Cheryl B. Anderson talks more about this in her excellent book “Ancient Laws and Contemporary Controversies,” saying, among other things, “Deuteronomic family laws function primarily to protect the male head of the household’s right to control his wife’s sexuality and his right to ‘be certain that his sons were his own.’” It goes way beyond Deuteronomy, of course, but all the same, Preston denies and dismisses the thought that patriarchy is the foundation for Old Testament laws concerning marriage and sex. To accept patriarchy’s influence would result in many Old Testament laws making a lot more sense… but presumably, Preston finds patriarchy unsavory and would rather not have to defend it. As a result, he’d rather assume something else is holding up Leviticus 18 and 20 so he can continue seeing those passages as useful to his argument. But if it’s true that the ancient world in general was patriarchal and had a low view of women, for Preston assume ancient Israelite culture was unaffected by that would be to take the Bible *out* of its historical context. Disappointingly, Preston denies patriarchy’s influence on Scripture again when he starts discussing the New Testament, insisting that “Paul seems to have a rather high view of women” and listing several women who Paul mentions in his letters with some level of respect. That’s all well and good, but it inevitably leads readers to wonder how Preston plans to reconcile those passages with the most infamous verses about women in the New Testament: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Spoiler alert: Preston doesn’t even try! He doesn’t bring up either of those verses at all, which is puzzling, since any Christian who’s read the New Testament (i.e. a good chunk of Preston’s audience) should know those verses are there. I suppose one could easily believe his claim that neither the Old Testament writers nor the apostle Paul had a low view of women, but only if one ignores Deuteronomy 22 / 1 Corinthians 14 / 1 Timothy 2 / etc. Rather than hoping his readers don’t know about those passages, least Preston could’ve done was bring those passages up and try to explain how they don’t get in the way of his argument. Because of the complete lack of effort there, I can’t take him seriously when he dismisses the patriarchal undertones of the passages Christians use to say same-sex relationships are sinful. Going back to Leviticus for a minute, on Page 51 Preston says: “All of these sex laws [in Leviticus 18 and 20] are still authoritative for Christians.” The thing is, if you accept that as true, it raises the question of whether *all sex laws throughout the rest of the Old Testament* are authoritative as well. Per Deuteronomy 22:28-29, if a woman is raped, she has to marry the man who raped her. It’d be interesting to see if Preston thinks this law is authoritative for Christians today… but again, he never bothers to bring it up! If he doesn’t think it’s authoritative, it then raises the question of why he thinks all the sex laws in Leviticus are authoritative, but not the ones in Deuteronomy or elsewhere in the Old Testament. Even if we just stuck with Leviticus, there’s a law in Leviticus 18:19 that says a man shouldn’t have sex with her wife while she’s menstruating. Preston takes this time to make a little joke about how avoiding sex during a woman's period makes for a healthy marriage. He calls it “free marital advice,” but he doesn’t specifically explain why that law should still be authoritative today. In addition, if it’s true that Old Testament laws on sex are still authoritative today, this raises the question of whether the prescribed punishments for breaking said laws are still authoritative as well. For men who have sex with a woman on her period, it’s exile / excommunication (Leviticus 20:18). For men who have sex with men, it’s the death penalty (Leviticus 20:13). If Preston refuses to carry out either of these things, one could easily accuse him of "not following the Bible"… but this is yet another thing Preston refuses to address, making his lack of consistency more and more obvious as the book continues. Page 68: “If we say that Christians should endorse same sex relations, then we will need to recreate a rather un-Jewish Jesus and an un-Jewish New Testament. Most Christians today, however, are rightly trying to get back in touch with their Jewish roots, not away from them.” There is, to put it politely, so many things about this statement that are either vague or straight up wrong. First, when was “getting back in touch with our Jewish roots” ever a major Christian priority? Even if everyone agreed we should, not everyone agrees on what that even looks like, or how far it should go. Does Preston get the final word on what that’s supposed to look like? If distancing ourselves from our Jewish roots is a problem, it’s not a problem that started with Christians celebrating same-sex marriage. What exactly was so Jewish about Jesus working (i.e. helping people) on the Sabbath? Also: what exactly was so Jewish about the apostles doing away with circumcision and food laws in order to welcome *Gentile* believers into the faith? In so many ways, Christianity itself is a departure from Judaism. If any Christian preaches that we need to “go back to our Jewish roots,” that person had better not be someone who eats pork, is fine with uncircumcised believers, and works on the weekend. Unless, of course, they’re fine with being called a hypocrite. Speaking of hypocrisy, I’m almost surprised at Preston on page 73, where he brings up what Jesus said about divorce and remarriage: “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9 If there’s anything that proves the hypocrisy of the non-affirming evangelical Christian church, it’s this: for all the energy that gets poured into debating the morality of same sex marriage, I have not seen evangelical Christians (including Preston) keeping that same energy when it comes to people who’ve been divorced and remarried. For now, it's safe to say that's a huge log in the eye of the non affirming church - a log that (A) they’re completely aware of, and (B) they have no intention of removing before pointing out the speck they think they see in the eye of LGBT affirming Christians. It’s almost laughable when Preston says in Page 74: “Jesus is not some ethical Gumby that we can bend around our personal desires.” If we’re being consistent with that sentiment, then Christians shouldn’t celebrate anyone’s marriage unless it’s their first marriage. Anything after that is apparently a sin, makes you an adulterer, and shuts you out of the Kingdom of God too (1 Cor 6:9). Of course, a non affirming Christian could then choose to bring up grace, and “following the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law,” among other things… but if a non affirming Christian does that for divorced and remarried people, it raises the question of why they wouldn’t do that for gay people. These are just some of the critiques for the first half of the book, mind you. I could go on (and probably will in an updated or separate review), but responding to all the inconsistencies in Preston’s book would probably fill a whole other book that might be just as long as his. That being said, should you buy People to be Loved? If you’re LGBT affirming, this will be a frustrating read, but healthy if you want to have your beliefs challenged and learn how to read with a critical eye. I must’ve marked up 90% of the pages of this book with highlighter marks and additional notes on the margins. If you’re not LGBT affirming, much of what you read in this book will probably be familiar to you. Ultimately his message is: “You should keep being against same-sex relationships and marriage - just be nicer about it.” It’s essentially the equivalent of: “You should keep telling women to get back in the kitchen - just say ‘please’ when you do so.” The tone of the message might have been adjusted, but the message is ultimately the same. If you’re not quite sure where you stand regarding same-sex marriage yet, buying this book alone won’t help you develop an informed opinion. Get these as well: God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines Ancient Laws & Contemporary Controversies by Cheryl B. Anderson Sex and the Single Savior by Dale B. Martin Sex Difference in Christian Theology by Megan K. DeFranza They probably won’t fill in all the holes in Preston’s arguments, but for all the necessary things he failed to discuss in this book, these four authors will give you plenty more to think about.
If you want grace and truth, buy this book!
I did not want to buy this book because I was not sure I wanted to read another book by a conservative Christian on the topic of homosexuality. As a Christian married male who has same sex attraction it is hard to read books by men who have no idea what it is like to have same sex attraction try to write about it. In my opinion most say they want to love gay people and not judge but in reality they come across as very judgmental. I certainly felt that about Kevin DeYoung's book and Landon Schott's book. In fact I read DeYoung twice just to see if I missed something, I didn't, I felt judged through the whole book. There always seems to be an attitude that comes across that says I am better than you because I don't deal with the egregious abomination of homosexuality. However, I am glad to have purchased this book. Sprinkle does a great job of bringing across truth and at the same time his word choice and 'tone' is never condemning. I like that does not put down affirming authors and even states that some of their arguments are good. I don't see that in most evangelical authors. It is like they cannot say that one has a good point because then they might come across as siding on the side of pro gay theology. This is an easy book to read and very Christ like in his approach to this topic. Thank you Dr. Sprinkle.
Steer clear.
I was led to believe this is an affirming book for believers. Not at all. Terribly misleading and a dangerous book for anyone that is LGBTQ or looking for advice - promotes love but ultimately says LGBTQ people are sinful.
What?! Thinking? Why would I want to do that?!
This is not the only book that I have read on this topic, but so far I have found this to be a recurring theme: Married people talking about the joy in the life of a single SSA person. They speak without experience...or if they have that experience, they don't acknowledge the experience. I have yet to read a narrative that comes from a celibate, SSA single person. Having a narrative like this would add to a fuller picture. What does celibacy look like in the life of someone who is both SSA and practicing celibacy? People who are not engaged in this lifestyle hypothesize that it will be hard and a "dirge" for the person choosing this lifestyle. But has anyone confirmed this? Where is the evidence that Celibacy is inherently difficult? What does celibacy mean? How is celibacy defined by the Bible? By the church? By American Culture? It appears that married people both (SSA and not) within the church feel compelled to talk about the "joys" and “struggles” of being single without really being able to elaborate on that experience. I wish someone who was both celibate and SSA attracted would write a narrative about the abiding joy that they have in Christ. Maybe even pine to keep and preserve their singleness in the way people pine for marriage. I hypothesize that if singleness had the joy that married people preach about, more single people would be writing about how awesome it is. It seems condescending for a married person to tell an unmarried person about the blessings and struggles of being single. Imagine if I started telling a mother about the blessings and challenges of bearing children when I’ve never had them. It sounds absurd, right? Just because you can quote scripture about singleness, doesn’t mean you can sympathize with a person’s state of being. Scripture paired with the ability to relate to someone’s state of being is very powerful. At the same time, I don't think people in the church should only minister to people who are like them...so, my argument is a bit flip floppy... I'm not saying that happy, single people don't exist, but why aren't single, celibate, SSA Christians talking about how happy and blessed they are in their "Season?" That word irks me. It is a silly buzz word that is a vernacular staple when discussing singleness within the church. "Season" implies a temporary situation. This gives the impression that singleness is or should be viewed as a temporary situation within the church. Which means that there might be an underlying unspoken expectation that single people are in a season that will eventually or should go away. Celibacy...how does that work? Can one be happy and celibate? Knowing that they cannot/ should not act on their desire or on their desiring... if they are desired they must break with the person who desires them. It would seem that Christianity pulls no punches here. Suffering is the name of the game. Also, some people seem to hold the view, thus creating a stigma, that celibacy is unnatural...that people who have chosen to remain celibate are unnatural. So now you have Christians who already feel like freaks for not being attracted to the opposite sex, and now they are being hounded for being celibate... On the other hand...Why is celibacy unnatural? Why must a person engage in sexual intercourse in order to be considered fully human? Does sex drive measure a person's humanity? As far as the book goes, Sprinkle does his best to be both sensitive while giving a non-affirming argument. I like the fact that he puts a caveat that says he might change his view and that what he says about the issue is not the be all and end all of his grappling with the subject matter.
Freeing
People to Be Loved changed my life. In my quest to love my dear LGBTQ friends and family while also honoring my Christian faith, I have found hope, encouragement and freedom to love like Jesus. The book is well written, and Dr. Sprinkle slugs through mounds of historical research and Biblical exegesis. At times the reading is tedious and mentally exhausting - not unlike our human relationships when we choose the hard work of seeking to understand and truly empathizing with one another. Perhaps what I love most is Preston's posture of humility, openness to discussion, and desire for true relationship even when beliefs differ in the most sacred areas of our lives. Please read this book with the same openness, thoughtfulness and desire for truth and grace.
A book to be loved
I've read through this book several times, most recently with a small group of Christians who are same sex attracted. A compact, lay audience friendly book on one of the more controversial topics within the church today, People to be Loved has plenty to say to both affirming and traditional Christians. Ultimately the book supports a traditional definition of marriage based on scripture, history, and discussion of some of the major voices engaged in today's debate about gay marriage, but always in a respectful and humane manner. It invites its readers to honestly explore what scripture has to say about gay relationships rather than hitting them over the head with a thumping Bible. The last third or so of the book covers in broad strokes topics related to homosexuality in a manner that encourages Christians to understand and embrace those who are same sex attracted, particularly those who want to follow Christ. The Church has often driven gays away from it; this book offers insight into how the Church, while scripturally faithful can still be welcoming. One of the things I've most appreciated about this book is how it models a Christian debate on a contentious issue still filled with humility, compassion, and a genuine desire for God's truth.
Review: "People to Be Loved"
Thank you to GA for sending me People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue by Preston Sprinkle, along with a copy of The Great Lakes Catechism. Sprinkle’s book is not just a book that looks at “those” Scriptures and comes to a conclusion. Though he does look at them – in the original languages and considers the words in extra-biblical writing – and he comes to various conclusions about them – for example, the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality – not is it being unhospitable – and the reason we know it is not is due to the fact that other Scriptures tell us what the sins of Sodom are. The author looks at the varying interpretations of the hot-button texts from non-affirming and affirming positions and considers where the truth lies with each of them. He does so with compassion and grace – acknowledging truth on both sides of the aisle as it is warranted. He also looks at the meaning and import of the “otherness” of our first parents in the history of Creation, how homosexuality was viewed in Judaism and Roman culture, and Jesus’ view of sexuality. And he explains that – biblically – if we are not condemning the sins that are included in the hot-button passages – such as lying in I Timothy 1:10 – with equal fervor – then we are hypocrites (cf. 126). In the second half of the book, he considers the evidence for homosexuality being genetic and what that would mean with regards to these passages, where someone can be gay and Christian – along with the issue of marriage and celibacy, faithfulness, and being single in the church. He turns to application and considers five things that ought to be done in light of his discussion – which is peppered with stories of real people. As he looks at what the church much do, there is the nailing down of the fact that the biggest issue is not whether or not a person is same-sex attracted, but whether they have received Jesus as God as Savior and are seeking to live a holy life in response to His salvation of them. In the appendix, he considers five affirming interpretations of Romans 1 and explains why he doesn’t believe they hold up. People to Be Loved helps us to move from just checking the “sin” or “not sin” box and shoving people aside to learning to love like Jesus – not dismissing sin, but loving all people, as all people are created in the Image of God, and all people are in need of the Savior’s salvation. If you’re not hardened on your position on homosexuality, this is a wonderful resource to take time to think through the Scripture, its interpretation, and what it means to be a Christian in the world. [This review appears on my blog, Amazon.com, and Goodreads.com.]
that it would be crap from a young
I thought, going into this book, that it would be crap from a young, restless, reformed guy. Even if Sprinkle fits that bill, he must number among the most intelligent and faithful of that crew. I have read many of the books on homosexuality and this is the most Biblically incisive, accessible, and pastoral that I have encountered. The only gripe that I have is that Sprinkle is a bit flip in tone throughout the book, which I was okay with but some may find off-putting considering the serious nature of the topic he addresses. Nonetheless, this is a must read for every pastor and anyone interested in what God (and thus the Bible) says on a divisive issue of our day
Insightful
This book was insightful. I agree with Sprinkle's conclusions, though I didn't always appreciate the logic he used to come to his conclusions. I think overall the book is a decent contribution to the discussion on homosexuality and LGBT relationships -- a much, much needed discussion. I do wish, however, that there had been a greater emphasis on the practical side of application, that is, how to "love one another" on a personal and day-to-day basis. Many situations, questions, issues, and conversations are raised in this book which are helpful to broaden our general understanding of the many facets involved in this major contemporary issue. I'm glad I read this book, but it left me wanting (as perhaps it should). I want to read more, study more, and learn how to love people better. I think this is a great book to start a conversation on.
Scholarly, well-written, and thought-provoking.
Very balanced, scholarly, and well-researched discussion. Although it does finally conclude along traditional Christian lines of sex within heterosexual marriage & celibacy in singleness, it used many LGBTQ examples, stories, and case studies. It argues against use of "killer" passages like Sodom & Gomorrah and relies more on Jesus' treatment of loving our neighbors, but not necessarily loving their behaviors. I learned about being careful of my vocabulary, hidden assumptions we all make, and compassion for all. An excellent read.
Comments
Post a Comment