Search

The Bible has nothing good to say about homosexual practice.

That may sound like a harsh conclusion, but it’s not all that controversial. Even the gay Dutch scholar Pim Pronk has concluded that “wherever homosexual intercourse is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned. With reference to it the New Testament adds no new arguments to those of the Old. Rejection is a foregone conclusion; the assessment of it nowhere constitutes a problem.”[1] There is simply no positive case to be made from the Bible for homoerotic behavior.

Revisionist arguments in favor of same-sex unions do not rest on gay affirming exegetical conclusions as much as they try to show that traditional interpretations of Scripture are unwarranted. That is to say, the only way revisionist arguments make sense is if they can show that there is an impassable distance between the world of the Bible and our world.

Of all the arguments in favor of same-sex behavior, the cultural distance argument is the most foundational and the most common (at least among those for whom biblical authority is still important). Although the Mosaic Law and Paul’s letter to the Romans and the vice lists of the New Testament speak uniformly against same-sex behavior, these texts (it is said) were addressing a different kind of same-sex behavior. The ancient world had no concept of sexual orientation, no understanding of egalitarian, loving, committed, monogamous, covenantal same-sex unions.

The issue was not gender (whether the lovers were male or female), but gender roles (whether a man was overly feminized and acting like a woman).

The issue was not men having sex with men, but men having sex with boys.

The issue was not consensual same-sex intercourse, but gang rape, power imbalances, and systemic oppression.

The revisionist case can take many forms, but central to most of them is the “not that kind of homosexuality!” argument. We can safely set aside the scriptural prohibitions against homosexual behavior because we are comparing apples and oranges: we are talking in our day about committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships, something the biblical authors in their day knew nothing about.

Despite its superficial plausibility, there are at least two major problems with this line of thinking.

Silence Is Not Always Golden

For starters, the cultural distance argument is an argument from silence. The Bible nowhere limits its rejection of homosexuality to exploitative or pederastic (man-boy) forms of same-sex intimacy. Leviticus forbids a male lying with a male as with a woman (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). The text says nothing about temple prostitution, effeminate men, or sexual domination. The prohibition is against men doing with men what ought to be done with women. Similarly, the same-sex sin condemned in Romans 1 is not simply out-of-control passion or the insatiable male libido that desires men in addition to women. According to Paul, the fundamental problem with homosexual behavior is that men and women exchange sexual intercourse with the opposite sex for unnatural relations with persons of the same sex (Rom. 1:26-27; cf. 22, 25). If the biblical authors meant to frown upon only certain kinds of homosexual arrangements, they wouldn’t have condemned the same-sex act itself in such absolute terms.

Because the Bible never limits its rejection of homosexual behavior to pederasty or exploitation, those wanting to affirm homosexual behavior can only make an argument from silence. That’s why you will often read in the revisionist literature that the biblical author was only thinking of man-boy love or that an exploitative relationship would have been assumed in the minds of the original audience. The logic usually goes like this:

  • There were many bad example of homosexual behavior in the ancient world.
  • For example, here are ancient sources describing pederasty, master-slave encounters, and wild promiscuity.
  • Therefore, when the Bible condemns same-sex intimacy, it had these bad examples in mind.

This reasoning can look impressive, especially when it comes at you with a half dozen quotations from ancient sources that most readers are not familiar with. But the last step in the syllogism is an assumption more than an argument. How can we be sure Paul had these bad examples in mind? If he did, why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty? Why didn’t he warn masters against forcing themselves upon slaves? Why does the Bible talk about men lying with men and the exchange of what is natural for unnatural if it wasn’t thinking about the created order and only had in mind predatory sex and promiscuous liaisons? If the biblical authors expected us to know what they really had in mind—and no one figured this out for two millennia—it appears that they came up with a remarkably ineffective way of getting their point across.

What Do the Texts Say?

The second reason the distance argument fails is because it is an argument against the evidence. The line of reasoning traced above would be more compelling if it could be demonstrated that the only kinds of homosexuality known in the ancient world were based on pederasty, victimization, and exploitation. On the face of it, it’s strange that progressive voices would want us to reach this conclusion. For it would mean that committed, consensual, lifelong partnerships were completely unknown and untried in the ancient world. It seems demeaning to suggest that until very recently in the history of the world there were no examples of warm, loving, committed homosexual relationships. This is probably why Matthew Vines in using the cultural distance argument to make a biblical case for same-sex relationships admits, “This isn’t to say no one [in the Greco-Roman world] pursued only same-sex relationships, or that no same-sex unions were marked by long-term commitment and love.”[2] But of course, once we recognize that the type of same-sex unions progressives want to bless today were in fact present in the ancient world, it’s only special pleading which makes us think the biblical prohibitions couldn’t be talking about those kinds of relationships.

I’m not a scholar of the ancient world, neither are most of the authors writing on the revisionist side. As a pastor I can read Greek, but I’m no expert in Plato, Plutarch, or Aristides. Most people reading this are not scholars either. Thankfully, almost all of the important ancient texts on homosexuality are readily available. It doesn’t make for fun reading (especially if you think homosexual behavior is wrong), but anyone can explore the primary sources in Homosexuality In Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents. This 558-page book is edited by the non-Christian classics professor Thomas K Hubbard. What you’ll find in the sourcebook is not surprising given the diversity and complexity of the ancient world: Homosexual behavior was not reducible to any single pattern and moral judgment did not fall into neat categories. There was no more consensus about homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome than we see today.[3]

From a Christian point of view, there are plenty of examples of “bad” homosexuality in the ancient world, but there is also plenty of evidence to prove that homosexual activity was not restricted to man-boy pairs. Some homosexual lovers swore continued attraction well into their loved one’s adulthood, and some gay lovers were lifelong companions.[4] By the first century AD, the Roman world was increasingly divided on the issue of homosexuality. As public displays of same-sex indulgence grew, so did the moral condemnation of homosexual behavior.[5] Every kind of homosexual relationship was known in the first century, from lesbianism, to origiastic behavior, to gender-bending “marriage,” to lifelong same-sex companionship. Hubbard’s summary of early imperial Rome is important:

The coincidence of such severity on the part of moralistic writers with the flagrant and open display of every form of homosexual behavior by Nero and other practitioners indicates a culture in which attitude about this issue increasingly defined one’s ideological and moral position. In other words, homosexuality in this era may have ceased to be merely another practice of personal pleasure and began to be viewed as an essential and central category of personal identity, exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation.

If in the ancient world not only had a category for committed same-sex relationships but also some understanding of homosexual orientation (to use our phrase), there is no reason to think the New Testament’s prohibitions against same-sex behavior were only thinking of pederasty and exploitation.

Hubbard is not the only scholar to see the full range of homosexual expression in the ancient world. William Loader, who has written eight significant books on sexuality in Judaism and early Christianity and is himself a strong proponent of same-sex marriage, points to examples of same-sex adult partnerships in the ancient world.[6] Even more telling, Loader sees evidence for nascent ideas about orientation in the Greco-Roman era:

It is very possible that Paul knew of views which claimed some people had what we would call a homosexual orientation, though we cannot know for sure and certainly should not read our modern theories back into his world. If he did, it is more likely that, like other Jews, he would have rejected them out of hand, as does Philo after reporting Aristophanes’ bizarre aetiology [i.e., the study of causation] of human sexuality.[7]

Loader’s statement about Aristophanes is a reference to Plato’s Symposium (c. 385-370 B.C.), a series of speeches on Love (Eros) given by famous men at a drinking party in 416 B.C.. At this party we meet Pausanias who was a lover of the host Agathon, both grown men. Pausanias applauds the naturalness and longevity of same-sex love. In the fourth speech we meet the comic poet Aristophanes who proposes a convoluted theory, including notions of genetic causation, about why some men and women are attracted to persons of the same sex. Even if the speech is meant to be satire, it only works as satire by playing off the positive view of homosexual practice common in antiquity.[8]

To suggest that only certain kinds of homosexual practice (the bad kinds) were known in the ancient world is a claim that flies in the face of many Greek texts. Here, for example, is N.T. Wright’s informed conclusion:

As a classicist, I have to say that when I read Plato’s Symposium, or when I read the accounts from the early Roman empire of the practice of homosexuality, then it seems to me they knew just as much about it as we do. In particular, a point which is often missed, they knew a great deal about what people today would regard as longer-term, reasonably stable relations between two people of the same gender. This is not a modern invention, it’s already there in Plato. The idea that in Paul’s day it was always a matter of exploitation of younger men by older men or whatever . . . of course there was plenty of that then, as there is today, but it was by no means the only thing. They knew about the whole range of options there.[9]

And then there is this paragraph from the late Louis Crompton, a gay man and pioneer in queer studies, in his massive book Homosexuality and Civilization:

Some interpreters, seeking to mitigate Paul’s harshness, have read the passage [in Romans 1] as condemning not homosexuals generally but only heterosexual men and women who experimented with homosexuality. According to this interpretation, Paul’s words were not directed at “bona fide” homosexuals in committed relationships. But such a reading, however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical. Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any Jew or early Christian.[10]

I know it is poor form to pile up block quotes from other authors, but in this case it proves a point. Scholars all of different stripes have said the same thing: the cultural distance argument will not work. There is nothing in the biblical text to suggest Paul or Moses or anyone else meant to limit the Scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior. Likewise, there is no good reason to think from the thousands of homosexuality-related texts found in the Greco-Roman period that the blanket rejection of homosexual behavior found in the Bible can be redeemed by postulating an impassable cultural distance between our world and the ancient world. There is simply no positive case for homosexual practice in the Bible and no historical background that will allow us to set aside what has been the plain reading of Scripture for twenty centuries. The only way to think the Bible is talking about every other kind of homosexuality except the kind our culture wants to affirm is to be less than honest with the texts or less than honest with ourselves.

 

NOTES

[1] Pim Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) ,279.

[2] Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 104.

[3] Homosexuality in Greece and Rome: A Sourcebook of Basic Documents (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 7-8.

[4] Ibid., 5-6.

[5] Ibid., 383.

[6] William Loader, The New Testament on Sexuality (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans: 2012), 84.

[7] Ibid., 323-24, 496.

[8] See Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 350-54.

[9] John L. Allen Jr., “Interview with Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright of Durham, England,” National Catholic Reporter, May 21, 2004, http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wright.htm (accessed November 11, 2014).

[10] Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2003), 114.


View Comments

Comments:


72 thoughts on “Not That Kind of Homosexuality?”

  1. Curt Day says:

    Matt,
    No, God is a person. But He is one who is omniscient and omnipresent. And if God is infinite, such as your hypothetical statement implies is possible, how is it that finite creatures can put Him in a corner where He must meet our standards or be deemed nonexistent? Something an old Princeton professor, Gerhardus Vos, said applies here. If God is someone whom man discovers, then religion is nothing more than a spiritual anthropology. And we could add that such a God is subject to our judgment. The other alternative Vos gives is that God must reveal Himself to us. And that would be necessary if He is infinite. And if He is infinite, though we can have feelings about it, we cannot logically put Him in a corner because we are finite and may not see or be able to comprehend all of the factors involved in how God makes judgments. This is why I said that your notes indicate that you make God a peer, an equal to be judged by any of us, rather than as someone who is infinite and superior to us.

    In addition, what is difficult for both of us to fathom is the effects of sin and how, not just because of God’s holiness, but for the sake of our eternity, sin cannot be allowed in. And that belief in Christ serving as the only basis for eternal life, as God has revealed, makes it so that we do not have to earn a future life with God by trying to be good enough, but that it is given graciously. Those who are religious by trying to discover God are trying to earn their future with God. And we need to realize the effects of what we would consider a minor sin by not following what was revealed, one eating of the forbidden fruit led murder in the next generation. That is but one reason why I wrote that for God to allow sin in eternity would make the horrors of earth, with all of its violence, exploitation, and hatred, a part of eternity as well.

    Matt, you and I are equals in the same boat despite the fact that we are not identical. It is tragic that my fellow Conservative Christians have, for the most part, chosen to try to marginalize homosexuals. Such is a denial of our equality. But if you note our history of intolerance, homosexuals should note feel special because of our persecution of them. We’ve shown mucho intolerance to a number of groups of those whom we deem as beneath us. Again, such is a denial of our equality. It is also a denial of the Gospel. I have important friends who are homosexuals and I’ve lost a very important friend because that person could not distinguish the marginalization of the past with what God says about all, both heterosexuals and homosexuals, who are not trying to follow His word with regard to their homosexuality.

  2. Curt Day says:

    BTW Matt, just a correction in the last phrase of my last note. It should read “with regard to their sexuality” rather than “with regard to their homosexuality.” Sorry about that chief.

    Curt

  3. matt says:

    Karsten,

    You make a distinction between “civil and ritual laws” and “cosmic treason of human rebellion against God.”

    That’s a handy way to explain why you can eat bacon and cheeseburgers and still say that I’m going to hell when I lie with a man. But I see no evidence that the ancient Israelite actually made that distinction. Exactly the same language is used for both.

  4. Steve S. says:

    Matt:

    I would note that the dietary laws were released in the NT. Looks at acts 11. God commands Peter to arise, kill and eat what were considered unclean animals. Peter initially refuses but God determines unclean are now allowable.

    Some of the laws were released. Others are still enforced.

    Cheers, Steve

  5. Karsten says:

    Matt,

    tell me, where did I voice anything in the direction that people go to hell because “they lie with a man”.
    To be frank, this kind of asserting things that were actually not said is disappointing.

    Regarding your point about the ancient Israelites: Of course they didn’t, they were not living in the 21st century, not even in the 1st century AD. They had no crystal balls to look into. When you read ancient texts from BC then please do not expect something that could only be written after the incaration.

  6. Alien and Stranger says:

    Anything that is more important to one than the Lordship of Jesus Christ is one’s god, because that is what rules over one’s life.
    While the Most High is loving and compassionate, he is also holy, righteous and just. Truth and justice are the foundation of his throne. He is “holy, holy, holy”. We are all sinners – we are contaminated by it from birth and therefore all under judgement, so we can never be sinless through our own efforts to be “good”. That is why only the sinless Son of God could be the perfect sacrifice, redeeming us slaves to sin. No ordinary man could do that. Self and self-will is at the heart of sin, which is disobedience or rebellion against our holy Creator. When we allow Jesus to be Lord of our lives, self and its desires are dethroned, and he then transforms us from the inside out. Jesus came to seek and save the lost, to set us free from all that keeps us in bondage to sin. However the choice is ours.

    John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

  7. Rev. Bryant J. Williams III says:

    Dear Kevin,

    CHRYS C. CARAGOUNIS has written a 126 page paper, Homoeroticism, that covers this topic. It is dated November 14, 2009. It gives the actual Greek text that mentions homosexuality. Here is the link
    http://www.chrys-caragounis.com/Popular.Scientific.Studies/Homoerotic.pdf. Also see the following link by Chys C. Caragounis, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/vox/vol27/attitude_caragounis.pdf.

  8. matt says:

    Karsten,

    > ” tell me, where did I voice anything in the direction that people go to hell because “they lie with a man’ ”.

    You said, “The examples you mentioned are mostly civil and ritual laws in Sinai covenant Israel (They were ordained for the public daily life under that covenant, but even then were applications like the famous divorce letters that the scribes discussed with Jesus). Once again, the categories are mixed here, for law-breaking with regard to those kind of laws and the cosmic treason of human rebellion against God are two different pair of shoes, though often related to each other.”

    I thought you were placing the old testament laws into two categories, one set like the dietary laws which no longer apply to us and another set of laws that represent a rebellion against god (including presumably the proscription against blaspheming, murder, and against homosexuality) that still apply today.

    Apparently I misunderstood you. Sorry about that.

    Do you think that being in a same sex relationship is a sin? Do you think that the wages of sin is death?

    So do you

  9. Cody says:

    Keep in mind Matt that Christians believe that the Bible is true and you do not. If you wish to change our opinions you should start from the bottom up by discrediting the Bible. Should be easy. People have written articles and entire books with that purpose. Of course the arguments you’d give would doubtless be one we’d heard elsewhere but it isn’t as if the arguments you’ve made so far have been original. Or you could get a life and stop whining in the comment sections of conservative Christian blogs. That is always an option.

  10. David Mapes says:

    Matt,

    Your crusade has proven to be a system of one rabbit trail after another.

    It seems to me that perhaps you are doing as Cody says, and therefore ought to either change your discussion, your method or comment on the blogs with which you already agree.

    You have ben at this steadily since Thursday as best as I can tell, and that would make this the FIFTH day. You are simply wearying, offering up the same things we’ve heard about a multiple of topics and issues, but making no headway towards the original point(s) from Kevin’s post.

    I will just bow out of the discussion, wearily, but neither angrily nor bitterly; my pearls belonging elsewhere.

    Maybe next time,

    David

  11. Curt Day says:

    David & Cody,
    It’s one thing to strongly disagree. But to say, ‘get a life’ or ‘Your crusade has proven to be a system of one rabbit trail after another’ is not a witness. I think Matt is speaking honestly and has questions I’ve read in other places. I know his questions to me were what others have asked. I don’t know if I answered them to his satisfaction, but note that he is not alone is asking the questions he has posted here.

  12. meredith nienhuis says:

    “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall. No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful and will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.” 1Corinthians10:12-13

    “Yield not to temptation, for yielding is sin. Each victory will help you some other to win; Fight manfully onward, dark passions subdue. Look ever to Jesus, He’ll carry you through.”
    “Ask the Savior to help you; comfort, strengthen and keep you. He is willing to aid you, He will carry you through.”
    Yield Not to Temptation by Horatio R. Palmer

    A Christian’s identity is in Christ alone.

  13. sam says:

    Matt, the bible tells us that our hearts are desperately wicked. While our conscience, moral intuition, and reasoning seems quite aright in our own eyes, God’s judgment (i.e. his assessment) is a straight counter to it. According to the bible, Idolatry is THE essence of evil. By nature, we do not love God or honor God, and it is no surprise that people scoff at the notion of infinite wrath of God, because they do not value God. When God himself will judge all men face to face, none shall be able to judge him or challenge his verdict of hell, because the holiness of God, i.e. his transcendent worth, will be visible to all.

  14. Cody says:

    Hey Curt Day. I definitely understand your feelings. I actually kind of expected my comment to be moderated since it seemed sort of rude. However I believe I was justified in what I said and so was David. In another discussion Matt admitted that he was commenting in order to vent his frustrations (having to do with his father) and that he was not here to edify anyone or receive edification. Also I’ve noticed that lately he has been commenting on all DeYoung’s posts dealing with homosexuality (most of which are addressed specifically to Christians,) and saying basically the same thing. “Kevin DeYoung believes people go to Hell! He’s mean! Waaaah!” There is a reason no one ever responds to those comments and engage with Matt only when he directly speaks to them. There are many people who believe the Christian views on Hell and homosexuality are wrong and evil and there is no reason why they shouldn’t comment here. But I think it is obvious that Matt is just here to vent and it’s legitimate to suggest he find something more productive to do with his time.

  15. Curt Day says:

    Cody,
    The key word is witness. And venting one’s frustrations does not imply dishonesty. In essence, has Matt met the same responses here that homosexuals meet where those who are either afraid of homosexuals dominate?

    As Conservative Christians, remembering I am also a political leftist, when in society, we should take off the authoritarian hats which we wear while with each other. Perhaps then we would listen more to others.

  16. Cody says:

    I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re saying. I haven’t even said whether or not I believe Matt and his partner are sinning. I can understand thinking my comment was snarky but I don’t see how it came across as frightened. I don’t think any of the other comments from anyone came across that way either.

  17. Brad Fenton says:

    Why aren’t Evangelicals equally passionate about divorce and remarriage? Jesus calls it adultery.

  18. Cody says:

    Brad Fenton are you asking that in order to get Christians more upset about divorce and remarriage or to get them less upset about homosexual union?

  19. Katrina says:

    Thank you, George. I feel your pain.

  20. “How can I reconcile my sexual orientation with what the bible says about same-sex relationships?”

    That’s a very good question. It is difficult to reconcile a thing with the bible, when the bible does not define the word gay. Mainstream society split the meaning of the word gay, which contains good and bad attributes empirically observed by the majority. The baby-boomers and their parents know this to be true, and they are aware of the 4 negative traits associated with the word gay, as used to identify effeminate males who:

    (1) performed criminal acts;
    (2) lewd and lascivious acts;
    (3) anti-social acts; and
    (4) anti-christian acts.

    Hence the dilemma: “Gay Christian” is a contradiction in terms, because of the anti-christian attribute-itself. And things have not changed. Gays are still behaving in at least one or more of the negative attributes. If you doubt this, simply attend a gay pride parade, and then visit a few of their bath houses and sex-club bars, or parks where they hook up and engage in public sex.

    Both God and Christ identified two different types of human beings within the bible. They accomplished this by teaching us the distinguished names for the different types of humans. “Saris [Aramaic & Hebrew)” or “eunuch [Greek]” for those humans that do not reproduce, and Men and Women for those who do reproduce. Isaiah 56:3 is God’s message to his Saris. The absolute truth of of God’s distinction between the two types is very clear.

    Matthew’s question is easily answered by God himself in Isaiah 56-3. So then how can a very young biblical scholar have missed that? Why is he using the word “gay”, instead of the Christian biblical word “eunuch”?

    Christ also spoke of this in much more detail in Matthew 19, most especially verses 11-12 in which he provides the distinction between the men and women (wives) who were given the path of man and wife, versus those saris who are not given the path of man and wife from birth, or made so from their mother’s womb.

    Simple conclusion: “Gays” are those born saris who have chosen to defy God’s purpose for them as outlined in Isaiah 56-3, and have chosen to follow their own path; not God’s path for them.

    Now for the big question: If one were able to provide copies of Isaiah 56-3 and Matthew 19 to all the LGBTQIA-XYZs out there, and they were able to comprehend the absolute truth of it, would they still maintain they were born gay, or would they accept their birth and role in society as a natural born saris?

    I cannot believe mainstream society would allow gays into the church because of their continued negative behaviors. I do believe, however, mainstream society would accept saris back into the church. Matthew has named his venture the reformation project. If he is trying to reform the church, he is in for a surprise. It is he, Matthew, that needs reformation.

    The scriptures in the old testament each describe “men who lie with men”, in one way or another. Matthew is claiming that he is a man, who has a sexual desire for other men. He has stood before the world and plead guilty to this biblical crime. He followed his admission to sin by stating his belief that the “statute of limitations” has run out, and therefore no Christian can prosecute him for his crimes. There is only one problem with this: Matthew isn’t a man. He was born saris, but thinks he is a man.

    Only a man can be held accountable by God and/or Christ for those divine laws specifically naming men. None of the scriptures Matthew has brought forth and plead guilty to claim any relevance towards God’s saris. A saris cannot be held accountable for those rules which distinctively written for men.

    In conclusion, if born saris are not men, then who are the “men who lie with men” that are described in the bible? Given Christ’s distinction in Matthew 19, a man is one who takes a wife, two become one, and let no man put asunder what God has brought together… Those scriptures are targeted at the men who marry a woman, have children, and hide behind them as they satisfy their lusts for other men behind the family’s back. These are the very same homosexuals the Republicans accused of destroying the family unit. And now we know why.

    Matthew has written his opinions in stone, and has distributed it in book form, and through seminars. His actions cannot be undone, as the books cannot be recalled. When people start waking up and reading the scriptures for themselves, he will be denounced as a false profit, and will be forgotten that way.

    All the gay has got to go.

  21. Im grateful for the blog article.Really thank you! Awesome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Kevin DeYoung photo

Kevin DeYoung


Kevin DeYoung is senior pastor of University Reformed Church (PCA) in East Lansing, Michigan, near Michigan State University. He and his wife Trisha have six young children. You can follow him on Twitter.

Kevin DeYoung's Books