Did past societies accept and condone homosexual relationships? This thorough study of homosexuality defines and answers today's questions using the Bible, Jewish intertestamental literature, and information from ancient cultures. homosexuality was generally accepted by the ancients, including Platohomosexuality was not the sin that doomed Sodomthe Old Testament honors the love of David and JonathanSince Jesus did not condemn same gender sexuality, we shouldn't eitherPaul's words about homosexuality were either uninformed or a rhetorical ploy to arouse Anti-Gentile sentimentNew Testament writers couldn't have conceived of today's mutual committed relationship
A new orthodoxy is being proclaimed in some church circles: "One can be a practicing homosexual and an authentic Christian." Basic to this position is the argument that ancient cultures and the Bible did not condemn homosexuality as a condition nor as a lifestyle. It asserted that:
Dr. James De Young interacts with the modern apologists for Christian and societal acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. He examines their positions honestly and answers them based on sound reasoning and a thorough review of the ancient source materials. Each chapter personalizes and illustrates its main points with a fictional story based on archaeological and literary evidence. Here is a gentle but unequivocal guide for all who want to face the homosexuality issue honestly.
Did past societies condone homosexuality? This thorough study answers those who revise the message of Scripture, by using the Bible, Jewish literature, and information from ancient cultures. It provides the knowledge necessary to respond with confidence, compassion, and honesty to demands that Christians accept active homosexuality.
DeYoung, who teaches New Testament at Western Seminary in Oregon, responds,
from a conservative Christian point of view, to the revisionist biblical
studies of John Boswell, Robin Scroggs, William Countryman and many others.
Unfortunately, while DeYoung displays no small acquaintance with both the
biblical material and the works of his principal opponents, his book is a
nearly impenetrable jumble of textual argument, theological and ethical
assertion and confused terminology. In striving for a comprehensive refutation
of Boswell et al., DeYoung has produced a volume that will be too technical for
all but the most dogged layperson, but one that will distress scholars of every
persuasion with its rhetorical and interpretive shortcuts. Many of his
critiques, especially those of Boswell's use of biblical and ancient material,
have merit and are echoed in other recent scholarship, but they are presented
with such disregard for scholarly protocol that they will not persuade the
unconvinced. Entirely missing is a central idea to compete effectively with the
lucid, if debatable, paradigms of the revisionists. DeYoung intersperses long
quotations from ancient sources that do little to focus the reader's attention;
more bizarre still, he indulges in brief, fictionalized narratives that
speculate on the experiences of such characters as Lot's wife, a Canaanite
temple prostitute and (strangest of all) a Luke Skywalker-like future
Christian. This book is all trees and no forest and should be avoided. (Apr.)
Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.