The Bible & LGBTQ Adventists: A Theological Conversation About Same-Sex Marriage, Gender, and Identity

Alicia Johnston.
N.P.: Affirmation Collective, 2022. 358 pp.
ISBN:978-1-68489-439-0.
USD 24.95.

The new book by Alicia Johnston, The Bible & LGBTQ Adventists, in fourteen chapters, plus an introduction, presents the case for affirming LGBTQ people within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Johnston takes the reader through her own personal journey, going from being a conservative Adventist pastor to becoming an LGBTQ-affirming, queer, former pastor. She recounts how, at age 30, while at seminary and studying for the ministry, she “fell in love with a woman” and struggled with how to relate to such strong feelings (p. 2). Throughout the book, she includes insights into her personal struggles as she comes to terms with who she believes God has created her to be. At appropriate junctures, Johnston also shares the stories of other LGBTQ persons. In this respect, the book is helpful in providing insight into the thinking of people that have often been mischaracterized and misunderstood. Another positive feature of the book is Johnston’s attempt to be fair in her description of both sides of this debate, labeling her view “affirming theology” and the official position of the church “accepted theology” (pp. 12–13). While mostly adhering to this practice, she also refers to the latter as “traditional theology” (p. 27).

Each chapter begins in a very disarming way with quotations that affirm the Adventist position, some of which Johnston has formulated and which she now takes issue with, along with a brief summary of what she used to believe on the topic. To her credit, she diligently attempts to be fair by including support for the church’s position from a variety of publications and statements by Adventist theologians. Johnston then explains why she no longer agrees with it. The approach is appealing and effective, drawing readers into a conversation that the author hopes will change their minds about what the Bible actually says about homosexuality and transgenderism. Her argumentation is detailed and draws on recent theological, historical, and psychological research to present a biblical and theological case affirming the LGBTQ lifestyle. Despite the author’s generally irenic tone, the book brooks no compromise. Anything short of full LGBTQ inclusion is repeatedly labeled harmful and dangerous. Johnston hopes for the day when those openly practicing the LGBTQ lifestyle can be welcomed as church members and fully integrated into church life, some even becoming “leaders and pastors” (p. 198).

Although the first chapter (“Is the Bible Clear?”) would seem to be where the main treatment of hermeneutics might be found, most of it deals with trying to persuade readers that the church hasn’t really given the topic a fair hearing and sharing the author’s own experience in coming to terms with a different way of interpreting the Bible. Johnston claims simply to be applying more consistently the hermeneutical principles she learned during her MDiv studies at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University: “In my conversion to affirming theology, every principle of interpretation I used was one I learned in seminary” (p. 24). Nevertheless, each chapter, in its consideration of key passages, attempts to dismantle the Adventist Bible-based method of interpretation. Rather than review the book chapter by chapter, we will identify some of its main arguments and focus attention on the most important issues. In the process, we will look more closely at what the Bible actually teaches, because the book itself, despite how it may appear to some readers, is less helpful in that respect.

Is Marriage Biblical or Cultural?

Johnston devotes a sizeable portion of the book to the Genesis creation account, its interpretation by Jesus in Matthew 19, and the concept of marriage more generally (pp. 35–135). She clearly recognizes her case stands or falls based on how we understand these crucial Bible chapters. But, rather than a careful study of them, Johnston takes a more combative approach, as if Adam were the model for all time: “All men were not required to live under the stars or work the land like Adam. So, can we be sure that all men are commanded to marry like Adam? We are inconsistent if some aspects of Adam’s life become rules and others don’t” (p. 39). Rather than inconsistency, Johnston seems not to appreciate fully the message of the creation account as a whole, based on how it unfolds.

Looking at the biblical account of Adam and Eve, Genesis 2 elaborates on the relatively brief description of human beings, both male and female, being created in God’s image (Gen 1:26–29).¹ This order is then followed in chapter 2: man is created first, then woman (Gen 2:7–17, 18–22; cf. 1 Tim 2:13).² Interestingly, twice it is said that the woman was to be “comparable” to the man (Gen 2:18, 20), one “who corresponds to him” (NET). The Hebrew word is kenegdo, which combines two ideas: like (ke) and opposite (neged). The same two ideas are mentioned by Adam in verse 23: “This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh [like him in being human]; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man [opposite in sex/gender].”³ Immediately after Adam speaks, the account goes on to say, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).⁴ This verse looks ahead, way beyond Eden, because Adam and Eve had not yet become parents. Its general terminology and outlook provide a definition of what marriage is to be going forward: a man leaves “his father and mother” (heterosexual, monogamous marriage) and is “joined to his wife” (another heterosexual, monogamous marriage). “This is . . . a comment of the narrator, applying the principles of the first marriage to every marriage.”⁵ It is not just a narrative description, but a definitive prescription for marriage.

So, although the text seems clear enough, Jesus has also given us a detailed interpretation of the passage in Matthew 19. Johnston tries to make this passage all about divorce (p. 92) because that is what the Pharisees asked Jesus about (Matt 19:3). But Jesus only addresses the issue of divorce when pressed for an answer (Matt 19:7–9). He does not answer the question initially because He first wants to clear up their misunderstanding about marriage:

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ [Gen 1:27] and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’ [Gen 2:24]? (Matt 19:4–5)

Jesus indicates marriage is between only “two,” excluding polygamy, and that it was not the narrator or even Moses but God Himself who defined marriage with the words of Genesis 2:24. This interpretation explains why Jesus went on to say, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:6, emphasis supplied).⁶ Christian weddings ask God’s blessing on the marriage. But how can He bless a marriage that goes directly against His divine directions for marriage in Scripture? By combining Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 and attributing them to the Creator, Jesus shows that marriage, from the beginning, was designed by God to be monogamous, heterosexual, and permanent because He is the one who joins man and woman together in marriage.

Johnston asserts that the phrase “one flesh” means kinship (pp. 108–109), but Jesus’ interpretation of the passage makes it clear the phrase refers to the union (physically, mentally, and spiritually) of the man and the woman in marriage: “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt 19:6). Johnston conflates the phrase “bone and flesh” with “one flesh,”⁷ but they are not the same. “One flesh” is never used of kinship in Scripture. Instead, wherever the phrase appears it always refers to union in marriage—specifically, a heterosexual union, and the implied covenant that that union involves (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5–6; Mark 10:8; 1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31). Regarding 1 Corinthians 6:16 specifically, one commentator has observed, “The assumption is that every sexual act between a man and woman, whether licit or not, fuses the partners together into one flesh. There is no such thing as casual sex that has no enduring consequences, even when the partners have no intention of forming a mutual attachment.”⁸

Rather than a biblical definition of marriage, Johnston offers a cultural one (pp. 118–119). But while marriage involves a civil aspect, the biblical concept of marriage is quite independent of prevailing practices in the surrounding culture. Society’s values frequently conflict with biblical values and, although marriage has tended for thousands of years to be a glorious exception to that tendency, that is increasingly no longer the case. Repeatedly Johnston refers to Adam and Eve as the model for marriage (pp. 116, 120, 121) and even admits they “are the typical, normative example of marriage” (p. 123). Then she expands the definition of marriage based on how it has functioned as a social institution (pp. 118–119). She also argues that, within Scripture, it has matured beyond what we see in Eden so that marriage has an “adaptive quality,” allowing room for “exceptions” while retaining “its core meaning” (pp. 123–124). Thus, she attempts to make room for same-gender marriage.

While it is true, as we have observed, that the Bible looks well beyond Eden in defining marriage, it also defines it as monogamous, heterosexual, and permanent.⁹ There are at least three essential reasons Scripture gives for this:¹⁰ (1) procreation (Gen 1:27–28)—giving birth to children who are brought up by their father and mother “in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Exod 20:12; Eph 6:4); (2) symbolizing God’s relationship to His people (Isa 54:5; Eph 5:22–33), thus communicating through this union “God’s story of creation and redemption”;¹¹ (3) companionship, which is how husband and wife, bound to each other in a “one flesh” union (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:28–33), model love to their children and to the wider community (1 Cor 13; 1 Thess 2:7; 1 John 4:7–8). These aspects are not (adequately) taken into consideration by Johnston.

Johnston also takes aim at gender roles, apparently suggesting that alleged exceptions in Scripture should disprove the rule (pp. 124–126). She rightly points out that during most of church history, gender roles mistakenly assumed the inferiority of women (pp. 126–127),¹² but connects this with the patriarchy she sees in the household codes of Peter and Paul (pp. 128–130): “Ample evidence indicates that these household codes speak to a specific cultural context that is vastly different than our own. They were doing what was right for their time and place.” She further argues, based on the instructions given to slaves and masters, “the same passages that told wives to submit to their husbands told enslaved people to submit to those who enslaved them” (p. 130). While the apostolic church couldn’t abolish Roman law permitting people to have slaves, they did apply principles based on the teachings of Jesus to these household relationships so that they were completely transformed, including husband-wife and master-slave relations. Hence Paul tells wives to “submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord,” but he also says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Eph 5:22, 25). He told Philemon to treat Onesimus, “no longer as a slave but more than a slave—a beloved brother” (Phlm 16).¹³ Within the church, members were to live according to biblical principles, and not merely in accordance with what may have been acceptable for the larger society and culture.

Are Biblical Laws Flexible?

In several more chapters, Johnston takes aim at the Adventist understanding of the law (pp. 137–224). In this she relies heavily on what Roy Gane calls “judicial deliberation” (pp. 144–147),¹⁴ though she acknowledges (correctly), “as a defender of the accepted theology, I’m sure he won’t agree with the use I’m making of his approach” (p. 144).¹⁵ She quotes twice in successive pages Gane’s assertion that, “while the letter of the law was important, it was to be sensitively and contextually applied in light of the spirit of the law as a whole, recognizing that no law code can explicitly account for all the complexities of human life.”¹⁶ Johnston interprets this to mean that “the laws are not to be applied inflexibly but flexibly. When problems arise, they are to be seen ‘as starting points for deliberation’” (p. 146).¹⁷ Thus, because “transgender people often suffer terribly if they don’t transition,” she claims that, “even if the plain meaning of the text forbids gender transition, deliberation leads us to different conclusions. For the sake of justice and love, it shouldn’t be applied that way to transgender people” (p. 146). She adds, “Gane takes a very high view of Scripture. . . . The difference in conclusions isn’t because I’m approaching the text in a liberal way, and Gane is approaching it in a conservative way. The problem is that conservatives haven’t been consistent on this topic” (p. 147). Actually, Johnston has not read Gane carefully on this issue. Gane only suggests flexibility is necessary in cases not covered by existing law. Otherwise, the law “stipulates obligatory norms, which carry penalties for violation to be carried out by the human community under the theocracy and/or by YHWH himself.”¹⁸ Those obligatory norms include prohibitions against same-sex relations: “homosexual activity is included in Lev. 18 and 20 among categorically forbidden sexual behaviors.”¹⁹ Judicial deliberation regarding a sexual offense would only be concerned with whether or not the violation occurred but would not involve any variation in the prescribed penalty.²⁰

Jesus’ Attitude Toward the Law

Johnston thinks Jesus was applying to new situations the principles of the law since He “was willing to modify the legal code (Matt. 5:38–48) while maintaining adamantly that He was not changing one iota of the law” (p. 148). She adds, “The Levitical law of an eye for an eye was not meant to be the final word. It improved the situation from what it had been, but it was not yet what it could be. Jesus saw what it could be. Jesus was teaching the ideal. Jesus was moving in a redemptive direction” (p. 150).²¹ Johnston understands Jesus’ application of the Torah’s moral principles, including the Ten Commandments, as a progressive step in this “redemptive direction.” But it was more than that. Jesus fulfilled the purpose of the law (cf. Matt 5:17) by establishing a universal messianic (i.e., new covenant) ethical framework. Thus He revealed the law’s deeper intent (Isa 42:21; cf. Ps 119:96) and that obedience extends to motives and thoughts of the heart (cf. Heb 4:12). Jesus did not abrogate Israel’s laws, as Gane points out: “When Jesus ruled out application of the lex talionis to personal vengeance (Matt. 5:38–39), he did not revoke it as a judicial penalty administered by a court, as it is in OT law.”²² Rather, He showed His followers their personal application.

Another example of redemptive movement given by Johnston is in connection with divorce. “Jesus modified divorce laws, making them stricter than Moses had. By doing this, Jesus moved the needle in a redemptive direction.” But Jesus was not modifying divorce law (see Deut 24:1); He was explaining the grounds for divorce (cf. Deut 5:32), defining the “uncleanness” (or “indecency,” ESV) mentioned in that passage as “sexual immorality” (Gk. porneia), which was a widely debated issue in first century Israel.²³

Transgenderism

Other applications in a modern setting are questionable, such as Deuteronomy 22:5, “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God.” She argues, “This verse could refer to half a dozen different scenarios that have nothing to do with gender identity” (p. 143). Later, she specifies some of these: it could have referred to “pagan rituals” or related to the same taboo that prohibited “using different seeds in the same vineyard, plowing by joining different animals together, and mixing fabrics” (p. 146, citing Deut 22:9–11). But there is no reason to think this law against cross-dressing is connected with pagan rituals since nothing else in the chapter suggests this.²⁴ Nor does it seem to have any connection to the other prohibitions Johnston mentions.²⁵ The mixing of seed, animals, or fabric have nothing to do with gender or gender confusion. So, as many commentators conclude, the most likely reason for the prohibition of crossdressing is that “this injunction seeks to preserve the order built into creation, specifically the fundamental distinction between male and female. For a person to wear anything associated with the opposite gender confuses one’s sexual identity and blurs established boundaries.”²⁶ Gane adds, “The biblical value is for men and women to wear apparel that pertains to their respective genders, apparently to avoid gender-identity confusion.”²⁷ Although biblical writers likely could not imagine the outward transformation of gender made possible today by pharmaceutical, surgical, and related interventions, the prohibition in principle undoubtedly applies to this more serious, and often permanent, twenty-first century blurring of gender distinctions as well.

What may be most surprising about Johnston’s contention in this regard is her criticism of Gane for assuming “the only valid anatomy is genitalia, not neurology” (p. 146). Seventh-day Adventists have always emphasized the wholistic nature of human beings. We don’t believe in a mind-body dualism.²⁸ The “Statement on Transgenderism,” voted by the 2017 Spring Meeting of the General Conference, affirms:

From a biblical perspective, the human being is a psychosomatic unity. . . . The Bible does not endorse dualism in the sense of a separation between one’s body and one’s sense of sexuality. . . . According to Scripture, our gender identity, as designed by God, is determined by our biological sex at birth (Gen 1:27; 5:1–2; Ps 139:13–14; Mark 10:6).²⁹

Biblically speaking, we cannot separate gender identity from our biological sex at birth as if it were a malleable part of human nature determined only by our mind (neurologically) and completely independent of our body. At the same time, it is important to point out that all human beings are affected by sin. No one is exempt from its effects, and it affects each individual in unique ways. As pointed out in the same document,

The fact that some individuals claim a gender identity incompatible with their biological sex reveals a serious dichotomy. This brokenness or distress, whether felt or not, is an expression of the damaging effects of sin on humans and may have a variety of causes. Although gender dysphoria is not intrinsically sinful, it may result in sinful choices.³⁰

Creation Laws and Restorative Laws

In discussing the verses in Leviticus relevant to LGBTQ issues (Lev 18:22; 20:13), Johnston appeals to the distinction between “creation laws” and “restorative laws”: “Restorative laws bring improvement; creation laws reflect God’s moral intention and the ultimate goal of restoration” (p. 151).³¹ In the former category, she seems to place “polygamy, slavery, and the legal dependence of women,” but adds, “it’s not always easy to tell the difference between creation law and redemptive law” (p. 156). She believes the laws in these passages are restorative because “no direct references to creation” and “no allusions or quotes from Genesis 1 and 2” appear (p. 156). Regarding Leviticus 18, Johnston counts twenty laws, fifteen of which are against incest. She counts them as restorative rather than creation laws because: (1) they do not “return the Israelite man to an exclusive relationship with one wife,” but allow sex with slaves, concubines, foreigners, and sex workers; (2) they do not prohibit polygamy but only set boundaries on it; (3) “more broadly, they were restrictions on the absolute power a patriarch exercised over those in his household”; 4) the procreation commanded Adam and Eve in the creation account (Gen 1:28) would have been impossible under these laws (p. 157). Of the five remaining laws, Johnston relates them to procreation (bestiality as not procreative and child sacrifice to Molech as destroying the progeny of procreation).³² She also argues that making these laws universal would prohibit sexual relations during a woman’s menstruation and any form of contraception (p. 158).

Regarding the laws against incest, Johnston overlooks that Paul relies on this legislation to unsparingly condemn the perpetrator in Corinth who has sexual relations with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1; cf. Lev 18:8) as well as homosexual relations (Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10).³³ We would not consider incest, bestiality, or child sacrifice as morally acceptable, so why would we exclude same-sex relations from this list of prohibitions? Furthermore, same-sex relations are condemned in the strongest possible terms as an “abomination” (toʿēḇāh) and the severest possible penalty is applied—being “cut off ” from the people of God (Lev 18:22, 29). It is also one of the few crimes for which Israel’s judicial system required the death penalty (Lev 20:13). Johnston’s complaint that there is no mention of creation in these verses is an argument from silence. Same-sex relations are categorically forbidden everywhere they are mentioned. Furthermore, from the unequivocal condemnation of same-sex relations in both the Old and New Testaments, there should be no doubt about the universal nature of this biblical prohibition. With regard to polygamy, it is hardly commended and, in fact, Mosaic regulations “mitigate some of its evil effects” (Exod 21:10–11; Lev 18:18; Deut 21:15–17).³⁴ In addition, according to Jesus, marriage was designed as a monogamous union (“the two shall become one flesh,” Matt 19:5).

The Jerusalem Council

A related argument made by Johnston involves the significance of the Jerusalem Council’s decision regarding the inclusion of Gentiles in Acts 15. She draws three parallels between Gentile believers and LGBTQ persons: (1) Gentiles were not excluded from fellowship simply because they were uncircumcised—to the contrary, they were affirmed. Similarly, the church should affirm the gender, sexual orientation, and relationships of LGBTQ people. “Behavior and identity can’t always be neatly separated” (p. 181). (2) Gentiles were generally looked upon as outsiders, sinners, and separated from God. Similarly, whether “subtle or overt,” there is an “othering” of LGBTQ persons, resulting in their being treated differently from other church members (pp. 181–183). (3) The theological position of the Jerusalem church that excluded Gentiles from fellowship “was grounded in Scripture and was the only viewpoint God’s people held for thousands of years” (p. 183). According to Johnston, only after the prejudice against including Gentiles was removed did the theology of Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews come about (p. 183). Similarly, Adventists need to learn how “to see gay, bisexual, and transgender people not as outsiders but as part of us,” in order to see the Scriptures clearly, not only intellectually but through Spirit-led “love and compassion” (p. 184).

Pushing this line of argument further (pp. 184–193), Johnston suggests the church places a burden on LGBTQ people that is too heavy to bear (cf. Matt 23:4; Acts 15:10). “It matters whether theology is bearable” (p. 189). LGBTQ people whose faith leads them to reject that lifestyle bear the cross of celibacy, according to Johnston’s perception of what the church expects, but it is not for everyone. It is “for those to whom ‘it has been given’ [Matt 19:11]” (p. 95). Thus, as she sees it, some are able to become inspiring examples to heterosexual church members, who need bear no such cross because they can marry, have children, and enjoy the approbation of the church (and, by implication, God); “the vast majority of the church that is straight and cisgender gets all the inspiration and none of the sacrifice” (p. 191). For many LGBTQ people, celibacy is a burden “packaged” as a cross: “Celibacy is no easier and no more possible for LGBTQ people than heterosexual people” (p. 192).

Johnston’s argument about celibacy ignores that this is not exclusively an LGBTQ issue. What about the many celibate heterosexual people, who for various reasons do not or cannot marry? What does Johnston’s view communicate to the many singles in our church to whom the gift of marriage has not yet “been given”? What message does this language communicate not just to LGBTQ people but to the whole church? Paul says the one “who does not marry . . . does better” (1 Cor 7:38) and widows will be “happier” if they do not remarry (v. 40). One reason for this is that the church is a spiritual family with God as our Heavenly Father and Jesus as our Elder Brother (Matt 12:50). Johnston’s argument is similar to the question asked of a former gay-identifying Adventist, “If we tell people they must leave LGBTQ+, won’t that mean they will have to live alone for the rest of their lives and feel depressed?” His answer? “I can assure you I have never been happier than in the last six years since becoming a Christian and leaving homosexuality behind. God is all I need, and my future is in His hands. He has given me many wonderful Christian friends and church family. I look forward to spending eternity with them.”³⁵ By the same token, the church has the privilege (and responsibility) to be that family for those struggling with LGBTQ feelings.³⁶

Johnston argues that just as “circumcision had no redemptive purpose,” to oppose same-sex marriage is to require “suffering with no purpose. . . . There is no real-world impact other than preserving the status quo and keeping most gay, bisexual, and transgender people out of churches” (p. 194). Disclosing her own inner turmoil, Johnston asserts, “My desires for women were not craven compulsions for sexual encounters. I wanted a life partner. . . . Why is this kind of love wicked? Why is it evil when two women choose to be life partners, but good if a woman and a man make the same choice?” (p. 195). Ultimately, Johnston came to see the LGBTQ debate as a power issue. Like Jesus and the apostles in their openness to Gentiles, she argues, “We need to tear down barriers that keep people from the gospel for no good reason, those that create division and harm among us” (p. 197). Johnston argues we need to change our beliefs “because they inform our actions” and hinder our ability to love (pp. 197–198). Alternatively, “we must learn to love despite our beliefs” even though “that’s not as it should be. Our Christianity should make us love better” (p. 199).

In reply to Johnston, love does not encourage the affirmation of sinful practices (which are harmful to those practicing them whether they realize it or not). In fact, the opposite is true. Love, biblically defined, demands that we not affirm sinful practices because they always harm people God loves, which is why they are forbidden. As Paul says, “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10); it does not contravene it.

Johnston’s contention regarding the Jerusalem Council does not withstand scrutiny. The Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:29) is based on the prohibitions in Leviticus 17 and 18 for the uncircumcised resident alien (Heb. gēr) and are even given in the same order.³⁷ Her argument also seems to rely on a particular interpretation of what the apostles actually decided. Some interpret the decree as bifurcating the early church: Jewish Christians could continue to circumcise their children and live as Jews, but Gentiles didn’t need to be circumcised and needed only to observe the four requirements the Council laid down. Similarly today, argues Johnston, cisgender people can continue to live a heterosexual lifestyle while LGBTQ people within the church can be allowed to live and enjoy committed marriage relationships in accordance with their orientation. But there are several problems with this argument. First, many understand the Jerusalem Council decree as setting the same standards for everyone, eliminating the requirement of circumcision for all believers, whether Jew or Gentile (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). But even if there were separate standards for believers, one of the four requirements of the Council was to “abstain from . . . sexual immorality” (Acts 15:20, 29), which would include the laws against same-sex relations (Lev 18:22; 20:13). This standard of sexual propriety is upheld throughout the New Testament, beginning with Jesus (Matt 15:19). In fact, the evidence is overwhelming (1 Cor 5:11; 6:9, 18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3, 5; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; 1 Tim 1:9–10; Heb 13:4; Rev 21:8; 22:15). “Whenever same-sex sexual relationships are mentioned in Scripture, they are always prohibited.”³⁸ Second, God has never promised marriage and sexual fulfillment to all believers. “Imbibing certain cultural beliefs—sex is a need, and I’ll be miserable if I don’t get married—will make singleness or any sort of ‘no’ to sexual desires seem impossible.”³⁹

Often, the problem comes down to our understanding of “love.” Although contemporary culture almost makes love synonymous with sex, the Bible speaks about love in much broader terms and only very rarely in terms of sexual relations, though it does describe that too. From Genesis to Revelation, it describes godly love as centered around giving rather than getting, treating others as we would want to be treated, loving the right and hating the wrong, unquenchable, unwavering, undying. Most of all, the Bible describes God loving humanity with an everlasting love, unwilling that any should perish, and desiring that everyone come to know the truth.⁴⁰

Is Homosexuality Condemned by Paul?

Several chapters of the book address passages in the Pauline Epistles that throughout church history have been understood as condemning homosexuality. Johnston begins by pointing out that the term “homosexuals” did not appear in English Bibles until the Revised Standard Version (RSV) employed it in 1946 to translate the word arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (pp. 228–229) and she is unsure of what it means here (p. 231).⁴¹ She asserts that the related word preceding it (malakoi, “soft”) refers not to sexual relations but, more broadly, to effeminate men (pp. 236–237)⁴² and attributes the language to Roman same-sex eroticism, which she says was characterized “by institutionalized dominance and power” and “rooted in misogyny” (p. 240). Without question, relationships based on sexual domination were common in Rome but they were by no means the only ones. Some same-sex relationships were mutual and consensual,⁴³ and Paul would not distinguish these because Scripture does not distinguish them, but rather categorically and unequivocally condemns them (Lev 18:22; 20:13).⁴⁴

Regarding the meaning of these two Greek words Paul uses, the word arsenokoitai literally means “bedding [i.e., having sexual intercourse] with males” and is so translated in most modern English translations of the verse: “those who participate in homosexuality” (AMP), “participants in same-sex intercourse” (CEB), “homosexuals” (ISV, JUB, LSB, MEV, NAS95, WEB), “sodomites” (NCB, NKJV, NRSV, YLT), “practicing homosexuals” (NET), “people who do sex sins with their own sex” (NLV), “those who . . . practice homosexuality” (NLT). Even the fourteenth-century Wycliffe translation is quaint but clear: “they that do lechery with men.” Therefore, it is demonstrably not the case that understanding the verse in reference to homosexual practice was introduced by the RSV. There is a widespread consensus among interpreters that Paul (or, perhaps, a Hellenistic Jew) coined the word arsenokoitai based on Leviticus 20:13 (LXX, arsenos koitēn).⁴⁵ The Hebrew text says quite directly, “If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” Since Paul had already used the exact language of this passage in condemning the man who had sexual relations with his father’s wife (1 Cor 5:1; cf. Lev 20:11),⁴⁶ it should be no surprise that he employs terminology from two verses later in that same passage. In addition, it is important to point out that this term cannot be considered in isolation since it is linked with the term preceding it—malakoi (lit., “soft/effeminate men”). Taken together, arsenokoitai and malakoi refer respectively to the active and passive partners in a homosexual relationship.⁴⁷ Confirming this observation is Paul’s references in the same verse to “fornicators” and “adulterers,” both of which refer to consensual, but sinful, heterosexual relationships. There is no indication in this or other relevant passages (Rom 1:24– 27; 1 Tim 1:10) that the sexual relations referred to are limited to those who are coerced.⁴⁸ Furthermore, if Paul refers to both active and passive homosexual partners, the text cannot be limited to coercion; such an argument would make no sense.

The most extensive Pauline critique of same-sex relations appears in Romans 1:18–32. Johnston restricts the lesson Gentiles were to understand from creation, summarizing it as, “there is a God who made the world” (p. 251); their rejection of this fact resulted in “destructive sexual behavior” (p. 252). She thereby eliminates consensual, faithful same-sex relationships from consideration. Paul’s reference to nature, according to Johnston, is an appeal to “what makes sense,” especially as it pertains to one’s “personal conviction” which can change over time (pp. 259–260). Johnston attempts to illustrate this by appealing to Paul’s argument from nature in 1 Corinthians 11 that women should wear head coverings (pp. 257– 259). Based on her understanding of the Roman concept of masculinity and self-control, Johnston describes Paul’s argument in Romans 1 as follows: “‘Natural’ sex is controlled, follows rules of dominance and submission, and is never mutual. ‘Unnatural’ sex is uncontrolled, burning with lust, destructive, and mutual” (p. 274). In contrast to “the mutuality of love” that exists today between same-sex couples, what Paul condemns is the “mutual desire to exploit one another” (p. 277). Thus, his underlying argument, she asserts, is a cultural one, “much like assuming long hair was shameful on men because of what it signified. Paul moved with the cultural values in both cases, making arguments based on the underlying moral reasoning. . . . But he didn’t describe gay people who were asking for the blessing of marriage. He didn’t describe mutual love, commitment, and sacrifice” (p. 278; cf. 286).

Regarding Paul’s reference to same-sex relations between women, Johnston is aware that dominance and exploitation seems to have been absent, so she suggests it refers to “non-vaginal sex fueled by destructive lust” (p. 279). She then argues, “It would be strange for Paul to describe women having unnatural sex and not at least in part be referring to non-vaginal sexual practices with men, practices intended to experience sexual pleasure without risking pregnancy.” From this premise, Johnston concludes that those who want a universal interpretation of the passage should be consistent: “Married heterosexuals should never engage in sexual behavior that isn’t vaginal sex. . . . Consistency demands heterosexuals who oppose same-sex marriage at least wrestle with the implication that birth control and non-vaginal sex is off-limits for heterosexuals” (p. 279). But there is no hint that Paul is referring to women having sex with men in Romans 1:26, non-vaginal or otherwise. Johnston is misinterpreting what Paul means by women exchanging the “natural use” or “natural relations” (ESV) “for what is against nature,” as we shall see.

Johnston further argues that, in Romans 1, Paul doesn’t just condemn same-sex practice but the evil desires themselves resulting from idolatry, whereas in Romans 2, “Paul describes ‘good’ Gentiles as having pure desires and hearts (Rom. 2:12–16). . . . He doesn’t describe people with desires that were no fault of their own. . . . Paul also makes no separation between desire and action” (p. 283). In other words, she argues, Romans makes no distinction between same-sex orientation and same-sex practice. Therefore, “there isn’t any advice in this passage about what Christians should do should they find themselves doing their best to follow God, yet also wanting a life partner of the same gender” (p. 284).

In response to this interpretation of Romans 1 and 2, several observations are important. First, while it is true that most Gentiles were ignorant of the Genesis creation account, Paul’s argument in this passage is not based on that but on what Gentiles should know—God’s existence and power as manifest through what He has made and how He has made it. But, rather than recognize this, they have suppressed the truth and turned to idols (Rom 1:18–23), which ultimately leads to the moral breakdown of society and of healthy human relations (Rom 1:24–32). Having rejected the truth, God gives them up to impurity (akatharsia) and lust (pathos), terms frequently used by Paul of sexual sin (2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:5, 7).⁴⁹ Their rejection of the facts of creation results in distorted views of sexuality (Rom 1:26–27). Women “exchanged” or substituted⁵⁰ “natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26, ESV), and men did “likewise,” by abandoning⁵¹ “natural relations with women” (Rom 1:28, ESV). Paul reasons along lines similar to that of many Greco-Roman writers: same-sex sexual relationships are “against nature” (para physin) because the complementary design of the male and the female sex has fitted them biologically for each other.⁵² There is no hint of domination or coercion in these relations, contrary to what Johnston asserts. Quite the opposite seems to be the case—they appear to be mutual, consensual, and pleasurable.⁵³

There is no need to resort to a cultural interpretation of the passage, either in Romans 1 or in 1 Corinthians 11. Although in both passages Paul appeals to creation, unlike the Gentiles referred to in Romans 1, the Corinthian believers are expected to be very familiar with the creation account of Genesis 1 and 2. God created human beings in His image to reflect His glory (Gen 1:26–28). This first comes to fruition in the creation of the man (Gen 2:7–17), while the creation of the woman “from man” and “for the man” is his counterpart without which God’s creation would not be complete (1 Cor 11:7–9; cf. Gen 2:18–24). She is similar, yet different, a fact of creation that is to be symbolized in the way man and woman relate to God in worship, with the woman’s longer hair given her by God as a covering (1 Cor 11:15). Paul’s wording in this passage “underscores the underlying principle that both men and women are to preserve the male-female gender distinction by their outward appearance and decorum in worship (cf. Deut 22:5).”⁵⁴ Paul’s description of what is honorable or shameful is based on how one relates to God and His creation, rather than to what the culture may deem appropriate or inappropriate (which clarifies the allusion to angelic worship in 1 Cor 11:10; cf. Isa 6:2–3). Thus, both Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11 revolve around how people relate to God and His creation, which is revealed by whether their actions are in harmony with His will. Johnston’s cultural reading of both passages, while convenient for dismissing their universal application, misunderstands what they have in common and why they differ.

In fact, it is this consistent cultural reading throughout the book that results in distorted interpretations of the passages considered, which in turn lead to conclusions that are unreliable, as illustrated by the last main chapter of the book. Johnston asks an important question: “How do we move forward to make consequential moral decisions in areas not directly addressed in the Bible?” (p. 290). Unfortunately, the answer she gives misses the mark. Claiming the Bible is silent about same-sex marriage and gender transitioning (p. 292; cf. 300), she argues against “literalistic interpretations” that, historically, have resulted in the church being on the wrong side “again and again” and having to change its view “on many topics,” including cosmology, gender roles, anti-Semitism, and slavery (pp. 293–294). This last issue, in particular, is singled out as an example of “the trajectory approach to Scripture. The Bible constantly moved away from slavery and toward abolition.” But, Johnston argues, “the explanation I loved so much doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny” (p. 295). With regard to slavery, “Israel was better in some ways but worse in others” and “the New Testament brought no improvement to the Hebrew Bible.” In fact, she argues, slavery “was even expanded. . . . Christians enslaved one another in perpetuity” (p. 295). “Never was slavery categorically immoral” (p. 298). Johnston argues that it was only through the adoption of a broader hermeneutic that Christians became abolitionists—based on “universal human value and the Golden Rule” (p. 302, cf. 307), as well as “the highest Christian principle of love,” citing Matthew 22:40 (p. 309). Love, she argues, doesn’t compromise the law but clarifies it (p. 318). “Love is love” (p. 319).

While it is widely agreed that the principles of human value and dignity, the Golden Rule, and God’s character of love are central to the message of the Bible, the question, as Johnston has accurately articulated it, is how to apply these principles “to make consequential moral decisions in areas not directly addressed in the Bible” (p. 290). Clearly, these values are exemplified in the life of Jesus. He was criticized for welcoming “tax collectors and sinners” and having table fellowship with them (Luke 5:30). But, rather than defending them as innocent, He described them as “sick” and in “need of a physician,” saying, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Luke 5:31–32). Jesus also faced the accusers of the woman caught in adultery and defended her, but said to the woman, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Jesus consistently upheld the validity of the law and the inviolability of the Scriptures. He never relativized them or modified them but clarified them in order to show their continuing and universal applicability. Johnston clearly wrestles with the Bible text but the interpretative method she uses and the conclusions she draws as a result ultimately undermine its integrity, relativize its continuing authority, and radically alter its applicability to the present day. The book illustrates well that, in order to find support in Scripture for an LGBTQ lifestyle, major adjustments must be made as to how we read the Bible.

The book closes with a rather selective historical sketch of how the church has dealt with LGBTQ issues (pp. 322–326) and the “institutional barriers” that prevent Adventists, particularly those employed by the church, from fully affirming LGBTQ persons (pp. 326–329). She concludes with an appeal to various groups within the church to fight for change, especially church members, because “power ultimately comes from members who change rules and change officers in their conference constituency meetings” (p. 330). She suggests church members use her book’s thirteen chapters for Sabbath School classes, ask their pastors to read it, share it with friends and family, “ask LGBTQ people to share their stories,” and utilize social media to “spread the word” (pp. 330–331). She reassures readers, “No matter how vocal you are, you’re unlikely to lose church membership. Recognize your freedom and be bold” (p. 331). To church employees, including pastors and teachers, she encourages them to “work as quiet allies.” Interestingly, she says, “I used to feel conflicted about anyone who was affirming [of LGBTQ people] and working for the Adventist system despite seeing the harm done. How can they support a system that causes so much pain.” But she came to the conclusion that “pastors, administrators, and university professors” are helping make the church “much safer” (p. 332). Some pastors, she says, “just have to do that baptism, perform that marriage, or speak out about affirming theology so that it can’t be ignored” (p. 333). She concludes the book the way she began, sharing more details about her personal journey in hopes it will be of encouragement to other LGBTQ people and their families in the church who struggle with what to do (pp. 333–338).

Summary

This book presents an unapologetic case for full LGBTQ inclusion—not only as church members, but as leaders and pastors. It labels the present Adventist position harmful and dangerous. The book’s interpretation of the Bible passages relies on a cultural hermeneutic that prioritizes experience and scientific findings over Scripture. Genesis 2:24 defines what God designed marriage to be: heterosexual, monogamous, and permanent (cf. Matt 19:4–6). The biblical references to “one flesh” mean more than kinship; they always point to a heterosexual union and the marriage covenant implied by that union. In place of the biblical understanding of marriage which is independent of time and culture, this book offers a purely cultural definition. According to Scripture marriage has three purposes: (1) procreation, (2) symbolizing God’s relationship to His people, and (3) companionship. But same-sex marriage at best can only fulfill one of the three.

Whenever the Old and New Testaments mention same-sex relations, there is no hint that coercion is involved; they are always unequivocally condemned. In Leviticus, the immediate context also forbids incest, bestiality, and child sacrifice (Lev 18:6–23), the universal applicability of which is not in doubt, so why should its prohibitions against same-sex relations be any different? In fact, the severest possible penalty is applied to all these offenses, and they are among the few crimes for which the death penalty was required. Same-sex relations are “against nature” because the complementary design of male and female has biologically fitted them for each other. Although the book suggests Paul’s condemnation of homosexual practice should be read in connection with the misogyny and sexual domination so common in Rome, mutual and consensual same-sex relationships were not uncommon; nor would Paul need to qualify his condemnation of the practice because Scripture univocally condemns them. Rather, Paul classes those involved with same-sex relationships with those engaging in sinful heterosexual relationships (1 Cor 6:10). Regarding transgenderism, the biblical prohibition of cross-dressing to preserve gender distinction and prevent the blurring of boundaries is also clear (Deut 22:5). According to Scripture, gender identity is the same as one’s biological sex (Gen 1:27; 2:23–24). Gender dysphoria, while not in itself sinful, is a manifestation of the effects of sin and may lead to sinful choices. Love, biblically defined, cannot affirm sinful practices because they are always harmful. That is why they are forbidden. As Paul says, “love is the fulfillment of the law” (Rom 13:10); it does not contravene it.

Concluding Remarks

The book is challenging because it takes positions at odds with clear biblical statements and also with several Adventist fundamental beliefs.⁵⁵ Despite the positions it takes, the book’s approach is surprisingly disarming, because it appears Johnston has tried to be fair. This is, no doubt, due to her having previously held the biblical views with which she now disagrees. The main difference between her views and the Adventist position appears to be the result of employing a different hermeneutical method and to what extent those methods are being consistently and reliably employed. Her use of a cultural hermeneutic and the notion of a trajectory that extends beyond Scripture are methods that are out of harmony with a strict, Bible-based approach.

Even if Johnston is correct in her claim to be applying more consistently the “redemptive-movement hermeneutic,”⁵⁶ the scriptural criteria this method employs, as one researcher has trenchantly observed, “is only as persuasive as the exegesis of all the other texts relating to the issue debated.”⁵⁷ As we have seen in the course of this review, at many points Johnston’s interpretations fail to persuade, distorted as they are by her use of a cultural hermeneutic. Consequently, many of the conclusions she draws from the texts she examines are questionable, to say the least, and often unreliable. An even more serious problem with the method employed is its undermining of the Bible’s continuing relevance and authority by relativizing its message at crucial points as culturally conditioned and thereby excluding many passages of Scripture from speaking to current issues.

One valuable contribution the book makes is its transparency on many fronts, enabling readers to understand the struggles Johnston and others experience on the path to “coming out” publicly as an LGBTQ person.⁵⁸ It is important for all of us, however, to realize that when we start our investigation with the moving experiences of people and only then approach the Bible, it will quickly lead to biblical reinterpretations in order to legitimize such experiences. As Seventh-day Adventists we need to start with a careful and faithful investigation of the biblical text and from there shed light on how to deal with such challenging questions.⁵⁹ Church members, and particularly Adventist pastors and administrators, need to be aware not only of the issues this book raises but also should know its hermeneutical deficiencies and should understand how to respond to hermeneutical reinterpretations such as are presented in this book. It is hoped that this review will contribute to a better understanding in that regard.