What do you think?
Rate this book
Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships
WHEN IT COMES TO SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS, this book by Karen Keen contains the most thoughtful, balanced, biblically grounded discussion you’re likely to encounter anywhere. With pastoral sensitivity and respect for biblical authority, Keen breaks through current stalemates in the debate surrounding faith and sexual identity. The fresh, evenhanded reevaluation of Scripture, Christian tradition, theology, and science in Keen’s Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships will appeal to both traditionalist and progressive church leaders and parishioners, students of ethics and biblical studies, and gay and lesbian people who often feel painfully torn between faith and sexuality.
160 pages, Paperback
Published October 11, 2018
93 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Karen R. Keen
5 books22 followersKaren R. Keen is a biblical scholar, author, and spiritual care provider at The Redwood Center for Spiritual Care and Education. She has taught in both academic and church settings. Her passion is making scholarship accessible to a broad audience. She believes that loving God with our whole mind (as well as our heart) is crucial for the Christian life and the common good. Keen earned her Th.M. in biblical studies from Duke University, M.A. in exegetical theology from Western Seminary, and M.S. in education (counseling) from Western Oregon University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews
January 27, 2019
This is another book attempting to argue that the church should permit same-sex relationships. However, the author, Karen Keen, has crafted a somewhat unique argument. The standard pro-gay argument for the morality of same-sex relationships goes something like this. First, the verses in the OT (Lev 18:22; 20:13) and NT (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10) explicitly condemning same-sex relations are addressed. It is argued (e.g., by Robin Scroggs) that these verses are attacking a specific form of same-sex activity such as pederasty, where an older male is sexually involved with a teenage boy, and this form of same-sex activity is abusive and non-mutual. Second, modern committed and exclusive same-sex relationships aren’t pederastic, don’t involve an age differential, and aren’t abusive and non-mutual. Therefore, modern same-sex relationships escape biblical condemnation. In the end, the Bible simply has nothing to say about them and therefore they are morally acceptable.
The problem with this standard pro-gay argument is twofold. First, the first premise is simply not true. It is not the case that the biblical condemnation of same-sex activity is limited to pederastic abuse and not to same-sex activity per se. Many books have been written countering this first premise. The most obvious problem with it is that ancient lesbianism was not abusive or non-mutual, and yet Paul condemns it along with male homosexual activity in Romans 1:26-27. There is no way around the fact that Paul’s objection to homosexual activity (whether male-male or female-female) is that it is contrary to nature.
But more importantly, there is a second problem with the standard pro-gay argument: it totally misses the deeper biblical theological objection to same-sex relationships. Even if the specific OT and NT verses condemning same-sex activity did not exist, traditionalists would still have a fundamental problem with same-sex relationships. The problem is that the Bible clearly teaches that sex is only morally acceptable within the one-flesh marriage union of a man and a woman (Gen 1:27; 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). Gender complementarity of male and female is essential to the definition of marriage. And since the only kind of sexual activity that is moral and approved by God is heterosexual sex within marriage, any sex outside of marriage is sinful and morally condemned in Scripture. The paradigm of the male-female marital union is deeply rooted in the creation narrative. It is further cemented in the biblical narrative as it progresses after creation, for the Bible uses the marriage metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ and the church both in redemption (Eph 5:22-33) and consummation (Rev 19:6-10; 21:2, 9). The church cannot change its position on the morality of same-sex relationships without tearing apart the whole fabric of the biblical worldview from creation to consummation. It isn’t just a minor tinkering around the edges.
This book is superior to many others in its genre because it attempts to address the second concern of traditionalists (the deeper theological concern about the male-female marital union) more than the first (the exegetical debate over the verses about same-sex activity). This sets Keen’s book apart and makes it better than most. There are many subpoints to her argument, but basically it boils down to this. She appeals to the nature of biblical law as a non-legalistic set of case laws that intends to promote a good and just society. The Bible itself periodically updates its laws and reapplies them in new situations in ways that were not originally envisioned, in order to take account of human need and suffering, while still upholding the original intent. For example, the author of Deuteronomy 15 updated the slavery laws in Exodus 21. (Keen holds to a non-Mosaic theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch, so these would have been different authors in her view.)
Keen writes: “The biblical authors understood the nature and function of revelation in a way that is different from what many of us have been taught in our churches. They did not view it as inflexible and impervious. Rather, they understood that laws need to be interpreted with discernment, not blindly applied without regard for context. The intent of the original statute was to provide certain protections for slaves; the adapted law enhances that objective by expressing greater care for the people involved” (p. 61).
She sees something similar going on in Scripture with regard to marriage and divorce. Jesus himself said that divorce and remarriage is absolutely forbidden (Mark 10:11-12), but Matthew adapted the teaching of Jesus by adding an exception clause (“except for sexual immorality,” Matt 19:9; cp. 5:32). Later, a new problem arose: what about when a believing spouse is abandoned by an unbeliever? So Paul added yet another exception and permitted divorce in such cases (1 Cor 7:12-16). The later exceptions were added out of humanitarian concern to alleviate human suffering.
Now it might be argued that this is all well and good when we are talking about case laws pertaining to slavery or divorce. It isn’t totally surprising that we would see the biblical case law on such matters being adapted to new situations. But surely sexual morality is in a different category. Surely it is more deeply rooted in the moral law which cannot be adapted or modified. It is always wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc., and no new situation or humanitarian concern can ever permit some sort of accommodation or exception or adaptation. But, Keen argues, that is not the case: even creation ordinances can be adapted. As proof she brings up the Sabbath, which is clearly a creation ordinance, and yet one that Jesus adapted and made humanitarian exceptions for in the Gospels.
Where Keen is going with this is obvious. We have a pressing human need that should shape the application of the law. Same-sex attracted Christians did not choose their condition. Very few are able to change their orientation. Mixed-orientation marriage is an option only for a few. If the church insists they must remain celibate, the church is thereby heartlessly condemning them to life-long singleness and loneliness, a soul-crushing situation that often leads to depression and suicide. Therefore, the creation ordinance of heterosexual marriage should not be elevated to the level of an absolute but must be subjected to a deliberative process where the rigidity of the law is accommodated to a pressing human need. The creation ordinance of marriage should be adapted to include same-sex relationships. The church should allow covenanted same-sex relationships.
She writes: “I came to a greater understanding of how biblical mandates function. I learned that laws in and of themselves do not automatically fulfill the will of God. Biblical mandates are only meaningful in their particularities if they achieve the purpose to which they point: love of God and neighbor. I also learned that the biblical authors and Jesus did not blindly apply mandates. They engaged in a deliberative process even for creation ordinances. They affirmed the truth of creation ordinances like Sabbath and made room for cases that didn’t fit the box” (p. 112).
The fact that Paul said, “It is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor 7:9), suggests that Paul would recognize the difficulty that same-sex attracted Christians are in if they can’t change their orientation and don’t have the gift of celibacy. It is very difficult to live a totally sex-free life. Even among straight Christians, there is a high percentage of extramarital sex going on. So it is better if the church makes an accommodation to human weakness and suffering and allows same-sex attracted Christians to deal responsibly with their sexual needs by entering into committed, covenanted same-sex relationships.
There are other sub-arguments and exegetical details, but that is the heart of Keen’s argument. Now I’d like to respond briefly. I think the best way to do that is to observe that she seems to lack the courage of her convictions. What I mean is that she doesn’t refer to committed, covenanted same-sex relationships as “marriages.” That is a real puzzle. According to the logic of her argument, she ought to use the word. It is not as though Matthew intended to say: “The church will make an accommodation to those who divorce and remarry after they have been sinned against by an unfaithful spouse, but technically they are still committing adultery.” No, Matthew’s exception clause means that a person who divorces their spouse for being unfaithful is free to remarry and is not committing adultery. (I don’t actually agree that the exception clause was added by Matthew and not original with Jesus, but for the sake of the argument, I’ll go along with it.) Following the logic of the argument, the adapted ordinance of marriage would not be: “Same-sex attracted Christians who enter into a committed same-sex relationship are technically living in sin, but we’ll make an accommodation to a difficult situation, recognizing that it is better to be in a covenanted same-sex relationship than to burn with lust.” Rather, the argument Keen should make is: “The creation ordinance of marriage was originally intended to be an opposite-sex relationship, but now in light of our greater knowledge that sexual orientation is unchosen and extremely difficult to change, we’ll adapt the creation ordinance of marriage to extend it to two people regardless of their gender.”
This conclusion is more radical than hers, but it is the logical resting point based on the structure of her argument. This can be seen early on when she argues that the reason the OT speaks of marriage as male-female is because of the importance of procreation, and procreation was the way the OT saints looked forward to some sort of life after death. But now in the NT we have the hope of real life after death, and so procreation isn’t as important. Therefore, the male-female complementarity aspect of marriage is an accidental feature. The true essence of marriage is covenant fidelity of two persons. “Loyal, covenanted love, not sexual differentiation, [is] the primary foundation of marriage” (p. 41). Keen has no reason to refrain from arguing that the church ought to embrace total marriage equality.
But why stop there? In reality, there is no logical limit to Keen’s moral reasoning. If the moral law and the creation ordinance of marriage can be adapted in light of pressing human need and suffering, why stop at removing sexual differentiation from the definition of marriage? A claim of pressing human need and suffering can be made by other sexual minorities excluded from the biblical mandate confining sex to heterosexual marriage. There is no end to those claiming victim status. It is not only gay people who have been marginalized and oppressed by the church’s heterosexual cisnormativity. Men who are attracted to teenage boys, bisexuals who desire to fulfill both their same-sex and their opposite-sex attractions, those who desire sex within close degrees of consanguinity, polyamory, polygamy, and on it goes. If they aren’t already doing so, these groups will also demand that biblical moral law be subjected to Keen’s “discernment process,” and she will have no basis for denying them the opportunity.
At the end of the day, this book is another failed attempt to make a so-called biblical argument for ecclesiastical acceptance of same-sex relationships. It simply can’t be done without exploding the narrative unity of the biblical worldview.
The problem with this standard pro-gay argument is twofold. First, the first premise is simply not true. It is not the case that the biblical condemnation of same-sex activity is limited to pederastic abuse and not to same-sex activity per se. Many books have been written countering this first premise. The most obvious problem with it is that ancient lesbianism was not abusive or non-mutual, and yet Paul condemns it along with male homosexual activity in Romans 1:26-27. There is no way around the fact that Paul’s objection to homosexual activity (whether male-male or female-female) is that it is contrary to nature.
But more importantly, there is a second problem with the standard pro-gay argument: it totally misses the deeper biblical theological objection to same-sex relationships. Even if the specific OT and NT verses condemning same-sex activity did not exist, traditionalists would still have a fundamental problem with same-sex relationships. The problem is that the Bible clearly teaches that sex is only morally acceptable within the one-flesh marriage union of a man and a woman (Gen 1:27; 2:24; Matt 19:4-6). Gender complementarity of male and female is essential to the definition of marriage. And since the only kind of sexual activity that is moral and approved by God is heterosexual sex within marriage, any sex outside of marriage is sinful and morally condemned in Scripture. The paradigm of the male-female marital union is deeply rooted in the creation narrative. It is further cemented in the biblical narrative as it progresses after creation, for the Bible uses the marriage metaphor to describe the relationship between Christ and the church both in redemption (Eph 5:22-33) and consummation (Rev 19:6-10; 21:2, 9). The church cannot change its position on the morality of same-sex relationships without tearing apart the whole fabric of the biblical worldview from creation to consummation. It isn’t just a minor tinkering around the edges.
This book is superior to many others in its genre because it attempts to address the second concern of traditionalists (the deeper theological concern about the male-female marital union) more than the first (the exegetical debate over the verses about same-sex activity). This sets Keen’s book apart and makes it better than most. There are many subpoints to her argument, but basically it boils down to this. She appeals to the nature of biblical law as a non-legalistic set of case laws that intends to promote a good and just society. The Bible itself periodically updates its laws and reapplies them in new situations in ways that were not originally envisioned, in order to take account of human need and suffering, while still upholding the original intent. For example, the author of Deuteronomy 15 updated the slavery laws in Exodus 21. (Keen holds to a non-Mosaic theory of the authorship of the Pentateuch, so these would have been different authors in her view.)
Keen writes: “The biblical authors understood the nature and function of revelation in a way that is different from what many of us have been taught in our churches. They did not view it as inflexible and impervious. Rather, they understood that laws need to be interpreted with discernment, not blindly applied without regard for context. The intent of the original statute was to provide certain protections for slaves; the adapted law enhances that objective by expressing greater care for the people involved” (p. 61).
She sees something similar going on in Scripture with regard to marriage and divorce. Jesus himself said that divorce and remarriage is absolutely forbidden (Mark 10:11-12), but Matthew adapted the teaching of Jesus by adding an exception clause (“except for sexual immorality,” Matt 19:9; cp. 5:32). Later, a new problem arose: what about when a believing spouse is abandoned by an unbeliever? So Paul added yet another exception and permitted divorce in such cases (1 Cor 7:12-16). The later exceptions were added out of humanitarian concern to alleviate human suffering.
Now it might be argued that this is all well and good when we are talking about case laws pertaining to slavery or divorce. It isn’t totally surprising that we would see the biblical case law on such matters being adapted to new situations. But surely sexual morality is in a different category. Surely it is more deeply rooted in the moral law which cannot be adapted or modified. It is always wrong to murder, steal, commit adultery, etc., and no new situation or humanitarian concern can ever permit some sort of accommodation or exception or adaptation. But, Keen argues, that is not the case: even creation ordinances can be adapted. As proof she brings up the Sabbath, which is clearly a creation ordinance, and yet one that Jesus adapted and made humanitarian exceptions for in the Gospels.
Where Keen is going with this is obvious. We have a pressing human need that should shape the application of the law. Same-sex attracted Christians did not choose their condition. Very few are able to change their orientation. Mixed-orientation marriage is an option only for a few. If the church insists they must remain celibate, the church is thereby heartlessly condemning them to life-long singleness and loneliness, a soul-crushing situation that often leads to depression and suicide. Therefore, the creation ordinance of heterosexual marriage should not be elevated to the level of an absolute but must be subjected to a deliberative process where the rigidity of the law is accommodated to a pressing human need. The creation ordinance of marriage should be adapted to include same-sex relationships. The church should allow covenanted same-sex relationships.
She writes: “I came to a greater understanding of how biblical mandates function. I learned that laws in and of themselves do not automatically fulfill the will of God. Biblical mandates are only meaningful in their particularities if they achieve the purpose to which they point: love of God and neighbor. I also learned that the biblical authors and Jesus did not blindly apply mandates. They engaged in a deliberative process even for creation ordinances. They affirmed the truth of creation ordinances like Sabbath and made room for cases that didn’t fit the box” (p. 112).
The fact that Paul said, “It is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor 7:9), suggests that Paul would recognize the difficulty that same-sex attracted Christians are in if they can’t change their orientation and don’t have the gift of celibacy. It is very difficult to live a totally sex-free life. Even among straight Christians, there is a high percentage of extramarital sex going on. So it is better if the church makes an accommodation to human weakness and suffering and allows same-sex attracted Christians to deal responsibly with their sexual needs by entering into committed, covenanted same-sex relationships.
There are other sub-arguments and exegetical details, but that is the heart of Keen’s argument. Now I’d like to respond briefly. I think the best way to do that is to observe that she seems to lack the courage of her convictions. What I mean is that she doesn’t refer to committed, covenanted same-sex relationships as “marriages.” That is a real puzzle. According to the logic of her argument, she ought to use the word. It is not as though Matthew intended to say: “The church will make an accommodation to those who divorce and remarry after they have been sinned against by an unfaithful spouse, but technically they are still committing adultery.” No, Matthew’s exception clause means that a person who divorces their spouse for being unfaithful is free to remarry and is not committing adultery. (I don’t actually agree that the exception clause was added by Matthew and not original with Jesus, but for the sake of the argument, I’ll go along with it.) Following the logic of the argument, the adapted ordinance of marriage would not be: “Same-sex attracted Christians who enter into a committed same-sex relationship are technically living in sin, but we’ll make an accommodation to a difficult situation, recognizing that it is better to be in a covenanted same-sex relationship than to burn with lust.” Rather, the argument Keen should make is: “The creation ordinance of marriage was originally intended to be an opposite-sex relationship, but now in light of our greater knowledge that sexual orientation is unchosen and extremely difficult to change, we’ll adapt the creation ordinance of marriage to extend it to two people regardless of their gender.”
This conclusion is more radical than hers, but it is the logical resting point based on the structure of her argument. This can be seen early on when she argues that the reason the OT speaks of marriage as male-female is because of the importance of procreation, and procreation was the way the OT saints looked forward to some sort of life after death. But now in the NT we have the hope of real life after death, and so procreation isn’t as important. Therefore, the male-female complementarity aspect of marriage is an accidental feature. The true essence of marriage is covenant fidelity of two persons. “Loyal, covenanted love, not sexual differentiation, [is] the primary foundation of marriage” (p. 41). Keen has no reason to refrain from arguing that the church ought to embrace total marriage equality.
But why stop there? In reality, there is no logical limit to Keen’s moral reasoning. If the moral law and the creation ordinance of marriage can be adapted in light of pressing human need and suffering, why stop at removing sexual differentiation from the definition of marriage? A claim of pressing human need and suffering can be made by other sexual minorities excluded from the biblical mandate confining sex to heterosexual marriage. There is no end to those claiming victim status. It is not only gay people who have been marginalized and oppressed by the church’s heterosexual cisnormativity. Men who are attracted to teenage boys, bisexuals who desire to fulfill both their same-sex and their opposite-sex attractions, those who desire sex within close degrees of consanguinity, polyamory, polygamy, and on it goes. If they aren’t already doing so, these groups will also demand that biblical moral law be subjected to Keen’s “discernment process,” and she will have no basis for denying them the opportunity.
At the end of the day, this book is another failed attempt to make a so-called biblical argument for ecclesiastical acceptance of same-sex relationships. It simply can’t be done without exploding the narrative unity of the biblical worldview.
July 25, 2020
The last sentence of this book reads "As we continue the conversation, may God grant us wisdom, grace, and charity." This is a posture that is representative of Keen for a majority of her work. Writing with "traditionalists" in mind, each chapter charitably espouses the traditional view of same-sex relationships before presenting an alternative reading.
What I agreed with / learned:
- Keen's understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. Rather than focus on the differences in sex, she argues that the focus should be on unity and covenant faithfulness. (this does not diverge from the traditional view)
- Ethics and Scripture. Keen argues for a view of ethics that is similar to that of many traditionalists. She argues that ethics can not be copy/pasted from the biblical text, but must be understood in light of the ANE culture and the contemporary world. She is correct, and in doing so stands in a long line of biblical scholarship. Honestly, this may have been my favorite part of the book.
- The history of the Church's engagement. While the Church has in large part failed to obey the Great Commandment in regards to same-sex relationships, Keen traces the development of the Church's engagement with the LGBTQ community and applauds the Church to its evolution in doctrine.
- I agree with her view that homosexuality should not be viewed as a moral consequence of the fall, but a natural consequence of the fall. However, I diverge from her opinion on how the Church should act in light of this.
- I never realized that the chances of a change in sexual orientation are so low (15%)
What I disagreed with:
- Keen is correct to point out that Paul is likely in conversation with Wisdom 13 in Romans 1. However, from there she argues that Paul is *not* in conversation in Genesis 1. She then asserts that Paul's use of "natural" cannot have the created order in mind. In my view, this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to believe that Paul cannot be in conversation with both texts, specifically when we understand Paul's references to Genesis 1-3 throughout the letter. This failure weakens her application of the created order to ethics, as she never resolved Romans 1 and the created order.
- Keen doesn't sufficiently deal with 1 Corinthians 7 in her discussion on celibacy. While it is she is correct to point out the heartbreaking implications of the command, she doesn't provide an alternative understanding of the passage. Instead, she points to anecdotes of heterosexual singles and their experiences with celibacy.
- Keen wages an unnecessary war on Augustine's understanding of original sin, tail spinning into a conversation on evolution and DNA. This distracted from her main point.
- The application points that she gives for Christians holding a traditional view (me) fall short. While she said she would include a way forward, the only application was to affirm for pragmatic reasons. This felt disingenuous.
tldr: learned a lot, challenged by a lot, disagree with a lot, well written, would recommend to anyone who is committed to reading and continuing this conversation with "wisdom, grace, and charity."
What I agreed with / learned:
- Keen's understanding of Genesis 1 and 2. Rather than focus on the differences in sex, she argues that the focus should be on unity and covenant faithfulness. (this does not diverge from the traditional view)
- Ethics and Scripture. Keen argues for a view of ethics that is similar to that of many traditionalists. She argues that ethics can not be copy/pasted from the biblical text, but must be understood in light of the ANE culture and the contemporary world. She is correct, and in doing so stands in a long line of biblical scholarship. Honestly, this may have been my favorite part of the book.
- The history of the Church's engagement. While the Church has in large part failed to obey the Great Commandment in regards to same-sex relationships, Keen traces the development of the Church's engagement with the LGBTQ community and applauds the Church to its evolution in doctrine.
- I agree with her view that homosexuality should not be viewed as a moral consequence of the fall, but a natural consequence of the fall. However, I diverge from her opinion on how the Church should act in light of this.
- I never realized that the chances of a change in sexual orientation are so low (15%)
What I disagreed with:
- Keen is correct to point out that Paul is likely in conversation with Wisdom 13 in Romans 1. However, from there she argues that Paul is *not* in conversation in Genesis 1. She then asserts that Paul's use of "natural" cannot have the created order in mind. In my view, this is a false dichotomy. There is no reason to believe that Paul cannot be in conversation with both texts, specifically when we understand Paul's references to Genesis 1-3 throughout the letter. This failure weakens her application of the created order to ethics, as she never resolved Romans 1 and the created order.
- Keen doesn't sufficiently deal with 1 Corinthians 7 in her discussion on celibacy. While it is she is correct to point out the heartbreaking implications of the command, she doesn't provide an alternative understanding of the passage. Instead, she points to anecdotes of heterosexual singles and their experiences with celibacy.
- Keen wages an unnecessary war on Augustine's understanding of original sin, tail spinning into a conversation on evolution and DNA. This distracted from her main point.
- The application points that she gives for Christians holding a traditional view (me) fall short. While she said she would include a way forward, the only application was to affirm for pragmatic reasons. This felt disingenuous.
tldr: learned a lot, challenged by a lot, disagree with a lot, well written, would recommend to anyone who is committed to reading and continuing this conversation with "wisdom, grace, and charity."
May 6, 2021
I am intrigued by the views of those who try to justify same-same relationships and the LGBTQIA+ movement from Scripture, and I read hoping to gain understanding. It's clear that Keen comes from an evangelical background and seems to still have a fondness for it. Her posture is refreshing. She knows her former community and understands and acknowledges the ground rules they abide by. She doesn't launch torpedos at every person who taught her that homosexuality was sinful. Rather than try to attack and accuse and tear down the whole system, she aims to persuade.
I thought her history of evangelical attitudes toward homosexuality was helpful. Regardless of the answer the question at hand, it's helpful to know, and she doesn't seem to paint caricatures. She has appreciation for certain traditionalist teachings, and is critical of some progressive positions.
Ultimately I was unpersuaded by her argument from the Bible. I think her reinterpretation of the way certain laws do or do not apply today was based upon a flat reading of the law. The sections prohibiting homosexual behavior (Lev 18 and 20) are in a section of Leviticus concerned about justice in covenant living with YHWH (ch. 17-21). Sections about sacrifice and differentiation (on say shellfish or mixed-fabrics) are in portions of Leviticus which the new covenant specifically repeals.
I find her arguments based on virtue ethics and the difficulty of celibacy also unpersuasive. In the end, she shares her narrative about how she came to change her mind on the issue, which was through a discernment process in community. If one were to change one's mind about the issue, this is about as good a process as any because it begins with a belief in the possibility of self-deception. Yet, I think that such a course still doesn't validate her conclusion. Discernment is critical, but discernment is still a fallible process. Even though I disagree with Keen's conclusions, it's possible that I could be wrong. My own knowledge and system of ethics and beliefs are not infallible, yet I am committed to the authority of Scripture, and I don't believe I've misinterpreted the passages which condemn homosexual relationships.
I thought her history of evangelical attitudes toward homosexuality was helpful. Regardless of the answer the question at hand, it's helpful to know, and she doesn't seem to paint caricatures. She has appreciation for certain traditionalist teachings, and is critical of some progressive positions.
Ultimately I was unpersuaded by her argument from the Bible. I think her reinterpretation of the way certain laws do or do not apply today was based upon a flat reading of the law. The sections prohibiting homosexual behavior (Lev 18 and 20) are in a section of Leviticus concerned about justice in covenant living with YHWH (ch. 17-21). Sections about sacrifice and differentiation (on say shellfish or mixed-fabrics) are in portions of Leviticus which the new covenant specifically repeals.
I find her arguments based on virtue ethics and the difficulty of celibacy also unpersuasive. In the end, she shares her narrative about how she came to change her mind on the issue, which was through a discernment process in community. If one were to change one's mind about the issue, this is about as good a process as any because it begins with a belief in the possibility of self-deception. Yet, I think that such a course still doesn't validate her conclusion. Discernment is critical, but discernment is still a fallible process. Even though I disagree with Keen's conclusions, it's possible that I could be wrong. My own knowledge and system of ethics and beliefs are not infallible, yet I am committed to the authority of Scripture, and I don't believe I've misinterpreted the passages which condemn homosexual relationships.
July 25, 2020
The jig is up. Open the doors.
April 24, 2019
People are regularly asking me to recommend books on LGBTQ+ theology, and I've been all too aware that my list of recommendations are almost all authored by men. The only notable exceptions, like "Gay & Catholic" by Eve Tushnet, and "Unnatural" by Rachel Murr, tend to be more autobiographical in nature.
So despite my overall weariness with the rehashing of this topic in multiple recent books, I was thrilled to hear Karen Keen would be publishing a book called Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. I was even more excited when I found out she had spent most of her life as a celibate Christian, promoting a traditional theological perspective on sexuality, before becoming convinced of a more affirming interpretation. I had high hopes that this would make her more likely to treat perspectives across the theological spectrum with dignity and humanity, without overgeneralizing, and thankfully, my hopes were realized.
Keen chooses a different starting point than most books in this genre, beginning with a brief history of the church's perception of LGBTQ+ Christians, from "perverts and criminals," to "hapless victims needing healing," to "saints called to celibacy," closing with today's hodgepodge of portrayals. This journalistic introduction provides excellent context for the rest of the book, and even people who are immersed in this world (like me) will likely have at least one "aha moment" as she paints this shifting church portrait of queer Christians.
Next, instead of the usual deep dive into the all-too-familiar "clobber passages," Keen provides a refreshingly concise outline of ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman reasons for condemning same-sex relationships, noting that they represent common ground for traditional and progressive interpreters, who tend to agree that these factors influenced the biblical authors. She then brings the conversation back to the 21st century with summaries of four of the most compelling modern-day theological arguments on the traditional side (refusing to water them down, despite the fact that she no longer holds this view), and five from the progressive side, leading to what she describes as the current "stalemate" between them. Even though these arguments were familiar to me, I still found her brief explanations insightful enough to make me pick up my highlighter several times.
From here, Keen describes four progressive arguments of her own, taking a chapter for each of them. Initially these chapters each seemed like separate, unrelated stabs at this complex topic, but looking back, I realized that they built nicely on each other. A chapter about the complexities of applying Old Testament law and biblical mandates provides good foundation for the next chapter's primer in interpretive ethics, where she shows Jesus and biblical authors interpreting ancient scriptures in new and generous ways, with the interpretive goal of alleviating suffering. This focus on suffering is the diving board into a chapter on forced celibacy, which includes an overview of Christian teaching on celibacy through the centuries. Her final argument takes shape around the origins of same-sex attraction, with a focus on scientific research and the theology of original sin; her distinction between "moral fallenness" and "natural fallenness" was particularly helpful for me.
By the time I reached her conclusion, where she ties these arguments together with her own life experience and issues a challenge for traditionalists to dig even deeper to scripture with a "yes, and" approach, Keen's book had more than earned its way high up my "recommended resources" list. At only 114 pages, it's certainly not an exhaustive take on affirming theology. But I, for one, welcome her brevity; I tend to find books that attempt to be exhaustive rather... exhausting. Keen covers impressive ground in this short book, employing every part of the Wesleyan quadrilateral (scripture, tradition, reason/science, and experience), whether she realized it or not! I also appreciate that each of her chapters ends with a one-paragraph summary of her central argument and a list of books for further reading.
Whether you're new to this LGBTQ+ Christian conversation, or eager for a fresh, succinct take that won't use distorted/straw-man traditional arguments, check out "Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships."
So despite my overall weariness with the rehashing of this topic in multiple recent books, I was thrilled to hear Karen Keen would be publishing a book called Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. I was even more excited when I found out she had spent most of her life as a celibate Christian, promoting a traditional theological perspective on sexuality, before becoming convinced of a more affirming interpretation. I had high hopes that this would make her more likely to treat perspectives across the theological spectrum with dignity and humanity, without overgeneralizing, and thankfully, my hopes were realized.
Keen chooses a different starting point than most books in this genre, beginning with a brief history of the church's perception of LGBTQ+ Christians, from "perverts and criminals," to "hapless victims needing healing," to "saints called to celibacy," closing with today's hodgepodge of portrayals. This journalistic introduction provides excellent context for the rest of the book, and even people who are immersed in this world (like me) will likely have at least one "aha moment" as she paints this shifting church portrait of queer Christians.
Next, instead of the usual deep dive into the all-too-familiar "clobber passages," Keen provides a refreshingly concise outline of ancient Jewish and Greco-Roman reasons for condemning same-sex relationships, noting that they represent common ground for traditional and progressive interpreters, who tend to agree that these factors influenced the biblical authors. She then brings the conversation back to the 21st century with summaries of four of the most compelling modern-day theological arguments on the traditional side (refusing to water them down, despite the fact that she no longer holds this view), and five from the progressive side, leading to what she describes as the current "stalemate" between them. Even though these arguments were familiar to me, I still found her brief explanations insightful enough to make me pick up my highlighter several times.
From here, Keen describes four progressive arguments of her own, taking a chapter for each of them. Initially these chapters each seemed like separate, unrelated stabs at this complex topic, but looking back, I realized that they built nicely on each other. A chapter about the complexities of applying Old Testament law and biblical mandates provides good foundation for the next chapter's primer in interpretive ethics, where she shows Jesus and biblical authors interpreting ancient scriptures in new and generous ways, with the interpretive goal of alleviating suffering. This focus on suffering is the diving board into a chapter on forced celibacy, which includes an overview of Christian teaching on celibacy through the centuries. Her final argument takes shape around the origins of same-sex attraction, with a focus on scientific research and the theology of original sin; her distinction between "moral fallenness" and "natural fallenness" was particularly helpful for me.
By the time I reached her conclusion, where she ties these arguments together with her own life experience and issues a challenge for traditionalists to dig even deeper to scripture with a "yes, and" approach, Keen's book had more than earned its way high up my "recommended resources" list. At only 114 pages, it's certainly not an exhaustive take on affirming theology. But I, for one, welcome her brevity; I tend to find books that attempt to be exhaustive rather... exhausting. Keen covers impressive ground in this short book, employing every part of the Wesleyan quadrilateral (scripture, tradition, reason/science, and experience), whether she realized it or not! I also appreciate that each of her chapters ends with a one-paragraph summary of her central argument and a list of books for further reading.
Whether you're new to this LGBTQ+ Christian conversation, or eager for a fresh, succinct take that won't use distorted/straw-man traditional arguments, check out "Scripture, Ethics & the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships."
July 29, 2018
The author presents a good organization of the issues here, starting with the church’s response to LGBT people. This first chapter a good overview, but there’s not a lot new here. If you’ve been following these issues at all, you’re familiar with the history. I was not familiar with the new ex-gay movements (ugh) but they appear to be pretty small. Of course, she mentions Justin Lee and Matthew Vines, whose books put me on the path of reading about these issues!
This is followed with an interesting, if brief, overview of same-sex relationships in the ancient world and in biblical texts. Then a discussion of the traditionalist and progressive arguments against and for same-sex marriage.
One thing I found interesting is that there is scripture to support a marriage without children - I Samuel 1:8. While this is obvious to most people, there are some that suggest that same-sex marriage is wrong because they cannot have children. But this would nullify sterile and/or barren couples, as well as couples marrying to old to have children. Also, Jesus and Paul both downplayed the role of procreation - as opposed to what the prophets wrote in the Old Testament.
Interesting! At this point, the author talks about how the current arguments have put us in a stalemate, so, to move the discussion forward, in the rest of the book, she focuses on arguments that have been overlooked. I guess what I said about stuff not being new in the first chapter makes sense - it was just a prologue.
I liked the discussion of OT laws - some of which are pretty insane.
The author goes on to discuss interpreting the Bible and how this has been done since the original writing, and how we should go about it today.
In the chapter on celibacy, she asks how we might apply I Corinthians 7:9 to LGBT people. Good question! (She even references Preston Sprinkle’s book - which I reviewed as a NetGalley ARC a while back.)
And finally discussions the origins of being attracted to someone of the same sex. Is it sin from our fallen nature? Is it just human variation?
And the conclusion she comes to?
In essence, accepting same-sex relationships does not require compromising Scripture. To the contrary, taking scripture more seriously teaches us to apply these texts in a way the biblical authors themselves model.
I like how this book discusses current arguments, and adds to that discussion with a very compassionate voice.
I think this would be good for anyone who is actively thinking about these issues and still isn’t sure where God is leading. Even if you think you know where God is leading, maybe this would be a good read to reflect on if you’re following God - or just where you want God to lead.
Thanks to NetGalley and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company for a copy in return for an honest review.
This is followed with an interesting, if brief, overview of same-sex relationships in the ancient world and in biblical texts. Then a discussion of the traditionalist and progressive arguments against and for same-sex marriage.
One thing I found interesting is that there is scripture to support a marriage without children - I Samuel 1:8. While this is obvious to most people, there are some that suggest that same-sex marriage is wrong because they cannot have children. But this would nullify sterile and/or barren couples, as well as couples marrying to old to have children. Also, Jesus and Paul both downplayed the role of procreation - as opposed to what the prophets wrote in the Old Testament.
Interesting! At this point, the author talks about how the current arguments have put us in a stalemate, so, to move the discussion forward, in the rest of the book, she focuses on arguments that have been overlooked. I guess what I said about stuff not being new in the first chapter makes sense - it was just a prologue.
I liked the discussion of OT laws - some of which are pretty insane.
The author goes on to discuss interpreting the Bible and how this has been done since the original writing, and how we should go about it today.
In the chapter on celibacy, she asks how we might apply I Corinthians 7:9 to LGBT people. Good question! (She even references Preston Sprinkle’s book - which I reviewed as a NetGalley ARC a while back.)
And finally discussions the origins of being attracted to someone of the same sex. Is it sin from our fallen nature? Is it just human variation?
And the conclusion she comes to?
In essence, accepting same-sex relationships does not require compromising Scripture. To the contrary, taking scripture more seriously teaches us to apply these texts in a way the biblical authors themselves model.
I like how this book discusses current arguments, and adds to that discussion with a very compassionate voice.
I think this would be good for anyone who is actively thinking about these issues and still isn’t sure where God is leading. Even if you think you know where God is leading, maybe this would be a good read to reflect on if you’re following God - or just where you want God to lead.
Thanks to NetGalley and Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company for a copy in return for an honest review.
February 14, 2024
Appreciated her inclusion of Augustine’s words near the end of the book… “The man who cannot view the whole is offended by what he takes to be the deformity of a part…”
And Keen’s follow up quote, “Wisdom invites us to be cautious about assuming that all bodily realities are the result of original sin”.
Lots to think about after this one.
And Keen’s follow up quote, “Wisdom invites us to be cautious about assuming that all bodily realities are the result of original sin”.
Lots to think about after this one.
January 2, 2020
Probably the most helpful book from an "affirming" perspective that I have read so far!
February 4, 2022
This is the one of the most even-handed liberal perspectives on the ongoing debate about homosexuality and Christianity that I have ever read. Karen R. Keen, a gay Christian herself who has deeply wrestled with the Bible and scriptural ethics, writes charitably of both sides, even while as a traditionalist I think many of her affirming arguments are answered in a reasonable (if not always entirely convincing) way from the orthodox side. Keen writes that "The conclusions I draw do not come out of attempts to rationalize my own desire for a same-sex relationship" and she declares that she has been celibate for 16 years, even as in the conclusion she expresses an affirming position and a desire for a same-sex partner (p. x, 113).
One example of Keen's charitability is her acknowledgement that evangelicalism has attempted to treat gay Christians with more integrity over time as cultural insights and understanding has developed (101). The early history of the ex-gay movement was characterized with more of a focus on pastoral care but in the late 1990s the ex-gay movement wedded itself to Focus on the Family and the offspring of that was more the politicization of homosexuality that made them pawns in the culture wars (pp. 7-8). Keen also points out that many ex-gays were affiliated with charismatic churches; this made them deeply hopeful that the Holy Spirit would miraculously change them and enable them to become heterosexual but when this became more and more unlikely (Keen readily points out that stats on orientation change are very low), the focus among traditionalist gay Christians shifted from healing to celibacy and this is exemplified both by the Spiritual Friendship group (Wesley Hill, Ron Belgau, Eve Tushnet, etc…) and The Gospel Coalition’s same-sex attracted coterie (Sam Allberry, Christopher Yuan, and Rosaria Butterfield, pp. 9-12).
Lee Irons' exceptional earlier review covers much of the same ground that I found problematic in Keen's book. Keen sees pederasty as the main target in biblical injunctions against same-sex relationships and she argues that loving covenant, rather than (loving!) male-female biological complementarity is what constitutes Christian marriage. Some of her arguments simply don’t seem very convincing to me, like trying to equate the antiquated maltreatment of lefthanded people with the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality or her attempt to suggest that because Paul said that we only know prophecy partially, we might be wrong about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality (pp. 97-98, 138.43).
She does not interact with arguments such as the threefold division of the OT law (the ceremonial and civil are fulfilled but we still hold to the moral, which homosexuality falls under). She interacts with many good sources on the traditional and affirming side and even mentions William Webb and Christopher C. Roberts' works at the end of chapter three (every chapter ends with recommended reading) but she does not actually interact with Webb's "redemptive movement" hermeneutic.
Conservative Christians are often guilty of austere legalism that genuinely does not have much grace for failure. But I worry that Keen tilts towards a vague "pastoral" approach that both overexaggerates the Bible's weighty moral call by ironically throwing up hands in defeat. She notes that most people struggle to remain celibate all their life and that even unmarried heterosexual Christians often engage in sex outside of marriage. This is a sad reality but it’s one thing to point to a moral slip-up as justification for more sin and another to acknowledge and repent of the fall and strive towards the Bible's clear call to a chaste life if unmarried. Keen notes that biblical mandates DO sometimes change over time to ease suffering but we also need to acknowledge that at times, God may submit us to suffering in order to draw us closer to Him (p. 66-67).
In a hypersexualized culture where social media inherently demands of us near-constant interaction with others, the celibate life seems implausible but marriage is also not a right that all are called to. There are many heterosexual Christians, particularly women due to them outnumbering men in the Church, who may never have a believing partner and thus, a marriage. And yes, these men or women might find themselves desperately in the arms of someone during a one night stand. But if they repent and seek to follow the way of Jesus we need to compassionately receive them and love them and help them bear this burden. And yes, conservative Christians DO have to wrestle with questions of the "degree" of a sin (many Christians claim all sins are equal; ALL sins separate us from God but stealing a cookie is obviously not as bad as murder) and this might mean accepting that a covenanted homosexual relationship is "better" than a promiscuous parade of flings. I would have liked to have seen her engage with Ed Shaw's book 'The Plausibility Problem: The Church and Same-Sex Attraction/Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life’ because one of the key points in her book is that celibacy is hopelessly unrealistic for most and that this results in crippling loneliness and depression that can lead to psychological trauma and suicide.
I completely agree with Keen that traditionalist Christians have often failed our gay brothers and sisters in the faith but I don't agree that the answer is to capitulate to liberal sexual ethics. In fact, that is just too easy. I believe that traditionalist Christians have to step up and support their gay Christian brothers and sisters by providing alternative communities and intimacy that these faithful believers are forsaking in order to follow Jesus. This could be supporting mixed-orientation marriages, inviting a gay Christian to participate as part of one's household (as Wesley Hill relates in his book 'Spiritual Friendship') or even encouraging initiatives like Pieter Valk's Family of Brothers Monastery. This might be challenging to keep pure but one could even consider a kind of celibate, covenantal friendship (a few years ago this type of partnership was documented by “Sarah” and “Lindsey” on their blog A Queer Calling but they ceased posting in 2017). Some gay Christians might actually find themselves called to single parenthood and this can provide family for them and love to give and receive.
I think Keen’s book raises thought-provoking questions, particularly on shifts within the Bible when it comes to certain regulations (again, here I think Webb’s work would have been invaluable to consult) and I think that, much like Terry Eagleton’s (who I read just before) political commentary, she is a more fair-minded advocate of the affirming position than many on her side. As I read her book as a traditionalist, there were many responses to her passionate arguments that came to mind but a book this slim can’t be comprehensive. One of the people Keen mentions in this book, Melinda Selmys, was, at the time of the book’s release in 2018, living in a mixed-orientation marriage. Selmys has since divorced and now describes herself as a “Catholic-in-exile.” I am not certain if she has become affirming but as with figures from the ex-gay movement like Alan Chambers and John Smid, living with same-sex attraction can be challenging and test one’s relationship with God. It is a burden (and, I am sure at times, a blessing) that we heterosexual traditionalists need to have ample grace for.
One example of Keen's charitability is her acknowledgement that evangelicalism has attempted to treat gay Christians with more integrity over time as cultural insights and understanding has developed (101). The early history of the ex-gay movement was characterized with more of a focus on pastoral care but in the late 1990s the ex-gay movement wedded itself to Focus on the Family and the offspring of that was more the politicization of homosexuality that made them pawns in the culture wars (pp. 7-8). Keen also points out that many ex-gays were affiliated with charismatic churches; this made them deeply hopeful that the Holy Spirit would miraculously change them and enable them to become heterosexual but when this became more and more unlikely (Keen readily points out that stats on orientation change are very low), the focus among traditionalist gay Christians shifted from healing to celibacy and this is exemplified both by the Spiritual Friendship group (Wesley Hill, Ron Belgau, Eve Tushnet, etc…) and The Gospel Coalition’s same-sex attracted coterie (Sam Allberry, Christopher Yuan, and Rosaria Butterfield, pp. 9-12).
Lee Irons' exceptional earlier review covers much of the same ground that I found problematic in Keen's book. Keen sees pederasty as the main target in biblical injunctions against same-sex relationships and she argues that loving covenant, rather than (loving!) male-female biological complementarity is what constitutes Christian marriage. Some of her arguments simply don’t seem very convincing to me, like trying to equate the antiquated maltreatment of lefthanded people with the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality or her attempt to suggest that because Paul said that we only know prophecy partially, we might be wrong about the Bible’s teachings on homosexuality (pp. 97-98, 138.43).
She does not interact with arguments such as the threefold division of the OT law (the ceremonial and civil are fulfilled but we still hold to the moral, which homosexuality falls under). She interacts with many good sources on the traditional and affirming side and even mentions William Webb and Christopher C. Roberts' works at the end of chapter three (every chapter ends with recommended reading) but she does not actually interact with Webb's "redemptive movement" hermeneutic.
Conservative Christians are often guilty of austere legalism that genuinely does not have much grace for failure. But I worry that Keen tilts towards a vague "pastoral" approach that both overexaggerates the Bible's weighty moral call by ironically throwing up hands in defeat. She notes that most people struggle to remain celibate all their life and that even unmarried heterosexual Christians often engage in sex outside of marriage. This is a sad reality but it’s one thing to point to a moral slip-up as justification for more sin and another to acknowledge and repent of the fall and strive towards the Bible's clear call to a chaste life if unmarried. Keen notes that biblical mandates DO sometimes change over time to ease suffering but we also need to acknowledge that at times, God may submit us to suffering in order to draw us closer to Him (p. 66-67).
In a hypersexualized culture where social media inherently demands of us near-constant interaction with others, the celibate life seems implausible but marriage is also not a right that all are called to. There are many heterosexual Christians, particularly women due to them outnumbering men in the Church, who may never have a believing partner and thus, a marriage. And yes, these men or women might find themselves desperately in the arms of someone during a one night stand. But if they repent and seek to follow the way of Jesus we need to compassionately receive them and love them and help them bear this burden. And yes, conservative Christians DO have to wrestle with questions of the "degree" of a sin (many Christians claim all sins are equal; ALL sins separate us from God but stealing a cookie is obviously not as bad as murder) and this might mean accepting that a covenanted homosexual relationship is "better" than a promiscuous parade of flings. I would have liked to have seen her engage with Ed Shaw's book 'The Plausibility Problem: The Church and Same-Sex Attraction/Same-Sex Attraction and the Church: The Surprising Plausibility of the Celibate Life’ because one of the key points in her book is that celibacy is hopelessly unrealistic for most and that this results in crippling loneliness and depression that can lead to psychological trauma and suicide.
I completely agree with Keen that traditionalist Christians have often failed our gay brothers and sisters in the faith but I don't agree that the answer is to capitulate to liberal sexual ethics. In fact, that is just too easy. I believe that traditionalist Christians have to step up and support their gay Christian brothers and sisters by providing alternative communities and intimacy that these faithful believers are forsaking in order to follow Jesus. This could be supporting mixed-orientation marriages, inviting a gay Christian to participate as part of one's household (as Wesley Hill relates in his book 'Spiritual Friendship') or even encouraging initiatives like Pieter Valk's Family of Brothers Monastery. This might be challenging to keep pure but one could even consider a kind of celibate, covenantal friendship (a few years ago this type of partnership was documented by “Sarah” and “Lindsey” on their blog A Queer Calling but they ceased posting in 2017). Some gay Christians might actually find themselves called to single parenthood and this can provide family for them and love to give and receive.
I think Keen’s book raises thought-provoking questions, particularly on shifts within the Bible when it comes to certain regulations (again, here I think Webb’s work would have been invaluable to consult) and I think that, much like Terry Eagleton’s (who I read just before) political commentary, she is a more fair-minded advocate of the affirming position than many on her side. As I read her book as a traditionalist, there were many responses to her passionate arguments that came to mind but a book this slim can’t be comprehensive. One of the people Keen mentions in this book, Melinda Selmys, was, at the time of the book’s release in 2018, living in a mixed-orientation marriage. Selmys has since divorced and now describes herself as a “Catholic-in-exile.” I am not certain if she has become affirming but as with figures from the ex-gay movement like Alan Chambers and John Smid, living with same-sex attraction can be challenging and test one’s relationship with God. It is a burden (and, I am sure at times, a blessing) that we heterosexual traditionalists need to have ample grace for.
February 13, 2021
"When it comes to same- sex relationships, there’s one thing we cannot forget: people."
I seriously wish I could put this book into the hands of every evangelical Christian. No matter where you stand on the idea of same-sex relationships, what Keen does is bring the essential debate to light in a way that at the very least helps to make sense of what the issue is. Keen does have an agenda, but it's not what you might think if you end up tempted to simply fit her into a predeterimed perspective. The last chapter could actualllly serve as a wonderful beginning too, as it basically tables her story, hopes, dreams, motivations, personal experiences and all. I get why she tacked this on at the end, as the hope for this book is to encourage people to come into the discussion with fresh eyes and an open heart. Where one lands with this material on the other side of the discussion is of course up to them and their own spiritual journey, but her desire is to make a way for an honest discussion to be able to happen first, and then to let the cards fall where they may.
All of which I genuinely respected and appreciated, even if I imagine people with minds already made up being resistant to this process. She is not out to dismantle or demonize either side, but writes this simply as someone who loves Jesus, who loves God, and who has been on a long and dedicated journey to figuring this stuff out with studying and meditating on scripture.
The structure of the book is methodical. She walks through Christian history and tradition, the modern Church response, outlines the key issues on both polarized sides, walks through the relevant scriptural texts from Genesis to the Old Testament Laws to Jesus and Paul. She then concludes with a chapter called "Imaginging a New Response to the Gay and Lesbian Community". In order to that she brings what she has gleaned, and now hopefully what we have gleaned from this process with her into a final and clarifying shift in perspective, taking the strengths and weaknesses of both sides into question. As she says at one point, "each side tends to project modern ideas onto the Bible that are foreign to the biblical authors themselves. As a result, our interpretations are those of our own imagination rather than reflective of the authors’ divinely inspired meaning." In other words, we all have room to grow in our perspective, something that becomes clear when she shares her own personal story.
Some points that I found particularly relevant:
She spends a good time talking about the Genesis narrative and being made in the image of God, both male and female. Navigating this picture as a necessary and given image of the character of God is perhaps the most crucial part of the debate. For added reference, the Bible Project do an excellent job discussing this imagery in their most recent series The Family of God. As Keen says in her book, "Too often discussions on same- sex relationships rehash the same unhelpful arguments based on six proof texts. But that is not the heart of the debate. Both sides— traditionalist and progressive— agree that the biblical authors opposed same- sex relations, in part, for exploitative reasons. Instead, disagreement centers on gender and anatomical complementarity." Getting to heart of the issue is as important as knowing what to do with it.
She has a wonderful section that helps to navigate scripture itself. As she says in the section dealing with the Laws of scripture, "how might we understand these laws as inspired text, particularly given that older laws from other nations influenced the biblical authors? In what way are they inspired if they are so thoroughly enmeshed in the culture of that time period? One common cause of misinterpretation of Old Testament laws is that we focus more on what the laws are than on why they are included in Scripture." She posits that above all, "inspiration resides not necessarily in the particularities but in the overarching reason for the laws— namely, a good and just society." She then goes on to say,
"The Old Testament laws are not irrelevant, as progressives tend to argue. Neither are the laws impervious proof texts for ethical behavior, as traditionalists sometimes claim. On the one hand, if we ignore certain scriptural texts as simply archaic, we miss out on important theological truths. On the other, if we ascribe greater importance to the particularities than to the purpose of the laws, we fall short of God’s vision. What both progressives and traditionalists typically overlook is the deliberative process that we must undertake to rightly interpret and apply biblical laws today."
Here it is crucial to remember that "God’s ordinances are always on behalf of people and not for the arbitrary appeasement of God’s sensibilities." Thus context matters. It is not enough to simply say "homosexuality is wrong". To capture what the scriptures are saying we must hear what these words are saying about a just and righteous society, with Keen underscoring what the word "righteous" means in its scriptural usage and context.
There is a big emphasis on covenantal language that threads throughout the book. This seems to be the crucial point on which someone can turn in one direction or another, either towards a particular reading of Augustinian thoughts on the fall, something she brings to light as an issue but doesn't fully flesh out as readily as she needed. There was room for her to take this thought and push it even further. Or towards an understanding that critiques this common understanding and places it in the greater light of this covenantal language. To be honest, I think this is the point where she might stand to lose her audience in either direction, which would be a shame. Becuase I think what she tables is absolutely relevant and important, especially when it comes to tabling this as a conversation, and one that can afford to be a little bit messy and unresolved on some of these fronts. If we place the most important aspects of this covenantal language first, and then branch out from there, this is precisely the kind of methodology that can allow us to get a bit messy without losing ourselves entirely or creating polarzing sides. And in a divided Christendom over so many issues, this would be a grand idea indeed.
I seriously wish I could put this book into the hands of every evangelical Christian. No matter where you stand on the idea of same-sex relationships, what Keen does is bring the essential debate to light in a way that at the very least helps to make sense of what the issue is. Keen does have an agenda, but it's not what you might think if you end up tempted to simply fit her into a predeterimed perspective. The last chapter could actualllly serve as a wonderful beginning too, as it basically tables her story, hopes, dreams, motivations, personal experiences and all. I get why she tacked this on at the end, as the hope for this book is to encourage people to come into the discussion with fresh eyes and an open heart. Where one lands with this material on the other side of the discussion is of course up to them and their own spiritual journey, but her desire is to make a way for an honest discussion to be able to happen first, and then to let the cards fall where they may.
All of which I genuinely respected and appreciated, even if I imagine people with minds already made up being resistant to this process. She is not out to dismantle or demonize either side, but writes this simply as someone who loves Jesus, who loves God, and who has been on a long and dedicated journey to figuring this stuff out with studying and meditating on scripture.
The structure of the book is methodical. She walks through Christian history and tradition, the modern Church response, outlines the key issues on both polarized sides, walks through the relevant scriptural texts from Genesis to the Old Testament Laws to Jesus and Paul. She then concludes with a chapter called "Imaginging a New Response to the Gay and Lesbian Community". In order to that she brings what she has gleaned, and now hopefully what we have gleaned from this process with her into a final and clarifying shift in perspective, taking the strengths and weaknesses of both sides into question. As she says at one point, "each side tends to project modern ideas onto the Bible that are foreign to the biblical authors themselves. As a result, our interpretations are those of our own imagination rather than reflective of the authors’ divinely inspired meaning." In other words, we all have room to grow in our perspective, something that becomes clear when she shares her own personal story.
Some points that I found particularly relevant:
She spends a good time talking about the Genesis narrative and being made in the image of God, both male and female. Navigating this picture as a necessary and given image of the character of God is perhaps the most crucial part of the debate. For added reference, the Bible Project do an excellent job discussing this imagery in their most recent series The Family of God. As Keen says in her book, "Too often discussions on same- sex relationships rehash the same unhelpful arguments based on six proof texts. But that is not the heart of the debate. Both sides— traditionalist and progressive— agree that the biblical authors opposed same- sex relations, in part, for exploitative reasons. Instead, disagreement centers on gender and anatomical complementarity." Getting to heart of the issue is as important as knowing what to do with it.
She has a wonderful section that helps to navigate scripture itself. As she says in the section dealing with the Laws of scripture, "how might we understand these laws as inspired text, particularly given that older laws from other nations influenced the biblical authors? In what way are they inspired if they are so thoroughly enmeshed in the culture of that time period? One common cause of misinterpretation of Old Testament laws is that we focus more on what the laws are than on why they are included in Scripture." She posits that above all, "inspiration resides not necessarily in the particularities but in the overarching reason for the laws— namely, a good and just society." She then goes on to say,
"The Old Testament laws are not irrelevant, as progressives tend to argue. Neither are the laws impervious proof texts for ethical behavior, as traditionalists sometimes claim. On the one hand, if we ignore certain scriptural texts as simply archaic, we miss out on important theological truths. On the other, if we ascribe greater importance to the particularities than to the purpose of the laws, we fall short of God’s vision. What both progressives and traditionalists typically overlook is the deliberative process that we must undertake to rightly interpret and apply biblical laws today."
Here it is crucial to remember that "God’s ordinances are always on behalf of people and not for the arbitrary appeasement of God’s sensibilities." Thus context matters. It is not enough to simply say "homosexuality is wrong". To capture what the scriptures are saying we must hear what these words are saying about a just and righteous society, with Keen underscoring what the word "righteous" means in its scriptural usage and context.
There is a big emphasis on covenantal language that threads throughout the book. This seems to be the crucial point on which someone can turn in one direction or another, either towards a particular reading of Augustinian thoughts on the fall, something she brings to light as an issue but doesn't fully flesh out as readily as she needed. There was room for her to take this thought and push it even further. Or towards an understanding that critiques this common understanding and places it in the greater light of this covenantal language. To be honest, I think this is the point where she might stand to lose her audience in either direction, which would be a shame. Becuase I think what she tables is absolutely relevant and important, especially when it comes to tabling this as a conversation, and one that can afford to be a little bit messy and unresolved on some of these fronts. If we place the most important aspects of this covenantal language first, and then branch out from there, this is precisely the kind of methodology that can allow us to get a bit messy without losing ourselves entirely or creating polarzing sides. And in a divided Christendom over so many issues, this would be a grand idea indeed.
February 11, 2022
In this surprisingly even-handed book, Karen R. Keen works to bridge the conversation between "traditionalists" and "progressives" regarding the central debate of the church right now. Even beyond the central discussion, the meat of the book becomes a useful resource in how to approach applying Ancient Near-Eastern laws to a modern context. In essence, following the example of the early church, we seek out the spirit of the law in love. The law was intended in its time for human flourishing, not oppression.
People are dying to the church's legalistic approach to a code that was intended for love. While Keen presents the bottom line a little more gracefully than that, that is where we're at. Keen's case is compelling, bringing critique against both sides of the conversation whilst hoping to bring them together at the table. I can only hope people are willing to listen.
People are dying to the church's legalistic approach to a code that was intended for love. While Keen presents the bottom line a little more gracefully than that, that is where we're at. Keen's case is compelling, bringing critique against both sides of the conversation whilst hoping to bring them together at the table. I can only hope people are willing to listen.
May 5, 2022
Excellent little book. It's a succinct account rather than a scholarly tome, which is how it manages to be exactly what many Christians need: an accessible but well-researched update on the state of the question, a concise but wide-ranging account of the theological options, and a humble but compelling argument for same-sex relationships. This is a must read for conservatives who are on the fence or who at least want to understand the argument they are opposing, as well as for those who are intuitively affirming but haven't figured out how to reconcile this with their confession of faith. Karen Keen has done us all a real service here.
July 5, 2022
This is a brief but well organized argument for why same-sex unions can be seen as a legitimate option within conservative church communities. Keen is a good writer and doesn't work in a binary way about her subject. She doesn't paint traditionalists as bad guys but instead states that same sex unions would actually enhance the value of monogamous relationships within Christian communities. In addition to this she provides numerous options for how to move forward (121-123).
It is heartbreaking to read the autobiographical moments when she realized she was queer and felt rejected, other-ized and marginalized by her faith tradition. These experiences of self hatred brought on by traditionalist teaching needs to be addressed by the church. Real people are deeply wounded and damaged by truncated views of sexuality given ontological heft by preachers and theologians. Perhaps it has been inadvertent or ignorant, well, time to do better.
Keen is not a firebrand or out to upend the conservative christian tradition, she is writing a book that took her, her whole life to process and understand WITHIN that tradition. It is no surprise that numerous queer folks find their way into academics to try to process and think through their trauma and the academy, not churches, is the safest places to do that. I appreciated her deep and thorough engagement with the Biblical text.
If it helps, read this book in a more biographical way. It is her story and no one needs to judge her as a person, even if you find some of her arguments unconvincing. She is clearly a deeply committed Christian, who has graciously, thoughtfully and patiently worked through this topic. And she has done this in concert and community with traditionalists. A remarkable example of charity and long suffering. This book is well worth reading simply as an example of how to have thoughtful dialogue without demonizing others you dont understand.
It is heartbreaking to read the autobiographical moments when she realized she was queer and felt rejected, other-ized and marginalized by her faith tradition. These experiences of self hatred brought on by traditionalist teaching needs to be addressed by the church. Real people are deeply wounded and damaged by truncated views of sexuality given ontological heft by preachers and theologians. Perhaps it has been inadvertent or ignorant, well, time to do better.
Keen is not a firebrand or out to upend the conservative christian tradition, she is writing a book that took her, her whole life to process and understand WITHIN that tradition. It is no surprise that numerous queer folks find their way into academics to try to process and think through their trauma and the academy, not churches, is the safest places to do that. I appreciated her deep and thorough engagement with the Biblical text.
If it helps, read this book in a more biographical way. It is her story and no one needs to judge her as a person, even if you find some of her arguments unconvincing. She is clearly a deeply committed Christian, who has graciously, thoughtfully and patiently worked through this topic. And she has done this in concert and community with traditionalists. A remarkable example of charity and long suffering. This book is well worth reading simply as an example of how to have thoughtful dialogue without demonizing others you dont understand.
February 24, 2021
This is an interesting book. Keen is a conservative scholar, with a lot of sympathy for "traditionalist" views. And, I think, she exhibits a lot of that sympathy in her descriptions of those views. Most chapters present "traditionalist" perspectives on an issue, "progressive" perspectives, and a synthesis/reflection. Part of the value of this book, incidentally, is that it's a terrific index of other resources, with brief descriptions (or placement in context, at least) of those resources.
This book is likely to provide value for people along the spectrum of perspectives, and may provoke dismay for people at both ends of the spectrum as well. But overall, if you want an index of perspectives, if you want to learn, if you want to understand or communicate with people on "the other side", this book is well-worth engaging with.
This book is likely to provide value for people along the spectrum of perspectives, and may provoke dismay for people at both ends of the spectrum as well. But overall, if you want an index of perspectives, if you want to learn, if you want to understand or communicate with people on "the other side", this book is well-worth engaging with.
November 17, 2019
This book is AMAZING!! Keen really does her research. I like what she says in the introduction: when studying for this subject, she didn't want the results to be one sided (affirming.) She wanted to approach both the traditionalist and progressive view of homosexuality. And, boy, did she do that.
Toward the end, there were times where she lost me (she talks about science and homosexuality), but it only lasted for a short time (and from what I DID understand, she did a good job.)
Wheather you're a straight, gay, whatever, this book is packed with valuable information for everyone. In how to love our gay friends better, and how to love ourself better.
Toward the end, there were times where she lost me (she talks about science and homosexuality), but it only lasted for a short time (and from what I DID understand, she did a good job.)
Wheather you're a straight, gay, whatever, this book is packed with valuable information for everyone. In how to love our gay friends better, and how to love ourself better.
October 11, 2022
Good summary of the issues
Keen provides a helpful summary of same-sex relationships from a traditional and progressive perspectives, identifing areas of convergence and divergence. She shows that the areas of divergence are few, but that they function as an impasse. Keen attempts to overcome the impasse by challenging traditionalists to reconsider the way they read and apply Scripture.
While Keen raises many good questions and points, I expect that her argumentation will be most convincing for those already open to consider scientific method and assumptions of evolutionary biology as having significant weight in the discussion. Many traditionalists may not accept the arguments from science as significantly compelling, at least without Keen providing more reason (philosophically and theologically) to accept these. So, it would have helped for there to have been more lead up to integration of the arguments from science, but I understand that a short book like this cannot address all angles. Overall this is worth the read and will help progressives and traditionalists think through this important area.
Keen provides a helpful summary of same-sex relationships from a traditional and progressive perspectives, identifing areas of convergence and divergence. She shows that the areas of divergence are few, but that they function as an impasse. Keen attempts to overcome the impasse by challenging traditionalists to reconsider the way they read and apply Scripture.
While Keen raises many good questions and points, I expect that her argumentation will be most convincing for those already open to consider scientific method and assumptions of evolutionary biology as having significant weight in the discussion. Many traditionalists may not accept the arguments from science as significantly compelling, at least without Keen providing more reason (philosophically and theologically) to accept these. So, it would have helped for there to have been more lead up to integration of the arguments from science, but I understand that a short book like this cannot address all angles. Overall this is worth the read and will help progressives and traditionalists think through this important area.
December 17, 2025
This book challenged a lot of what I learned growing up in the Southern Baptist church. Its very easy to read and offers an alternative viewpoint to the "Christian" worldview as it pertains to homosexuality. I would recommend it to anyone struggling with understanding homosexuality and scripture as it offers a viewpoint most people do not discuss.
April 10, 2021
A necessary book in these times. Thoughtful, engaging, scholarly yet easy to read/understand. Does a great job of breaking down barriers in the discussions of LGBT relationships in Christian world. Loved it.
May 11, 2022
Good primer, short and accessible
April 27, 2024
Summary: Considerate and thoughtful author makes me want to be considerate and thoughtful.
Read
October 10, 2023Interesting (and valuable!) for taking an ethical approach rather than an exegetical one - hand this to your truly curious friends and family rather than the ones who will complain that it's not a Bible study
October 18, 2018
First, there are a few things I appreciate about this book:
- It avoids the binaries we usually see in the politicized culture war (in culture & church)
- It takes Scripture seriously
- The author (Karen Keen) speaks as someone who really loves God, was, and is (as of the books writing) celibate. So she doesn't appear to be simply justifying her actions.
- It's short! A lot of great endnotes, but actual content is only about 115pps (see pic)
Keen's argument can be summed up in a few movements:
1. Unlike theological liberals, we must take the OT seriously. But rather than blindly applying it, we must read culturally-embedded laws and see what they point to at a deeper level: a good and just world. What might that look like for gay people who desire to follow Jesus seriously (versus as rebellious, deviant, or sex-crazed individuals)?
2. Studies show that sexual orientation change (becoming ex-gay) simply doesn't work. The biblical options we have upheld therefore are mixed orientation marriages and -- more visibly: celibacy. Celibacy is biblical, noble, and Christ-like. It is certainly possible for some. For most people, however, the evidence shows it is too difficult to maintain for a lifetime.
3. It takes discernment to *apply* Scriptures teachings. Keen shows some interesting examples of how earlier Scriptures are re-interpreted and applied in later parts of Scripture -- and the applications always lean towards mercy. Does the bible open the door to make an *exception* or to *accommodate* these people lest they "burn with passion?"
4. Studies show homosexuality is not a choice but possibly the result of prenatal factors. Since it isn't rebellion, we can't call it the product of moral fallenness. At worst, it is a product of natural fallenness (e.g., Tourette's syndrome). At best it is an expression of human variation (e.g., left-handedness). Might this open the door to *affirm* gay marriage?
I'm not sure if this ultimately moves the needle for those of us who aren't "affirming". But unlike most arguments I've read from progressives, this one speaks to our evangelical values of (a) upholding Scripture and (b) desiring to love and please God. It's definitely worth considering.
Disclosure: I read an early manuscript of this book. I purchased a copy & received a free copy in exchange for an honest review.
- It avoids the binaries we usually see in the politicized culture war (in culture & church)
- It takes Scripture seriously
- The author (Karen Keen) speaks as someone who really loves God, was, and is (as of the books writing) celibate. So she doesn't appear to be simply justifying her actions.
- It's short! A lot of great endnotes, but actual content is only about 115pps (see pic)
Keen's argument can be summed up in a few movements:
1. Unlike theological liberals, we must take the OT seriously. But rather than blindly applying it, we must read culturally-embedded laws and see what they point to at a deeper level: a good and just world. What might that look like for gay people who desire to follow Jesus seriously (versus as rebellious, deviant, or sex-crazed individuals)?
2. Studies show that sexual orientation change (becoming ex-gay) simply doesn't work. The biblical options we have upheld therefore are mixed orientation marriages and -- more visibly: celibacy. Celibacy is biblical, noble, and Christ-like. It is certainly possible for some. For most people, however, the evidence shows it is too difficult to maintain for a lifetime.
3. It takes discernment to *apply* Scriptures teachings. Keen shows some interesting examples of how earlier Scriptures are re-interpreted and applied in later parts of Scripture -- and the applications always lean towards mercy. Does the bible open the door to make an *exception* or to *accommodate* these people lest they "burn with passion?"
4. Studies show homosexuality is not a choice but possibly the result of prenatal factors. Since it isn't rebellion, we can't call it the product of moral fallenness. At worst, it is a product of natural fallenness (e.g., Tourette's syndrome). At best it is an expression of human variation (e.g., left-handedness). Might this open the door to *affirm* gay marriage?
I'm not sure if this ultimately moves the needle for those of us who aren't "affirming". But unlike most arguments I've read from progressives, this one speaks to our evangelical values of (a) upholding Scripture and (b) desiring to love and please God. It's definitely worth considering.
Disclosure: I read an early manuscript of this book. I purchased a copy & received a free copy in exchange for an honest review.
February 13, 2021
Karen Keen's book is a clear, well-researched, and thoughtful argument to justify same-sex relationships to conservative Christians. Although she tries to reference some diversity of theology and practice within the tradition, Keen continually centers a fundamentalist, evangelical expression as the normative, historical understanding of Christianity. As I began the book, I was not surprised by this perspective, albeit a bit annoyed. However by the end, I was just sad.
Keen describes the book as a result of her decades long struggle to make sense of her gay identity in relation to scripture. Sadly, Keen seems to conflate the biblical text, more specifically a patriarchal and heteronormative interpretation of those writings, with God. A friend and clergy colleague described this relationship to the Bible as "bibliolatry."
So much of Keen's faith journey seems to have been about conforming her life to fit this particular framework. Even if she does enter into a same-sex relationship (as long as it mirrors a heteronormative gender expression and partnership), apparently it will still never be as good as the "real" thing; however, it will at least be acceptable to God. Keen's final chapter reads like a plea for her religious community to believe so too.
It saddens me that Keen has apparently spent so much time, energy, and self-worth trying to fit her "one wild and precious life" into a biblical box peculiarly formed by human hands. God has created each of us with an amazing capacity to love and be loved; those of us who are queer are no exception. There is joy and freedom in living into this truth. The biblical text can offer inspiration and insight into our lives and experiences of God and each other; it is not prescriptive of it.
Keen describes the book as a result of her decades long struggle to make sense of her gay identity in relation to scripture. Sadly, Keen seems to conflate the biblical text, more specifically a patriarchal and heteronormative interpretation of those writings, with God. A friend and clergy colleague described this relationship to the Bible as "bibliolatry."
So much of Keen's faith journey seems to have been about conforming her life to fit this particular framework. Even if she does enter into a same-sex relationship (as long as it mirrors a heteronormative gender expression and partnership), apparently it will still never be as good as the "real" thing; however, it will at least be acceptable to God. Keen's final chapter reads like a plea for her religious community to believe so too.
It saddens me that Keen has apparently spent so much time, energy, and self-worth trying to fit her "one wild and precious life" into a biblical box peculiarly formed by human hands. God has created each of us with an amazing capacity to love and be loved; those of us who are queer are no exception. There is joy and freedom in living into this truth. The biblical text can offer inspiration and insight into our lives and experiences of God and each other; it is not prescriptive of it.
July 21, 2019
I held out hope for this book. I wanted it to provide me with the insights from Scripture needed to let me change my mind. And, I admit that Karen Keen did a better job than most have of presenting two sides of the issue. One of her arguments was always that Traditionalists say, but Progressives say - and because what the Progressives say MIGHT be true, we must accept that what Progressives say IS true. The same goes for her Traditionalists say/Science says arguments. She also addressed the marriage as a symbol of Christ's relationship with the Church argument without ever considering the (to me) huge point that Christ and the Church are not of the same type. All that mattered to her was the covenantal aspect. She also failed to draw any comparisons between those who suffer with same-sex attraction and those who suffer with other, less accepted attractions. The arguments she uses to claim that same-sex attraction should be accepted can and will be used to demand acceptance for EVERY form of attraction, and for every desire to deviate from traditional morality. I wanted the book to succeed. She did better than most, but her answers still end up being, "Well, Scripture can mean whatever one wants it to."
And yes, I know - people are going to be angry with my response.
And yes, I know - people are going to be angry with my response.
October 18, 2018
Few topics can produce more division, stress, confusion, and exhaustion than the topic of "same-sex relationships". I have reading thousands of pages on the topic over the last three decades and while many of the books I've read have been deeply helpful, most of them were not the kind of book I could easily recommend to others. This book is a refreshing exception to that rule.
With deeply respectful acknowledgment of the various (and often opposing) perspectives on this topic, Karen Keen manages to provide an accessible and clear framework of understanding Scripture, culture, history, and much more around these aspects of human sexuality. Each chapter is clear, ending with a concise summation of it's content, including additional resources from both traditional and progressive sources. And that she does all that in under 150 pages is remarkable.
This is the book we need to set the standard for what conversation around these topics should look like. Every Christian should read this book. It is well worth it.
(I received a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.)
With deeply respectful acknowledgment of the various (and often opposing) perspectives on this topic, Karen Keen manages to provide an accessible and clear framework of understanding Scripture, culture, history, and much more around these aspects of human sexuality. Each chapter is clear, ending with a concise summation of it's content, including additional resources from both traditional and progressive sources. And that she does all that in under 150 pages is remarkable.
This is the book we need to set the standard for what conversation around these topics should look like. Every Christian should read this book. It is well worth it.
(I received a complimentary copy of the book in exchange for an honest review.)
October 14, 2018
A thoughtful, careful investigation of the issues from someone with a high regard for Scripture, an abiding desire to serve God, and an enduring faith in the church to be the loving body of Christ. I hope many who hold a traditionalist view of Christian marriage will take the time to sincerely consider Keen’s work.
July 27, 2024
Among other thoughts: "In essence, accepting same-sex relationships does not require compromising Scripture. To the contrary, taking Scripture more seriously teaches us to apply these texts in a way the biblical authors themselves model."
November 3, 2020
Well written and argued.
May 1, 2021
I read this book to understand a different progressive argument. Over the past several years I have grown in compassion for the progressive church as I understand why many feel disenfranchised or leave what is dubbed “the traditional” church.
I do not believe they always have wrong arguments or reasons for leaving orthodox Christianity, but I do believe there is some evidence to show that many times these people leave from abuse of power or because they cannot understand how there feelings are not valid in light of scripture (I.e homosexuality.) Like I said, I do have a lot of compassion. I can imagine that it is very distressing to have homosexual feelings, and be constantly told it is sin, while also being told to conform to a type of extra biblical gender norm that is not even scriptural. I myself have affections that are not right and have to continually reorient myself, so I get that it is not some simple issues, but that those with same sex attraction feel their longings deeply and may not be freed of them.
The good: The author is wicked smart, I will give her that. She is not dumb or attempting to pull the wool over anyones eyes. She is also very sincere. She also can express complex subjects well, she is not uneducated.
Her point about traditionalists being unwilling to give progressive Christianity any merit when they themselves see cultural aspects to the Bible and then omit certain things to their practice (ie. head-covering) was spot on. Yes, they are hypocrites when they bag on progressives for seeing certain things as cultural. But, I don’t believe head-covering is or was cultural... so I head cover as an application of RPW and as a way to keep the Lords day holy. I am also not a fundamentalist, or even a comp. I am “soft” if anything, although not egal as I reject women pastors. All that to say, I am already not swayed by “the cultural argument.” Because of my own personal applications of scripture and how I read the Bible her arguments weren’t going to penetrate me as I already read the Bible in the way she criticizes others for not - she shows how the tradional camp are harsh and hypocritical, ad I totally agree with her assessment. It makes her argument stronger, but most traditionalist would be quicker to head cover than accept same sex relations, in my opinion. So it shows their (traditionalists) error, but I don’t think in her favor.
The bad: I do not agree with her conclusions nor her arguments, although they are probably the best I have ever heard. Her main premises is covenantal same sex marriage, not plural marriage, and not any other form of sexual relationships. She is arguing for same sex marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage and why the two operate under the same rules.
I don’t agree with her beliefs about Moses and what he authored, but that is a side note, and her arguments don’t lead logically to where she thinks. She will make a good case, but then attempt to apply it to her argument- and it just doesn’t mesh. Again, she is so sincere and being a woman who truly struggles with same sex attraction I can understand why she has came to her conclusions, but I believe she started with a premise and then applied it to the Bible. IMO, she did not apply the Bible to her already felt experience.
All that to say, my review can not do justice to her own book. If you want to know what she says, you should read it. I am just expressing my feelings as I concluded and why I rated it as a one.
I wouldn’t recommend this book, but I am glad I read it because it gave me a great knowledge of the arguments coming from the left side of the church. I have struggled with - “ Is this woman truly a Christian?” I didn’t see her break down the gospel, so I can’t say, but if Jon Edwards could be saved while owning slaves (wickedness) than couldn’t those who see same sex conventional marriage also be saved? With that. I am less inclined to condemn the left side of the church right away unless they are outright denying the essentials. That is something I am left wresting with.
I am also left wrestling with her end points on celibacy. That was the strongest argument IMO. Not that I’m swayed by her conclusions, but I am left a little rattled with an “I don’t know” and would err towards pastoral counsel would be needed for case by case and strong Christian support. Her end would be same sex support, mine would lean towards continued chastity even when it feels impossible because Christ gives use the ability to follow his commands even when we don’t live up or fail. All that to say, she’s gentle with her writing, I could see myself enjoying her company. That’s totally unrelated to the book itself, but her character does bleed through and her biblical literacy (though I don’t believe her conclusions are accurate) is strong.
I do not believe they always have wrong arguments or reasons for leaving orthodox Christianity, but I do believe there is some evidence to show that many times these people leave from abuse of power or because they cannot understand how there feelings are not valid in light of scripture (I.e homosexuality.) Like I said, I do have a lot of compassion. I can imagine that it is very distressing to have homosexual feelings, and be constantly told it is sin, while also being told to conform to a type of extra biblical gender norm that is not even scriptural. I myself have affections that are not right and have to continually reorient myself, so I get that it is not some simple issues, but that those with same sex attraction feel their longings deeply and may not be freed of them.
The good: The author is wicked smart, I will give her that. She is not dumb or attempting to pull the wool over anyones eyes. She is also very sincere. She also can express complex subjects well, she is not uneducated.
Her point about traditionalists being unwilling to give progressive Christianity any merit when they themselves see cultural aspects to the Bible and then omit certain things to their practice (ie. head-covering) was spot on. Yes, they are hypocrites when they bag on progressives for seeing certain things as cultural. But, I don’t believe head-covering is or was cultural... so I head cover as an application of RPW and as a way to keep the Lords day holy. I am also not a fundamentalist, or even a comp. I am “soft” if anything, although not egal as I reject women pastors. All that to say, I am already not swayed by “the cultural argument.” Because of my own personal applications of scripture and how I read the Bible her arguments weren’t going to penetrate me as I already read the Bible in the way she criticizes others for not - she shows how the tradional camp are harsh and hypocritical, ad I totally agree with her assessment. It makes her argument stronger, but most traditionalist would be quicker to head cover than accept same sex relations, in my opinion. So it shows their (traditionalists) error, but I don’t think in her favor.
The bad: I do not agree with her conclusions nor her arguments, although they are probably the best I have ever heard. Her main premises is covenantal same sex marriage, not plural marriage, and not any other form of sexual relationships. She is arguing for same sex marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage and why the two operate under the same rules.
I don’t agree with her beliefs about Moses and what he authored, but that is a side note, and her arguments don’t lead logically to where she thinks. She will make a good case, but then attempt to apply it to her argument- and it just doesn’t mesh. Again, she is so sincere and being a woman who truly struggles with same sex attraction I can understand why she has came to her conclusions, but I believe she started with a premise and then applied it to the Bible. IMO, she did not apply the Bible to her already felt experience.
All that to say, my review can not do justice to her own book. If you want to know what she says, you should read it. I am just expressing my feelings as I concluded and why I rated it as a one.
I wouldn’t recommend this book, but I am glad I read it because it gave me a great knowledge of the arguments coming from the left side of the church. I have struggled with - “ Is this woman truly a Christian?” I didn’t see her break down the gospel, so I can’t say, but if Jon Edwards could be saved while owning slaves (wickedness) than couldn’t those who see same sex conventional marriage also be saved? With that. I am less inclined to condemn the left side of the church right away unless they are outright denying the essentials. That is something I am left wresting with.
I am also left wrestling with her end points on celibacy. That was the strongest argument IMO. Not that I’m swayed by her conclusions, but I am left a little rattled with an “I don’t know” and would err towards pastoral counsel would be needed for case by case and strong Christian support. Her end would be same sex support, mine would lean towards continued chastity even when it feels impossible because Christ gives use the ability to follow his commands even when we don’t live up or fail. All that to say, she’s gentle with her writing, I could see myself enjoying her company. That’s totally unrelated to the book itself, but her character does bleed through and her biblical literacy (though I don’t believe her conclusions are accurate) is strong.
October 15, 2025
Next in my series of reading through a range of views about Christianity and gay rights. Keen argues from a theological and ethical perspective that the church should ultimately affirm covenantal same-sex relationships. Keen centers her arguments more on hermeneutics rather than getting in the weeds exegetically. To summarize is to lose some nuance, but Keen essentially argues that Christians should try to attend to the intent of the law rather than the letter of it. Since Christian law (or just general directives) are geared towards justice and human flourishing, Christians have a path towards affirming same-sex relationships. Keen particularly pulls from a host of scientific sources and explains how our understanding of what causes sexual orientation should affect how we engage with it, even theologically. She ultimately finds that homosexuality or bisexuality falls within the realm of either natural fallenness (or more graciously) created diversity ordained by God. Recognizing such requires the church to offer some level of affirmation, either as a form of accommodation to help avoid graver sin or as a good end within itself.
Keen has a lot to offer here. Most importantly, she offers her argument with a gracious spirit (also a high point for my first, traditionalist, read). She represents the traditionalist view well and contrasts it with the progressive view. Despite her final position aligning better with the progressive view, she is not afraid to criticize progressive conclusions when she feels they stretch too far (side note: despite her final position being affirming, I ultimately classified this work in the moderate camp, although I probably need to shift that some). I found it refreshing for her to make the argument from a Christian ethical perspective, which allowed her to seriously consider the lived experience of LGBTQ+ Christians, particularly in relation to the expectation of lifelong celibacy. This doesn’t mean that Keen doesn’t engage in any exegesis (she does), but her overall argument would be considered ethical rather than exegetical, à la the title. In terms of my own bias, I found her overall hermeneutic inviting and often found myself literally nodding to what I was reading, particularly in her discussion around the intent of the law.
With that being said, there are still drawbacks here. It is a relatively short book, which limits the level to which she can engage with traditionalist voices. While I believe Keen to be learned and fair throughout, she jumps to the heart of the matter at the expense of truly dealing with the nuances of the best traditionalist arguments. For example, I’d be interested in seeing a traditionalist response to Keen’s argument that behavioral directives under Christ are always moral and never about distinctiveness (I.e. holiness)? There probably is one, but I don’t know that she addresses it. I also feel that she can overstate her case using analogical reasoning at times, such as comparing the church’s views on divorce to its views on same-sex relationships. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually disagree with her line of reasoning but she has the benefit of me generally agreeing with her here - I’d love to see her extend these arguments further.
A few other notes of interest, not particularly positive or negative: I am interested in what Keen would have to say about the larger transgender movement of recent years, especially since she argues for some level of male-female complementarity within the book. Also, it may seem like I was badmouthing how (relatively) short the book is, but it’s a strength in many ways. Keen is a deft communicator and if someone truly wanted an entry point into affirmative thinking but comes from a conservative background, this would be my top choice.
In case you can’t tell, I’m a fan of this one and found myself often in agreement.
Keen has a lot to offer here. Most importantly, she offers her argument with a gracious spirit (also a high point for my first, traditionalist, read). She represents the traditionalist view well and contrasts it with the progressive view. Despite her final position aligning better with the progressive view, she is not afraid to criticize progressive conclusions when she feels they stretch too far (side note: despite her final position being affirming, I ultimately classified this work in the moderate camp, although I probably need to shift that some). I found it refreshing for her to make the argument from a Christian ethical perspective, which allowed her to seriously consider the lived experience of LGBTQ+ Christians, particularly in relation to the expectation of lifelong celibacy. This doesn’t mean that Keen doesn’t engage in any exegesis (she does), but her overall argument would be considered ethical rather than exegetical, à la the title. In terms of my own bias, I found her overall hermeneutic inviting and often found myself literally nodding to what I was reading, particularly in her discussion around the intent of the law.
With that being said, there are still drawbacks here. It is a relatively short book, which limits the level to which she can engage with traditionalist voices. While I believe Keen to be learned and fair throughout, she jumps to the heart of the matter at the expense of truly dealing with the nuances of the best traditionalist arguments. For example, I’d be interested in seeing a traditionalist response to Keen’s argument that behavioral directives under Christ are always moral and never about distinctiveness (I.e. holiness)? There probably is one, but I don’t know that she addresses it. I also feel that she can overstate her case using analogical reasoning at times, such as comparing the church’s views on divorce to its views on same-sex relationships. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t actually disagree with her line of reasoning but she has the benefit of me generally agreeing with her here - I’d love to see her extend these arguments further.
A few other notes of interest, not particularly positive or negative: I am interested in what Keen would have to say about the larger transgender movement of recent years, especially since she argues for some level of male-female complementarity within the book. Also, it may seem like I was badmouthing how (relatively) short the book is, but it’s a strength in many ways. Keen is a deft communicator and if someone truly wanted an entry point into affirmative thinking but comes from a conservative background, this would be my top choice.
In case you can’t tell, I’m a fan of this one and found myself often in agreement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 66 reviews