Reviewed by Gene Haas
James Brownson’s recent book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships, joins the list of revisionist works on the topic of same-sex relations (SSR), extending back to D. Sherwin Bailey’s Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition (1955), published over the past 70 years Earlier revisionist arguments were usually presented by progressive scholars associated with mainline liberal churches. In recent years there has been a number of self-proclaimed evangelicals who have written books arguing that Christians today should accept same-sex attracted people in committed monogamous marital relationships. Evangelicals who have written popular books promoting this viewpoint are Ken Wilson, Wendy VanderWal-Gritter, and Matthew Vines, and those producing more scholarly books are David Gushee and Mark Achtemeier, now joined by Brownson.
In his introductory chapter Brownson indicates that he has written this book because he wants to focus, not primarily on the specific texts dealing with SSR (although he does do that), but rather on the “moral logic” underlying the biblical witness concerning SSR. He claims that, when evangelicals understand this underlying moral logic, we can still hold to a high view of biblical authority while also accepting committed marital SSR. (To his credit, he does acknowledge his personal interest in this matter – his own son “coming out” as gay – which led him to re-examine the witness of Scripture on this issue.)
Brownson divides the book into four parts:
- The traditionalist and revisionist positions on this issue, where he indicates the insufficiency of both (chapters 2-3).
- The moral logic as a broad, cross-cultural biblical vision about sexuality in general and its application to SSR through focusing on four themes: patriarchy, the “one-flesh” bond of marriage, procreation, and celibacy (chapters 4-7)
- A close examination of the key New Testament text on SSR, Rom. 1:24-27, addressing four topics mentioned in the passage: lust, purity, honor/shame, and natural law (chapters 8-11).
- A summary of the main claims of his book, and an examination of the other key biblical texts that address SSR: Gen. 19, Judges 19, Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10. (chapter 12).
This book by an accomplished New Testament scholar is a thoughtful, complex and comprehensive work, claiming to present both a wide-ranging portrait of the biblical teaching on human sexuality, and a detailed examination of specific biblical texts, while also appealing to historical and contextual factors. This review cannot address all the arguments and interpretations that Brownson presents (but recognizing that they deserve more extensive scholarly responses). My focus is on highlighting, evaluating, and responding to: the assumptions underlying Brownson’s arguments, his hermeneutical principles for interpreting Scripture, and the major exegeses and arguments presented in parts 2 and 3 of the book.
Assumptions
Brownson claims that he has a high view of biblical authority, and that he is committed to taking the Bible with all the seriousness and fidelity that his Reformed tradition requires (xi). His issue is not with Scripture itself, but with the interpretations that traditionalists have made of certain passages that address SSR. He contends that these interpretations have not taken account of the broader moral logic of the biblical witness, and so have misinterpreted and misapplied these passages to contemporary SSR between committed adults. He claims that his presentation of this moral logic gives the proper framework within which to interpret correctly these key passages and apply them to the current situation of SSR.
Click here to listen to the audio of this review.
In spite of his claim that he is committed to the authority of Scripture, the arguments he presents in the book undermine this claim. While numerous examples could be given to support this, here are two that illustrate how Brownson subverts Scripture’s authority. (1) When Paul refers to “nature” in his epistles (such as in Rom. 1:26-27), Brownson claims that he is simply reflecting the ancient pagan assumptions about gender (237, 248). (2) The Bible’s teachings on SSR fail to take into account the experience of committed same-sex couples today in which there is a fruitful expression of committed love (277-78). Thus, biblical authority is effectively undermined both by ignoring the Holy Spirit as the author of the biblical teaching for the church throughout the age of gospel, and by simply dismissing the biblical teaching as culturally and historical conditioned by the authors’ ancient view of SSR.
Brownson also assumes that there is no fixed creational moral order. This is evident in two ways. First, he uses the phrase “gender complementarity” to describe the mutuality of spouses, and he avoids the phrase “sexual complementarity.” As Brownson rightly notes, gender always has a social and cultural aspect to it, shaping what is considered as appropriate for the roles, behavior and vocations for males and females. Sexual roles, however, are more closely tied to our creational natures as male and female. This is obviously the case for having, bearing and (to some extent) raising children. And sexual roles have considerable bearing on gender roles, even as we must allow for some degree of cultural diversity and relativity. Brownson completely avoids reference to sexual complementarity since it points to creationally established male-female roles. The closest he comes is his reference to “anatomical or biological complementarity of male and female.” But this obvious caricature of the richer notion of sexual complementarity is one that he quickly dismisses (260). The second evidence of Brownson’s rejection of a creational moral order is the lack of any references to biblical scholars who appeal to such an order, such as Craig Bartholomew, Al Wolters, and Richard Middleton. In addition, while Brownson does appeal to several Christian ethicists, he does not have any references to Oliver O’Donovan, who has, throughout his career, made a strong case for the moral order being grounded in creation. Without a creationally-rooted moral order, it becomes much easier to argue, as Brownson does, that morality and gender complementarity evolve and change with different social and cultural circumstances.
The final argument which Brownson makes which effectively undermines the authority of Scripture is his appeal to a redemptive hermeneutic. (This hermeneutic has been previously advocated by a number of biblical scholars, such as Richard Longenecker, William Webb, and I. Howard Marshall, especially to support egalitarianism of roles for men and women in marriage and in the church.) The principle here is that the gospel of Christ, in transforming this present age, calls believers to embody a new transformational ethic that moves beyond the teachings of the New Testament to the new creation of the eschatological age. The central passage appealed to for this is Gal. 3:28 (68-71, 251-55). The result is that the specific ethical teachings in the Bible, and even in the New Testament, are no longer authoritative, since Christians must move beyond them to live according to the future eschatological reality. Brownson applies this hermeneutic to SSR, so that the biblical teachings are no longer applicable in our current “old age” historical context.
Hermeneutics
The main argument that Brownson makes in the book is that the specific biblical passages which address SSR must be interpreted in the context of the larger fabric of meaning – the moral logic – of Scripture. Of course, it is true for all biblical interpretation that specific passages must be understood in their context: the immediate context of the passage, the context of the whole biblical book within which the passage occurs, and the context of the biblical narrative and teaching as a whole. Obviously, the appeal to the larger fabric – the moral logic – of Scripture on any issue must be supported by Scripture, and must not contradict the specific passages that give moral guidance to believers on any issue. Brownson’s hermeneutic faces problems on both counts. He maintains that the larger fabric of Scripture supports marital complementarity without reference to sexuality or gender, but simply those one-flesh kinship bonds which are characterized by self-giving love (agapē) to the other (263). The problem with this claim is that all biblical references to such marital complementarity denote male-female marriages. There are no references anywhere in Scripture to such complementarity for SSR. Also, the biblical teaching about SSR in both the Old and New Testaments is uniform and consistent – namely, that all such sexual relations are sin. There are no qualifications, exceptions or exemptions to this biblical teaching. Thus, if one follows the moral logic of Scripture, as Brownson claims one should, the conclusion should be that SSR are morally wrong.
The second hermeneutical issue for Brownson’s argument is his use of the redemptive hermeneutic. The problem with this hermeneutic for SSR, is the same as it is for other issues which appeal to it, namely, that Scripture tells us very little about what life in the eschaton looks like. And there is no suggestion in the Bible that our lives in this age should move beyond the creational norms for human life. Two of the passages to which people typically appeal for this hermeneutic are Gal. 3:28 and Matt. 22:30. Brownson appeals to both several times (68, 80, 117). Gal. 3:28 tells us that equality in Christ overrules any social or cultural inequality based on gender, economic status, or ethnicity. But Paul seems to find this claim consistent with his other instructions concerning role distinctions in marriage (Eph. 5:22-3) and in the church (1 Tim. 2:12-14). There is no suggestion in Paul’s letters that believers are no longer directed by creational norms and institutions in their lives. Matt. 22:30, which is a difficult passage to understand, suggests that “people will neither marry nor be given in marriage” at the resurrection. But this does not imply any changes to the nature of marriage in this present age. In fact, as O’Donovan argues, passages such as these confirm that creational relations are transformed by the gospel so as to fulfill their original creational purposes without our transcending creational norms in this age. To suggest otherwise is to use the redemptive hermeneutic as justification for behavior and institutions for which Scripture gives no support.
Arguments of Part II:
Brownson’s Broad Vision for the Center of Christian Sexual Ethics
In Part II – the central section of the book – Brownson presents “four very broad forms of moral logic that are critical for understanding what Scripture has to say about sexuality in general (16).” These form the basis for his argument for acceptance of SSR. Let us examine and evaluate them.
In chapter 4 on “Patriarchy” Brownson claims that throughout Scripture we find two contrasting streams – the patriarchal stream characterized by hierarchical relations and the egalitarian stream characterized by mutuality and equality. The tension between the two is finally resolved with the fulfillment of redemption in Christ, which results in the inauguration of the new eschatological age “shaped by the structures of the gospel” (81). This supports a new understanding of “gender complementarity” stressing equality and mutuality. Given this new reality, Brownson claims that the biblical condemnations of SSR no longer apply, for they speak only to those SSR that reflect the patriarchal pattern, where men assume the feminine roles not appropriate to their patriarchal roles, or where men have power over boys in relations of pederasty. Thus, given the equality and mutuality of modern SSR, the moral logic of the gospel accepts such relations.
In addition to the previously mentioned problems with the redemptive hermeneutic to which Brownson appeals in this section, the obvious difficulty with this argument is that there is no indication anywhere in the New Testament for acceptance of SSR. The New Testament prohibitions of SSR remain consistent with those of the Old Testament. Furthermore, when it comes to marriage, we find the application of the gospel to it is portrayed as fulfilling its creational design. There are three references in the New Testament to Gen. 2:24 as the creational pattern which men are to reflect in their marital lives: by not divorcing their spouses (Matt. 19:4-6), by not satisfying their sexual urges with prostitutes (1 Cor. 6:16-17), and by loving their wives as Christ loves the church (Eph. 5:31-33). There is no appeal to some redemptive pattern that transcends the marital ordering of this present age. And there is certainly no indication that committed SSR can somehow fulfill the marital design of Gen. 2:24.
Chapter 5 deals with the “One Flesh” language of Gen. 2:24. Here Brownson argues that Gen. 2:24 does not refer to sexual complementarity or the physical sexual union between husband and wife, but to the establishment of a “new primary kinship bond” (86). He supports this by appealing to the biblical testimony that Eve is brought to Adam as a suitable helper so that he might no longer be alone (Gen. 2:18). The fact that Adam is said to cling (dabaq) to his wife resulting in the one-flesh union (Gen. 2:24), Brownson maintains, indicates that the unitive intimacy of the couple is the primary feature of the one flesh union. Given that this, and not the procreative meaning of marriage, is the principal characteristic of marriage, it can apply to same-sex couples.
While the reference to “one flesh” certainly refers to more than the sexual union of husband and wife, it definitely does refer to that. This is why traditional language refers to the act of sexual union of husband and wife as the consummation of marriage. The three New Testament references to the one-flesh union of Gen. 2:24 only make sense if sexual union is described. In Matt. 19:4-9 Jesus states that adultery, which violates the exclusive nature of sexual intimacy, is grounds for divorce; in 1 Cor. 6:12-17 Paul condemns sexual union with prostitutes because this entails a one-flesh union with the prostitute just as the sexual union of husband and wife results in their unity; in Eph. 5:25-33 Paul declares that the comprehensive union between husband and wife, expressed in their physical sexual union, is an analogy to the mysterious union between the church and Christ.
In addition, it is incorrect for Brownson to refer to the one-flesh union as having primary reference to a kinship bond. First, virtually all kinship bonds are based on biological relatedness, which marriage is not. Second, kinship relationships do not involve sexual relations, which marriage does. And finally, the one-flesh union of marriage always entails a sexual exclusiveness, violated by sexual relations with others. The unitive intimacy which Brownson claims is the distinctive quality of the one-flesh union would not necessarily be violated by a spouse having non-sexual intimacy with a person to whom they are not married.
In chapter 6 on “Procreation” Brownson argues that the unitive meaning of marriage, not its procreative capacity, defines the essence of marriage. He claims that procreation is a secondary purpose, and therefore, not essential for marriage. He supports this by appealing to Gen. 2, where procreation is never mentioned as a reason for God’s creation of Eve. He also claims that the numerous references to marriage in the New Testament – Paul’s concession to people to get married (1 Cor. 7:2,9) and the grounds for divorce (Matt. 5:32, 19:9) – never appeal to procreation. In fact, Christians are called to leave family and children for the sake of the gospel (Luke 18:29), and married couples are exhorted to behave as if they were not (1Cor. 7:29). Brownson’s conclusion is that the lack of procreative capacity cannot be a sufficient reason to deny same-sex couples marriage relationships (126).
Brownson clearly exercises “tunnel vision” in this section. The foundational description of God’s creation of humans as male and female in Gen. 1:26-28 states twice that they have the mandate to subdue and rule over all other creatures. In order to carry out this task God exhorts them to be fruitful and increase in number so that they may fill the earth. That is, humans’ procreating is the necessary foundational condition for their carrying out the task of the cultural mandate. This is assumed throughout the rest of the Bible. Thus, Brownson, who emphasizes the importance of having the big picture in mind when interpreting specific passages of Scripture, engages in deliberate disregard for the foundational calling of procreation in Gen. 1:28 as the context for male-female relations elsewhere. This is most glaring in his claim that the presentation of the one-flesh union of Gen. 2 makes no mention of procreation. The obvious rejoinder is that it does not need to, since it assumes what has been clearly stated in the previous chapter. While Gen. 2 emphasizes the unitive intimacy of the marital relationship, it builds upon the procreational calling of Gen. 1. Both chapters must be seen together as declaring the foundational principles of marriage: procreation and intimate union. Jesus indicates the connection between these two chapters for understanding marriage by quoting from Gen. 1:27 and Gen. 2:24 in Matt. 19:4-5 to support the unitive and permanent features of marriage. In addition, throughout the Bible the assumption is that marriage will normally and naturally lead to children. Two examples are: Ps. 127:3 – “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him;” and Mal. 2:15 – “Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking a godly seed.”
Brownson argues that, because infertile heterosexual couples still are considered married, so also same-sex couples should be considered capable of valid marriages. In both cases, it is the unitive aspect of the committed relationships that makes them marriages. But the two are not parallel. First, the one-flesh unions of infertile heterosexual couples embody the unitive nature of marriage, and especially the sexual union, which same-sex couples can never accomplish in their sexual unions. Second, the sexual union of heterosexual couples also reflects the procreative nature of the one-flesh sexual union as the full biblical character of marriage which normally would result in children, even if they cannot achieve this due to infertility. Same-sex unions can never near witness to this procreative purpose of marriage; rather, they embody counterfeit versions of marriage,.
In chapter 7 Brownson examines the biblical testimony concerning “Celibacy.” He appeals to Matt. 19:12 and 1 Cor. 7, to argue that, while Christians are encouraged to consider, and some are called to, lives of celibacy, Paul is quite pragmatic in recognizing that not all are gifted with lifelong celibacy. The application to those experiencing same-sex attraction is that we cannot assume that all whose erotic attraction is persistent are gifted with this calling. The obvious implication is that same-sex attracted people should be allowed to marry. Otherwise, those without this gift will be subjected to temptation and sin throughout their lives.
The problem here is that Brownson works with a notion of the gift of celibacy as something granted to Christian as an inner capacity which one has apart from one’s circumstances. But this is not how gifts related to our callings function. Christ grants his people gifts according to the circumstances in which they find themselves. Everyone is single for a time as a young person, even if they later become married. While they are single, they are called to celibacy in the face of sexual desire and temptation. If and when they marry, they are called to faithfulness and loving service to their partners in the marital relationship, which also involves resisting the temptation to engage in sexual activity with others. If their spouses should die, they are called to be celibate again as they again find themselves in the state of singleness. Many Christians who desire to be married, never do – for various reasons not of their own choosing. They are also called to celibacy, no matter how strong their sexual desires are. Moreover, some Christians have inappropriate sexual attractions, for example, to children. Such people are called to lifelong celibacy in relation to these erotic desires. So, the notion, advanced by Brownson, that same-sex attracted people face unique sexual situations due to their erotic desires is not true. The gifts that Christ grants his people through the Holy Spirit are precisely those abilities to live in the situations and callings in which God has providentially placed them.
Brownson on Rom. 1:24-27
In Part III Brownson engages in an extensive discussion of the key New Testament passage which condemns SSR, namely, Rom. 1:24-27. Chapter 8 on “Lust and Desire” involves a detailed exegesis of these verses. Brownson argues that the language that Paul uses here – referring to lusts, people driven by passions, and burning with passion – refers to excessive, andself-centred sexual desires that are out of control. Paul is describing people who are so driven by insatiable desires that, not content with normal sexual relationships, they engage in same-sex relations. Brownson draws two conclusions from this. First, that Paul is likely alluding to the well-known sexual excesses of a former Roman emperor, Gaius Caligula, who also engaged in same-sex relations. Second, Brownson argues that this characterization cannot refer to those who experience same-sex attraction if they are not carried away by their lusts and passions in the same fashion. Same-sex attracted people have the ongoing desire to find sexual fulfillment with those of the same sex. Thus, the characterization of SSR in Rom. 1:24-27 cannot refer to all SSR, as such, although it can refer to excessive lust and passions of gay and lesbian, as well as of heterosexual, people.
The first point of criticism here concerns Brownson’s claim that the language that Paul uses in Rom. 1:24-27 must refer to “out-of-control lust” (151) where people are “driven to ever more exotic and unnatural forms of stimulation in the pursuit of pleasure” (156). Brownson’s exegesis of the terms – that they refer to “an extraordinarily powerful and excessive manifestation of lust” (154) – is debatable. For example, he admits that the noun epithumia, found in Rom. 1:24, which he translates as “lusts” (149), is used elsewhere, sometimes in the verb form, to simply refer to desire, covetousness or more subtle forms of lust (Matt. 5:28; Rom. 7:8; Phil. 1:23). His argument is that the other terms that Paul uses in this section of Romans – “degrading passions” (1:26), “consumed with passion” and “shameless acts” (1:27) – support the interpretation of these lusts as “intense or excessive” (168). But this is still debatable. Jesus uses the verb,epithumeo in Matt. 5:28 to issue a strong warning – that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Yet, this lustful viewing of a woman indicates serious sin without necessarily entailing out-of-control lust. While Paul’s language in Rom. 1:24-27 is strong, it is disputable whether it as extreme as Brownson claims.
Second, it should be pointed out that Brownson’s contention that Paul has the sexual behaviour of Gaius Caligula in mind in Rom. 1:24-27 is pure speculation. There is nothing in this text, or elsewhere in Paul’s writings, that supports this claim. Third, the argument that Paul’s language in this passage can only refer to those who are engaged in sexual acts, carried away by their lusts and passions, begs the question of whom Paul is referring to. The only acts to which Paul refers in these verses are same-sex acts. Of course, in other epistles Paul does condemn those who engage in acts of sensuality, impurity and lust which could apply to heterosexuals (Eph. 4:19; 1 Thess. 4:5), and he also specifically condemns acts of adultery and sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10). But since Paul refers in Rom. 1:24-27 specifically to same-sex acts, it is reasonable to assume that Paul views these acts as examples of those who are carried away by excessive lusts and passions.
Chapter 10 on “Purity and Impurity” is Brownson’s attempt to explain Paul’s characterization of same-sex activity as “impurity” in Rom. 1:24-27 as his movement away from the Old Testament notions of external purity and impurity to internal notions concerning the heart and the will. True impurity for Paul is internal, namely, excessive desire and lack of restraint. Brownson appeals again to the redemptive eschatological hermeneutic for his understanding. The conclusion is that same-sex attracted people can have purity as they pursue their same-sex desires.
Again, Brownson begs the question with this interpretation. While it is true that purity in the age of the gospel is concerned with internal character and motivations, such purity (or impurity) is typically manifested in one’s actions. And the only actions that Paul mentions in Rom. 1:24-27 are SSR. Thus, it is a justifiable exegesis to conclude that SSR themselves are the impure expressions of impure internal motivations.
In chapter 10 Brownson contends that “Honor and Shame” as expressed in Rom. 1:24-27 only makes sense in a culture of honor and shame. In the ancient world certain sexual actions by men and women – both heterosexual and homosexual – were considered shameful. But such designations can vary dramatically from one honour culture to another. Brownson argues that in our context the only thing shameful about the activity that Paul describes is the lust, licentiousness, self-centeredness, and abuse underlying the activity. The moral logic of Scripture should tell us that SSR today which are not the result of such motivations are not shameful.
Again, Brownson begs the question, since the only activity which Paul mentions in the text is SSR. In addition, there is no justification for driving a wedge, as Brownson frequently does, between motivations and actions. Scripture suggests that certain sexual actions are wrong, even if they are not driven by excessive lusts and passions. For example, with calculated planning and determination a man may divorce his wife who has contracted a degenerative disease, and marry a healthy and wealthy woman. Although he may show no sign of excessive lusts and passions in his actions, the man is still committing adultery, and is condemned by Scripture for this. It is the actions that demonstrate what the man’s true motivations are, even if there is no evidence of excessive lusts and passions. The same evaluation can be applied to a variety of behaviours, including SSR.
In chapter 11 Brownson dismisses Paul’s references to “Nature” in Rom. 1:24-27 as simply reflecting the ancient world’s understanding of nature (as one’s individual nature, the good order of society, and biological processes, particularly procreation). Since the biblical vision is the new creation as inaugurated by Christ’s redemption, Brownson claims that Paul’s understanding no longer applies to us. The new order allows for committed and consecrated SSR.
The problems with Brownson’s appeal in this chapter to the redemptive eschatological hermeneutic has been previously noted. First, he undermines the authority of Scripture by dismissing Paul’s references to “nature” as simply the reflection of the pagan ideas of the ancient world. Second, he appeals to the redemptive hermeneutic to argue for a position not supported by Scripture.
In the concluding chapter, Brownson gives a quick survey of the other passages dealing with SSR: Gen. 19, Judges 19, Lev. 18:22 & 20:13, 1 Cor. 6:9, and 1 Tim. 1:10. The explanations he gives for these passages repeat explanations previously offered by other scholars defending SSR. All such revisionist exegeses have been found wanting. For example, he contends that the Leviticus passages condemn SSR because these are associated with pagan cultic practices, even though there in nothing in the texts that supports this. He argues that 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 refer to the ancient practice of pederasty. But there is nothing in the text that supports this, nor does Paul use specific Greek terms that would indicate that he has pederasty in mind. These revisionist interpretations simply serve to dismiss the text as having any contemporary authority or application, without any support by the texts themselves or by the wider biblical context. The concluding comments of this chapter summarize the arguments of the book, notably about the moral logic that Brownson claims is found throughout Scripture which serves to provide a framework to properly interpret key passages, notably Rom. 1:24-27, and to offer acceptance of monogamous committed SSR, presumably in marriage.
Conclusion
Brownson bases his argument in the book, and especially in Part II, on his appeal to the underlying moral logic of the Scriptural teaching on sexuality. But this concept, to which he appeals numerous times throughout the book, is a very elusive and elastic concept. He never defines the term, and he uses it in a number of different ways. It is not something which he elucidates through his appeal to specific biblical passages to provide a consistent and coherent canonical teaching to support his understanding of sexuality. In fact, as he himself admits (14), the moral logic that he finds in Scripture is frequently opposed to the teachings of specific biblical passages, especially the negative texts that mark the boundaries of acceptable sexual practice. Furthermore, the moral logic of scripture that allows for SSR is somehow consistent with the fact that the biblical authors never imagine SSR of a life-long bond similar to marriage, and with the fact that there is a consistent reference to one-flesh unions only between male and female in Scripture (105-6). Brownson appeals to the redemptive movement of scriptural revelation to reveal the “important and powerful underlying forms of moral logic” transcending culture and place, “rooted in the gospel” (51). But, as previously noted, there is also little here that is firmly rooted in Scripture. In fact, the Bible gives no basis for his claim that the moral logic of Scripture should take us beyond the clear and consistent teachings of God’s Word. It seems appropriate to suggest that the “moral logic” to which Brownson constantly appeals might simply be certain assumptions about sexuality in general, and SSR in particular, which Brownson brings to the biblical texts and, unsurprisingly, subsequently “discovers” there.
In conclusion, this book presents the case for acceptance SSR in the most comprehensive, nuanced, and scholarly manner of any such work to date. However, as this extensive review has argued, close examination of the general “moral logic” which Brownson presents, and of the specific arguments that he makes, especially concerning our understanding of the key biblical texts, fail to support his thesis. In fact, even as he has attempted to present a comprehensive case for SSR, the accumulation of evidence, both biblical and logical, continues to support the position that SSR are sinful. When carefully analyzed and evaluated, there is nothing in this book to persuade a committed Christian to depart from the consistent biblical teaching concerning SSR or from the traditional teaching of the church which is based on it.
Guenther (Gene) Haas is Professor of Religion & Theology, Redeemer University College.