Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
CDN$ 15.60
  • List Price: CDN$ 19.50
  • You Save: CDN$ 3.90 (20%)
FREE Shipping on orders over CDN$ 25.
Usually ships within 1 to 3 weeks.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca.
Gift-wrap available.
Quantity:1
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Jesus, Bible, And Homosexualit Paperback – Apr 14 2009


See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
CDN$ 15.60
CDN$ 11.36 CDN$ 18.40

Best Canadian Books of 2014
Margaret Atwood's stunning new collection of stories, Stone Mattress, is our #1 Canadian pick for 2014. See all

Frequently Bought Together

Jesus, Bible, And Homosexualit + For the Bible Tells Me So [Import]
Price For Both: CDN$ 39.44

One of these items ships sooner than the other.


Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought



Product Details

  • Paperback: 228 pages
  • Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press; Revised and expanded ed edition (April 14 2009)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 066423397X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0664233976
  • Product Dimensions: 15.6 x 1.4 x 23.4 cm
  • Shipping Weight: 408 g
  • Average Customer Review: 1.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #179,965 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Product Description

About the Author

Jack Rogers is Professor Emeritus of Theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary in California. He was moderator of the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Roger's books include Reading the Bible and the Confessions, Claiming the Center: Churches and Conflicting Worldviews, and Presbyterian Creeds, all published by WJK.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
0
4 star
0
3 star
0
2 star
0
1 star
1
See the customer review
Share your thoughts with other customers

Most helpful customer reviews

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful By rossuk TOP 500 REVIEWER on Aug. 27 2011
Format: Paperback
It is amazing how many 5 star reviews there are on Jack Roger's book, it is quite clear that people do not critically evaluate what they read. There are serious problems with his arguments, primarily the use of false analogies, such as slaves, women and Gentile inclusion (Acts 15), which he mentions on p79 and p86.

There is certainly a trajectory for freedom from slavery in both the OT and NT, even Paul is egalitarian to women in 1 Cor 7:2-5 also Gal 3:28, and regarding Gentile inclusion, scripture was used to justify this (Acts 15:16), however, there is no such trajectory in either the OT and NT for inclusion in the church of practising homosexuals, see 1 Cor 6:9, when it refers to the malakos and arsenokoites, past tense. The scripture goes counter-culturally on the issue of male-male sex in both the OT and the NT.

In his discussion of "arsenokoites" (1 Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:10) p70-71, what he fails to tell us that is that Robin Scroggs in his 1983 book (The NT and homosexuality) tells us that the Greek word "arsenokoites" was derived from the Septuagint version of the Levitical prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, a fact confirmed by David F Wright in 1984, which means that in Paul's mind the Levitical moral prohibitions applied in his day, otherwise he could not judge the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, the problem was that the church was being too tolerant. Also Scroggs shows that the Hebrew equivalent of "arsenokoites" is "mishkav zakur" it is a technical term used by Rabbis of homosexuals. Instead, his star witness is the gay professor Dale Martin and his article "arsenokoites and malakos", who has deliberately tried to confuse the issue because it helps his cause, Martin is aware of Scroggs and Wright as he cites them, but he does not enter into a dialogue, which is a pity.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 47 reviews
34 of 41 people found the following review helpful
Thoughtful and challenging presentation for full inclusion of LGBT community within the Church and society [1st edition] June 6 2010
By Lawrence Miley - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Jack Rogers has written a concise articulation of how a Christian can (and should) seek equal rights for those in the gay and lesbian communities. Rogers approaches this issue from a variety of different angles, not restricting his case or discussion to one area such as Biblical references to homosexuality. Here are several of these perspectives or angles and some of what he states concerning them:

--The pattern of misusing and abusing the Bible in order to justify oppression: Rogers focuses in on slavery (or Black civil rights) and woman's rights. In both cases, these groups were viewed as inferior based upon a biblical curse, their moral character, and their willfully sinful nature. Rogers briefly attempts to explain how seemingly upright individuals could come to hold such repugnant views, concluding that it was a mixture of bad biblical interpretation and philosophical presuppositions. He finally notes that the same pattern has reappeared in the LGBT controversy with gays and lesbians simply taking the place of Blacks and women.

--Biblical interpretation methodology: On this issue, Rogers contends that the general or persistent themes surrounding the life and purpose of Jesus are to be given interpretative priority over individual passages isolated from this overarching narrative. As he states, "The Bible is a story, and its central character is Jesus Christ" (56). Rogers thinks that these general themes should be held in the forefront when interpreting each passage of Scripture, especially passages referring to narrow commandments or moral prerogatives. In light of this, he holds that Jesus' words on divorce should be seen as ideals desired to be held but not slavishly enforced. Regarding homosexuality, the centrality of God's love and the need to love one's neighbor is seen as providing good grounds for equal treatment of homosexuals.

--Specific Biblical texts related to homosexuality: Here he argues that all of the texts proffered as evidence for the immorality of homosexuality fall short of establishing this. His primary claim is that none of these passages address homosexuals involved in committed and loving relationships. The homosexual activity referred to in these passages always have some other element (e.g., prostitution, ritual uncleanliness, etc.) that makes them disanalogous to the contemporary homosexual.

--Engaging living examples of homosexual commitment: Rogers thinks that actually meeting and witnessing the commitment and love present in homosexual relationships can serve as evidence for accepting God's blessing of such a relationship. Following several New Testament scholars, he thinks that Acts 15, in which the gentiles were included in the blessings of the covenant, can serve as a precedent for accepting a formerly rejected class based upon seeing God's spirit at work in and with them.

Coming to the book from a traditional perspective, I found his arguments to be interesting, enlightening and challenging. He presents a good case within a small framework. The strength of the book, I think, is in his exposition of the "problem verses." Though his presentation is brief and one-sided, the cultural issues surrounding these passages does at least give one (or at least me!) a moment's pause before coming to the traditional conclusions. There were still, however, several aspects of the book which I found wanting.

Rogers' particular methodology for interpreting Scripture isn't exactly clear and maybe even inconsistent. Coming to the text from a big picture perspective (absent a belief in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture, which I don't think Rogers' has) presents the problem of discerning which Biblical particulars are to be authoritative--or morally imperative--and which aren't. This approach leads him to hold the view that Jesus' statements about divorce are to be taken as ideals but aren't expected from his followers. Yet when it comes to sexually promiscuous behavior, Rogers seems to think that the Biblical condemnation of this is to be taken at face value. The reasoning on this goes as follows: proper sexual conduct is restricted to married (or at least committed) relationships because that is how God structured human sexual conduct, and we know this from the Bible. But I could envision a proponent of sexually promiscuous behavior presenting a case very similar to the one Rogers presents for homosexuality. If this problem is insuperable (though I doubt it is), the texts specifically related to homosexual behavior would be even more important.

Numerous times Rogers appears to argue with non-sequitors, that is, arguments in which his premises don't support his conclusion. For instance, at one point he exclaims: "Can you imagine Jesus turning away someone who is despised, discriminated against, and distraught to the point of attempting suicide?" with the concluding remark that we "see everyone in this discussion of homosexuality as our sister and brother in Christ" (57). But even if one agrees with Rogers on what Jesus would do in this example, it doesn't follow that one should believe that homosexual behavior is permissible or morally acceptable. Jesus himself proclaimed that many of the people he ministered to were sick and in need of a doctor. In a similar fashion, he references John 7:53-8:11 as supporting his position on homosexual equality (44), but this story ends with "Go and sin no more," so even though there is an accepting and forgiving tone to the story, there is still the call to refrain from sinful behavior. Not too different from these cases, Rogers appears to be confused when discussing the work of Richard Hays, who views homosexuality as an aspect of our fallen and sinful nature. Rogers states, "by singling out a particular group of people, Hays is contradicting the essential Christian message that we are all broken people, saved through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ" (85). There is clearly no contradiction here. Rogers doesn't appear to recognize the possibility that--though we are all fallen--each of us is fallen in a different way and that some of us may be fallen in similar ways, that is, we have similar fallen tendencies. This is quite evident on the Christian doctrine of man and entails no contradictions. Hays may be mistaken that homosexuality is an aspect of being fallen, but it's not because this contradicts some core truth on sin and redemption as Rogers claims. To a lesser extent, some of Rogers' arguments pertaining to the history of biblical justification for oppression are misguided. In short, though these examples should humble us and our ability to see through our cultural prejudices, they're only relevant to the case at hand if--in fact--the traditional view of homosexuality is mistaken, which is the very thing that is at issue.

One minor complaint I had was that he focuses in on debates within the Presbyterian Church too much for a book devoted to healing "The Church." He constantly references various disputes and decisions reached throughout the history of this church, including some involving homosexuality. Though Rogers is Presbyterian, this issue of homosexuality is relevant to the whole of the Christian church (as Rogers knows), and it would've been better if the book had been presented from a broader Christian perspective.

Lastly, the book doesn't include many dissenting voices. It would've been nice if Rogers could have dug into the other camps' literature a bit more, but given the length of the book this is understandable. He does, however, refer to Gagnon and Hays' works.

In the end, this book is recommended for those interested in this debate. The writing and presentation are clear such that one is able to understand the whats and whys of Rogers' positions. Also, the book is short enough that one can have a decent understanding of how a Christian can welcome homosexuals while (attempting to be/) being faithful to the Biblical witness. It should be noted, though, that the sections pertaining to the Presbyterian Church can be hard to get through for one not too interested in that church's historical disputes.
13 of 16 people found the following review helpful
Strong Advocacy, Weak Scholarship May 24 2007
By John B. Erthein - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Jack Rogers, Professor Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has written this book in order to, as the subtitle says "Explode the Myths and Heal the Church." This is a laudable goal. But how well does this book accomplish that goal?

In my opinion: not well. Rogers draws analogies between the church (and I need to clarify that when Rogers discusses the church, he means the Presbyterian Church (USA), a fast declining mainline denomination) changing its mind on issues of race, gender and marriage with changing its mind on homosexuality. In other words, while the church previously endorsed racial discrimination, even slavery; opposed women in leadership; and prohibited divorce; it holds to a different view now, and should follow the same trajectory with homosexuality. What is interesting to me is that in making this argument, Rogers shows that Scripture seems to matter less for each change. What I mean is that he marshalls impressive Scriptural evidence against racism. And the church, not just the Presbyterian Church (USA), agrees as a whole that racism is a bad thing and that people should be treated equally regardless of race. I know of no recognized denomination that affirms racism today ... from the liberal UCC to the conservative Southern Baptists and Assemblies of God. On the question of women in leadership, Rogers brings some Scriptural support to his perspective, but not as much, and that is reflected in the continuing refusal of most churches to ordain women as pastors. The Scriptural support for that practice is not as strong. In that regard, it is very unfortunate that the Presbyterian Church (USA) had made recognition of women's ordination one of the very few non-negotiables it insists upon ... a decision Rogers seems to agree with (even though in other contexts he says "Synods and Councils may err," a good Reformed principle that apparently does not apply when egalitarian feminism is affirmed by Synods and Councils).

In his treatment of divorce and leadership, Rogers really seems to bring no Scriptural support to the denominational change of mind. At least, I discerned little, if any. And again, most churches do not accept divorce as a valid lifestyle option for their leaders. In this regard, if affirming homosexuality really does follow affirming divorce, the Scripturally faithful decision would be to revisit our permissiveness regarding divorce. Two wrongs do not make a right. But again, when a progressive or modern opinion prevails in our Synods and Councils, the matter is not likely to be revisited. So much for our idea of "Reformed and Reforming according to the Word of God."

Rogers' treatment of Scripture and interactions with opposing views also does not strike me as persuasive. I believe that traditionalist scholar Robert Gagnon engages much more thoroughly with the entirety of Scripture than does Rogers. What was most disappointing to me in Rogers' book is that while he does mention Gagnon, he does not engage Gagnon honestly (or else he does not understand what Gagnon is saying). If you have Roger's book, I would suggest comparing his comments on Gagnon with what Gagnon actually wrote in his own work "The Bible and Homosexual Practice." And consider who is endorsing these books in the included editorial comments ... Rogers' work is endorsed primarily by advocates of homosexual affirmation. Gagnon's work is endorsed almost entirely by scholars. If you are looking for a work of advocacy, Rogers may meet your needs. But if you are looking for solid scholarship, you will need to continue your search.

Ultimately, if the Presbyterian Church (USA) accepts the conclusions and recommendations of Rogers' book, the denomination will not be "healed" but rather isolated in a cul-de-sac cut off from the power of God's Word and communion with the Body of Christ in the world.
107 of 153 people found the following review helpful
Preaching to the gullible April 1 2010
By rossuk - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
It is amazing how many 5 star reviews there are on Jack Roger's book, it is quite clear that people do not critically evaluate what they read. There are serious problems with his arguments, primarily the use of false analogies, such as slaves, women and Gentile inclusion (Acts 15), which he mentions on p79 and p86.

There is certainly a trajectory for freedom from slavery in both the OT and NT, even Paul is egalitarian to women in 1 Cor 7:2-5 also Gal 3:28, and regarding Gentile inclusion, scripture was used to justify this (Acts 15:16), however, there is no such trajectory in either the OT and NT for inclusion in the church of practising homosexuals, see 1 Cor 6:9, when it refers to the malakos and arsenokoites, past tense. The scripture goes counter-culturally on the issue of male-male sex in both the OT and the NT.

In his discussion of "arsenokoites" (1 Cor 6:9, 1Tim 1:10) p70-71, what he fails to tell us that is that Robin Scroggs in his 1983 book (The NT and homosexuality) tells us that the Greek word "arsenokoites" was derived from the Septuagint version of the Levitical prohibitions in Lev 18 and 20, a fact confirmed by David F Wright in 1984, which means that in Paul's mind the Levitical moral prohibitions applied in his day, otherwise he could not judge the incestuous man in 1 Cor 5, the problem was that the church was being too tolerant. Also Scroggs shows that the Hebrew equivalent of "arsenokoites" is "mishkav zakur" it is a technical term used by Rabbis of homosexuals. Instead, his star witness is the gay professor Dale Martin and his article "arsenokoites and malakos", who has deliberately tried to confuse the issue because it helps his cause, Martin is aware of Scroggs and Wright as he cites them, but he does not enter into a dialogue, which is a pity.

He (Rogers) also gets the definition of the Hebrew word "toevah" (abomination) wrong by saying that it only refers to ritual uncleanness (p69), a fault shared by Helminiak. A quick look at the BDB Hebrew lexicon shows that "toevah" can be used in both a ritual and an ethical way. Also, the death penalty was applied to those who commit male-male intercourse in Lev 20, so it hardly sounds like "just" ritual impurity.

In his discussion of Gen 1 and 2 on p82-83, what he neglects to tell us is that Jesus quotes Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in his treatment of marriage and divorce in Mat 19:4-6, which undermines his argument. There can be a lively debate on whether Gen 2:24, is descriptive, or prescriptive or normative, but the discussion needs to take into account what Jesus says about this, but Rogers, totally ignores Mat 19:4-6. Roger's neglect of Jesus teaching in Mat 19:4-6, either means that Rogers is ignorant of the biblical evidence (which is unlikely) or because he understands that this invalidates his case on Gen 1-2, and probably also invalidates all his arguments concerning eunuchs, which he takes at least 5 pages to discuss. Jesus in Mat 19 then goes on to deal with those who cannot accept his teaching on marriage in Mat 19:11-12, i.e. those who are unable to marry, the eunuchs made so by men, or born eunuchs and those who renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom. Rogers discusses the eunuchs on p 78-79 and p130-35, and it has to be taken in the context of Mat 19:4-10, Rogers takes it out of context. My understanding of Mat 19:11-12, is that those incapable of marriage, as Jesus defines it, should remain celibate. Rogers takes a different view.

In his discussion of Rom 1, what he fails to point out is that the Greek word for impurity used in Rom 1:24 (akatharsia) is also used by Paul in Rom 6:19, where he seems to be speaking to those who were formerly guilty of sexual impurity in Rom 1:24. Most people who read Romans on this issue only get as far as Rom 2. Rom 6 can be read in a new light, as Paul's teaching to those who were formerly sexually impure in Rom 1, in this light Rom 6 makes fascinating reading.

On p115, he discusses the Greek word "akathartos" (Eph 5:5), he says that "There is no suggestion of an application specifically to same sex practice". But this is a related Greek word "akatharsia", which Paul uses in Rom 1:24, when Paul discusses same-sex intercourse.

He also argues that Paul in Rom 1, is only condemning homosexuality in the context of idolatry, but in Rom 1:29-31 Paul introduces a long catalogue of sins, are we to assume that they are only wrong when associated with idolatry? I think not. Also the vice list in 1 Cor 6:9 (which contains the malakos and arsenokoitai) does not presuppose idolatry.

On p69, he quotes Jesus vice-list in Mat 15:19, which includes the sexually immoral, what he fails to tell us is that the Greek word used is "porneia" which is a catch all word for those who commit illicit sexual intercourse which would include male-male intercourse.

On p129, he discusses "love thy neighbor", which is taken from the much maligned Lev 19:18, and is sandwiched in between the Levitical prohibitions on male-male intercourse in Lev 18 and 20. But, he neglects to mention that Lev 19:17 says, "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. I conclude that, the homosexual is my neighbor; I should therefore love him and reason frankly with him.

Rogers offers us the misogyny argument on p67, 69, 74 and 75, quoting Dale Martin on homosexuality in the OT he says "To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior" Rogers goes on to say "It is an expression of the "ancient horror of the feminine"". But, what I find interesting is that Paul in 1 Cor 7:3-5, is saying that within the bed, a husband and wife are equals, there is no misogyny at all, Paul, is quite egalitarian, the misogyny argument just does not hold water, the scripture stands against him.

I could go on, but people do not read very long reviews. Perhaps, people should be more like the Bereans, who examined the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Really the best. Feb. 3 2014
By exilepst - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Rev. Rogers' book is thoughtful and mediating, as one would expect from the man, who along with Dr. McKim, created a space for a more nuanced understanding of Inspiration back during the "Scripture Wars" which the late, great Dr. Henry began in the 1970's. I have been able to utlize this accessible tome over and over, not least of which was to lead a small group of Presbyterians through a high view of Scripture linked with Scripture's cultural/linguistic place. If someone believes that Dr. Rogers is cavalier in his treatment of either Scripture or church order, then they, honestly, just haven't done the research into either, or into Dr. Rogers' long, illustrious place in teaching, preaching, and leadership. Highly recommended as the most viable of books about securing a place for "gay Christians" in the Church.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Good Resource for Study Groups May 13 2014
By Terry E. Foland - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Well written and documented for Presbyterians, but useful for other denominations not as "ordered" as the Presbyterians. Useful information on how Christians have changed views on crucial social issues (slavery - women in the church) and how the Bible has been used to support positions on which the church has changed over the years. Spells how why Rogers came to change his mind on homosexuality.


Feedback