Via, Dan O., and Robert A. J. Gagnon. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003. Pp. 117. $13.00.

Dan Via (Duke Divinity School) and Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) come down on different sides of the homosexuality debate. Here both biblical scholars make a substantial presentation and then a shorter response to the main points of the other. In “The Bible, the Church, and Homosexuality,” Via argues traditional approaches to the subject, Gagnon included, view homosexual actions as inherently sinful, regardless of the context and quality of the relationship of the individuals involved. In contrast, Via argues the morality of homosexual actions depends on their context and quality. To get to this point, and past a lot of tradition in the process, Via draws upon what “recent social science has taught us” and upon “the contemporary experience of gay and lesbian Christians.” These things, when brought to bear upon the theological and ethical conflicts or differences within scripture, give Via a “biblical theology” that prefers Paul and the Gospels over Leviticus and allows him to adopt a more open and accepting approach to homosexuality in cases of “consensual, committed, loving relationships.”

In “The Bible and Homosexual Practices: Key Issues,” Gagnon provides a dense summary of his 520-page The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, with notes keyed to an extensive discussion of Via's position on his website (www.robgagnon.net). Having argued against the myth of the “sexually tolerant Jesus,” Gagnon surveys the Bible and concludes that the male-female prerequisite for acceptable sexual intercourse with its attendant prohibition to all same-sex intercourse constitutes a “core value” of scripture, i.e., a value held pervasively, absolutely, strongly, and counterculturally. Gagon does not rule out an examination of modern contextual factors, but he insists that an extraordinary burden of proof remains with those who would revoke a core value of scripture. They need to show there is new information that was unavailable to the biblical writers and that this information speaks directly to the reasons why the biblical writers held to their views. After rejecting the analogies commonly put forth for embracing homosexual practice in the church—the Gentile inclusion in the church, slavery, women's roles, divorce and remarriage—Gagnon concludes that Via failed to meet the burden of proof on both points. Gagnon also deals with the social science literature but comes to different conclusions than Via.

In his response, Via admits to a substantial agreement with Gagnon that the biblical texts which “deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally.” In spite of his agreement, Via contends Gagnon brings two questionable presuppositions to his argument. The first is that no contextual factors can ever override a core value of scripture. Via contends such core values can and should be overridden if there are good reasons, including the very sorts of contextual factors he says Gagnon excludes at the outset. The second is an anachronistic concept that “anatomical complementarity” carries weight in biblical arguments about same-sex practices. In response, Gagnon argues that Via underestimates the extent and degree of scripture's opposition to homosexual practice and that this opposition cannot relegate homosexual practice to an outdated purity rule. Further Gagnon contends Via's theology of sexuality ignores positive biblical support for a sexual congruence and complementarity between males and females. With his presuppositions, Gagnon says Via has no reason to exclude polygamists, pederasts, and incestuous partners as long as they are in “consensual, committed, loving relationships.” Gagnon also argues that there were many theories about homoerotic behavior in the ancient Greco-Roman world that used “anatomical complementarity.” Even the modern notion of “orientation” is compatible with Paul's understanding of sin as congenital, controlling, and physical.

Does God care about hearts alone (Via) or hearts and biology (Gagnon)? Does love and commitment trump all “structural prerequisites for sexual intimacy”? At points, Via seems to say “yes,” while Gagnon says “no.” This difference seems to create a fissure through any common ground these authors may share. Even the gospel itself seems to have two different meanings. For Via, God wants individuals, heterosexual and homosexual alike, to realize all of the possibilities of good in their created destiny. Gagnon, in contrast, believes that God offers individuals, heterosexual and homosexual alike, the possibility of redemption from their created and acquired destiny.

Homosexuality and the Bible does a fine job of bringing into focus the exegetical and hermeneutical issues facing mainline churches. I wish the publisher had conducted the exchange as a formal debate with a moderator who required the authors to speak to each others' points more directly. (It turns out that Gagnon did respond to Via's second round of concerns in great detail on his website.) It may be too strong to say that Gagnon owns the biblical and ancient historical interpretation on the subject, but I know of no one who has stepped forward and gone head to head with him on this material, point by point, down the line. The success of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views is that it summarizes two thoughtful and pastorally sensitive approaches to an extremely complex and divisive subject. Yet while the issue is complex, the book shows there are still only two basic perspectives—Via's or Gagnon's or variations of one or the other. This reinforces what logic and history seem to show, namely that there is no compromise or middle way through the current impasse in the mainline churches that does not or will not eventually overturn existing ordination standards in favor of the “more open and accepting approach.” There are difficult days ahead for the mainline churches. For readers who have largely skimmed the surface of the debate thus far, this book is a good place to go deeper.

Stephen D. Crocco
Princeton Theological Seminary