A Response to Sean McDowell's Book Review on Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships

It might be strange to say, but I was glad when I received my first book critique! It came from Sean McDowell (son of famed Josh McDowell) who is associate professor of Christian apologetics at Biola University. I am grateful he read the book and offered his thoughts. Obviously, I won't be responding to every critique that pops up on the web, but this is the first one and by someone of stature and good repute. Thus, I want to offer a few helpful correctives in response. By doing so, I hope to encourage future critics to engage my book more rigorously. I am all for conversation, but it helps when both parties are truly understanding each other. Unfortunately, McDowell's response largely avoids the key arguments in my book.

Before, pointing out what he skipped (which is significant), I will offer clarifications for what he does say. I quote his objections in italics, followed by my response.

1. Karen R. Keen has written the most recent book making the case that the Bible supports same-sex relationships.

No, I don't say that the Bible supports same-sex relationships. In my second chapter I say that both traditionalists and reformists (affirming folk) agree that the biblical authors condemned same-sex relations (at least for men). And traditionalists and reformists generally agree on why that is: the exploitative nature of same-sex relations in antiquity (e.g. pederasty, sex with male prostitutes and slaves).

Where traditionalists and reformists disagree is on whether the prohibition is culturally-specific to those exploitative practices or whether the biblical authors also intended to prohibit same-sex relations universally (i.e. monogamous, covenanted relationships). Traditionalists argue that it's universal based on Genesis and complementarity. Thus, I focus a chapter on the concept of complementarity.

2. According to Keen, “The story of Adam and Eve demonstrates that marriage is, first of all, a union founded on commonality, not differentiation" . . . It is true that some conservative commentators err by focusing solely on how Eve is different than Adam (gender). But Keen makes the same mistake by focusing entirely on their similarity (humanity). The reality is that both similarity and difference are in view and are essential for understanding the biblical view of marriage. 

No, I don't focus "entirely" on their similarity. I do emphasize it as a corrective to the error that some traditionalists make (which McDowell also acknowledges). But, I also address the reality of sexual differentiation in Genesis, namely, that the purpose of sexual differentiation is procreation.

My argument is that the foundation of biblical marriage is covenant fidelity. Procreation is secondary to that, which is why marriage is still possible without procreation. McDowell concedes this is true, but then states: Even if a child does not result, a man and woman can still enter the kind of “one-flesh” union that is oriented towards procreation. In other words, the penis fits the vagina whether or not children result. I already anticipate this response in my book and point out that the Catholic church takes this argument to its logical conclusion by prohibiting impotent people from marrying. Thus, if you are a heterosexual person who happens to have a disability affecting penis-vagina sex, you are forced to live your entire life single because the meaning of marriage is reduced to this sole act. I would argue that marriage is much more than that. The procreative sex act is common to most animals. What sets human beings apart is covenant.

PS: I would quibble with translating kenegdo as "opposite." The word conveys the idea that Adam and Eve are standing facing each other. Not that they are opposite in the sense of "other" or "different" from each other. A more accurate connotation is mirroring. They are counterparts. Moreover, ezer is best translated "strong ally," not helper in the sense of subordinate assistant. The word is used primarily of God rescuing the Israelites when they are in trouble. In other words Eve was created to be a strong ally for Adam. Since they are counterparts, there is mutuality in that.

3. According to Keen, Jesus views marriage not as a gendered institution, but merely “the unity of two people” (p. 30-33).

No, I do not comment on Jesus's views on marriage as a gendered institution. That is completely anachronistic. The Pharisees, whom Jesus was engaging, didn't have any questions about the gendered nature of marriage. Male-female marriage was a given. Their question is about divorce. We have to read in context, not superimpose our modern thinking if we want to understand Jesus's reference to Genesis. He refers to Genesis to provide an earlier precedence to the Mosaic law, which the Pharisees are using to make their case. Jesus says marriage should be permanent because that is how it was in the beginning at creation, prior to any divorce laws Moses gave.

I also point out that Jesus's emphasis is on "two" staying united and together, as opposed to getting a divorce. In other words, Jesus is arguing for the importance of covenant, which as I stated earlier, is the foundation of biblical marriage. Sexual differentiation is secondary to covenant.

4. In the chapter on interpreting the Bible, Keen argues that same-sex relationships can be virtuous.

Not exactly. I acknowledge that the virtue ethics argument exists (which I do find compelling), but specifically state: "The virtue ethics argument is compelling . . . But many traditionalists are uneasy with this approach . . . I would like to present an argument that speaks to the continued concerns that traditionalists have--one that does not put law and virtue at odds."

I only spend a couple paragraphs talking about virtue ethics. The entire chapter, which McDowell ignores, is actually about legal deliberation. We can learn from the biblical authors how to apply law.

5. In one of the more emotionally laden parts of the book, Keen blames conservatives who reject same-sex unions for the “problem of promiscuity and broken relationships” in certain parts of the gay and lesbian community . . . There is currently no empirical evidence that the church’s stance on sexuality is the cause of suicide among the LGBTQ population. 

This is another example where McDowell ignores the substance of the entire chapter. This chapter is focused on the question of life-long celibacy and whether or not it is feasible for everyone. I provide evidence from social scientific studies, Christian tradition, and the writings of conservatives themselves to demonstrate that it is not possible for everyone (even if it is for some). McDowell does not engage with any of this.

But, for argument's sake, I will respond to his claim here. There is evidence that connects suicidality with religion: Religious Faith Linked to Suicidal Behavior in LGBTQ Adults.

Also, I gave the concrete example of Ryan Robertson, whose evangelical background played a role in his turmoil that eventually led to his death.

6. Keen argues quite extensively that biology is irrelevant when it comes to the nature of marriage. Rather than being about procreation or sexual differentiation, she believes that marriage is about covenant faithfulness. Given her rejection of the importance of biology, I found it ironic that she makes a design argument in chapter 6 that is rooted in biology (“The Question of Celibacy for Gay and Lesbian People”). Keen writes, “God designed human beings for intimate relationships.

No, I didn't say biology is irrelevant. I said procreation is secondary to the foundation of biblical marriage, which is covenant. This is why we allow infertile people to marry, and why I argue that the Catholic church is wrong in prohibiting impotent people from marrying. My point is that marriage is more than just procreation or even penis-vagina fittedness. The fact that God designed us for intimate relationships is why people who are infertile or have disabilities still desire and seek marriage.

What McDowell Skips

It is a strange thing to read a book review that does not address the primary arguments of my book. I made a point to be as clear as possible what I wanted critics to address, so, I spelled it out on pages 102-103 (although the topics of each chapter should already make it clear). These are the primary points for which I provide evidence and seek engagement:

1. Proper interpretation of Scripture requires recognizing the overarching intent of biblical mandates, namely a good and just world.

2. Scripture itself teaches us that biblical mandates, including creation ordinances, cannot be applied without a deliberative process.

3. Evidence indicates that life-long celibacy is not achievable for every person.

4. Evidence shows same-sex attraction is not moral fallenness: it could be understood as natural fallenness or human variation.

McDowell addresses none of these.

I am game for a good dialogue with people who disagree with me. But, please engage with my actual arguments and the evidence I provide. Gracias!

Note: McDowell responded to my concerns with a second post. In turn, I provided a second response. Read it here.