“Homosexuality” by R. E. O. White in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter A. Elwell (Baker Book House, 1984, 1,204 pp.). Sexuality by Letha Dawson Scanzoni (Westminster Press, 1984, 113 pp.)
by Dr. Ralph Blair
This big dictionary is advertised as “giv[ing] you the crisp, clear, up-to-date understanding you need on today’s issues”. The “you” includes “pastors and seminarians” as well as “Sunday school teachers and members of group Bible studies”. Such busy people who may not take the time or trouble to do any more research on homosexuality than to look it up in this dictionary will find something stale, confusing and as “up-to-date” as the latest televangelist’s show on the subject. According to Elwell’s Preface, the entire volume was “designed to succeed” the 1960 Baker’s Dictionary of Theology, but evangelicals, who take pride in theological continuity and today pretend that homosexuality has such awful cosmic consequences, did not even list the subject a quarter century ago. Among the nearly 300 contributors to the new dictionary are homosexuals (closeted, to be sure) whose lifestyle is not reflected in the entry on homosexuality. Among the contributors, there are heterosexuals, too, whose more enlightened views on homosexuality illustrate a general acknowledgment of the Preface: “differences [of opinion] exist in the evangelical community”. In reading the rigidly one-sided entry on homosexuality, however, one would not suspect that such differences exist. Elwell promises: “contributors are sympathetic to the subjects on which they write”, but both some of the homosexual and some of the heterosexual contributors could have been expected to fit the editor’s “sympathetic” description better than does the person who, selected to write on homosexuality, empathizes with those who find it disgusting. He rationalizes: “Moral revulsion is sometimes a healthy reaction”.
R. E. O. White writes the article on homosexuality. Unfortunately, he’s identified only as a “theological writer” without further indication of any qualifications for writing on this subject. He states: “Traditionally homosexuality was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed by divine judgment, hence the popular term ‘sodomy’,” but he does not dispute or qualify these old translation and factual errors. He admits only to “uncertain translation”. Having defined homosexuality as “sexual desire directed toward members of one’s own sex”, White misleadingly says that such is condemned in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. But these texts speak of ritual uncleanness and cultic prostitution. Again, he makes no qualifications when he quotes an English version of Paul’s vice list from I Corinthians as applying to all homosexuals today. He gives no indication of the lexicographical difficulties of the passage. He correctly reads Paul’s Romans illustration as having to do with religious acts committed “because of idolatry” but he leaves the readers to assume that the Apostle’s remarks again refer to any and all homosexuality as defined in this dictionary. In discussing the state’s penalties against homosexuals, he has the bad taste to repeat:“ ‘Sending homosexuals to prison resembles sending alcoholics to a brewery’ ”. No wonder he fails to see Sodom as the scene of attempted gang rape, failing to understand the violent rape gay prisoners and others have always suffered at the hands of heterosexual prisoners bent on asserting their machismo. He doesn’t like the term, “gay”, and he claims it’s “misnamed”. His discussion of the “causes” of homosexuality can be called hopelessly archaic and ridiculous. Among his “causes” are “bribery”, “flagrant exhibitionism” and “the mischievous desire to shock”. He is far too simplistic on constitutional factors and misunderstands the sociological and ethnographic literature. Amazingly, he compares homosexuality to “wanton cruelty”. He seems to believe that every homosexual act is abusive and “for sensual purposes only [and therefore] degrades and undervalues the partner”. Having assessed constitutional homosexual disposition “probably incurable”, White demands that it be “lived with” without “actions”. After all of this, White calls for “Christian compassion [and] befriend[ing of] those whose constitution and circumstances make Christian living harder for them than for most”. He seems unaware of his article’s contribution to that “harder living”.
For a refreshing change of pace, Letha Scanzoni’s book is recommended. It’s one in a Westminster series of 12 “Guides for Today’s Woman”. She rightly suggests that “it may well be that too much is being expected of sex today” and that not enough was expected of it through much of church history. She rightly affirms the human needs for love, intimacy, stability and skin contact and supports these affirmations from biblical study as well as from scientific research. These points come alive through the experiences of several people who shared their stories with her. Although the book deals with lesbian relations and issues only incidentally, they are very nicely woven into the general subject of female sexuality. Scanzoni has long been in the forefront of evangelical Christian befriending of homosexual neighbors in a warmly realistic way so it is not surprising to read: “It hurts to be labeled ‘sick’ or ‘sinful’ for experiencing love feelings that spring from one’s core being and bring enrichment to one’s own life and the lives of others, deepen love for God and humankind, and release pent-up creative energies and vitality because of self acceptance at last”. In describing one loving relationship, she says: “No heterosexual married couple could be more devoted than these two lesbians. And their commitment to Christ is strong and vibrant. Everyone notices the warmth and peaceful atmosphere of their home, the plaques and wall hangings declaring their faith, the music and laughter.”