Bible Students

The book Still Time to Care, by Greg Johnson, tracks the historical treatment of homosexuals in the Christian sphere, and advocates for a different response for the modern age. The book covers four major ideas in its four sections: (1) “The Paradigm of Care,” where author Johnson surveys good and bad responses to homosexuality according to biblical care for sinners; (2) “The Paradigm of Cure,” where Johnson surveys the response of Christianity to homosexuality in the last couple centuries, highlighting the Exodus and Ex-Gay movements; (3) “The Rising Challenge to a Historical Ethic,” where the author surveys modern progressive interpretations of passages in the Bible pertaining to homosexuality and offers reflection; and finally (4) “A Path Forward,” where Johnson calls the audience to respond to homosexuality biblically in the modern era. 

Firstly, Johnson surveys “The Paradigm of Care” in the book’s first division. He includes notable Christian figures such as C. S. Lewis, Francis Shaeffer, Billy Graham, and John Stott, and explains their views on homosexuality (mostly broken-heartedness towards the affected) in contrast to their contemporary Christian spheres (who viewed homosexuals as detestable). Using this foundation, the author further explains that the proper biblical framework for viewing homosexuality (and any sinner, for that matter) is brokenheartedness for the fallenness of this world. 

Secondly, in part two, “The Paradigm of Cure,” Johnson explains the Ex-Gay movement, as well as her sister movements. Christianity of that time, and even to today, believed that homosexual individuals could be cured of their “disease,” through a process of making the individual straight. The methods used included small groups, speakers who claimed to be “ex-gay,” and a prominent narrative of cure (over care). However, Johnson explains that though the organizations and individuals spearheading this paradigm may have had good intentions, the results were less than favorable. Unfortunately (according to the hopes of these movements) very few homosexual individuals who entered these programs were actually made straight. Rather, their lifestyle changed to be more like celibacy. However, this distinction was not made widely known as organizations held up self-proclaimed ex-gay speakers as victories for their efforts. 

This deception, whether made with good intentions or not, had tremendous negative effects on those who participated in ex-gay movements. When a homosexual individual would enter an organization and not become straight (like the speakers claimed to have happened to them), the culprit would be the individual’s lack of faith. Maybe, if they believed hard enough they would be saved from homosexuality. However, when this “saving” did not occur, their faith was put under scrutiny. 

Eventually, however, these discrepancies were made known to the public, though the damage had already been done. The loose ends began to come completely undone, and the movements gradually lost their following. Their legacy was one of widespread and large-scale hurt. However, the fall of ex-gay movements paved the way for applied biblical paradigms soon began (and continue) to emerge. 

In section three, “The Rising Challenge to a Historical Ethic,” Johnson surveys the modern response to the historical ethic (the sinfulness of homosexual actions) by the modern progressive Christian movement. While some argue on the front of the sinfulness of holiness of homosexual inclinations, the disagreements lie widely at the level of the sinfulness of holiness of homosexual actions. The progressive’s challenge (the neutrality and possibly sanctity of homosexual acts) is essentially fought on two fronts: Linguistics and biblical contextualization. 

The argument of linguistics is almost overshadowed by biblical contextualization, likely because appealing to ancient customs (which less is known about) will find stronger ground than appealing to linguistics (which more is known about). A key point of contention is in the biblical book of Romans, where progressive Christians claim the phrase “homosexuals” or “those who perform homosexual acts” refers to a Roman cultural practice of having young male sex slaves. However, Johnson argues against this while appealing to historical evidence of Roman culture, as well as the linguistics. To finish off this section, Johnson asks the question, “Is the Biblical Ethic Inherently Violent to Gay People?” His summative answer is no. Essentially, Johnson believes the Bible is not violent toward homosexual individuals, and believes the Bible does give a mandate against homosexual actions, even in legally recognized homosexual marriages. This wraps up the final reflective section before Johnson speaks on what the modern church needs to do. 

In the final section, “A Path Forward,” Johnson tells his readers how he believes the church is to react to homosexual persons today. Essentially, he revisits the ideas presented at the beginning of the book and contrasts them with “The Paradigm of Cure,” while holding fast to the resolve gained in section three. He believes strongly that the biblical evidence does not permit homosexual acts in any capacity, but also that homosexuality is not something to be “cured.” Many Christians continue to struggle with sinful inclinations on this side of eternity, and there should not be a different expectation for homosexually inclined individuals. Rather, the church should have the same brokenheartedness as for any sin, because all sinful inclinations are a result of the fall of mankind. 

Response

Overall, I thought Johnson’s work was illuminating and easily understandable. Johnson writes in a way that leaves the reader questioning how this wasn’t obvious from the beginning. 

In “The Paradigm of Care,” I was surprised to see how many Christian leaders had responded in ways seeming to accord with today’s application of the historic ethic, rather than their own time’s. I suppose these examples were included for exactly that reason, but still their self-awareness interests me. I would definitely agree with the author that the most biblical framework for viewing homosexual sin is a disposition of brokenheartedness. This world is fallen, and sinners are affected by all sorts of vices. This should be understood to be the same as for both practicing and non-practicing homosexuals. In the same way I should not look at a heterosexual porn addict as a monster, but rather as one enchained by the Monster, the Devil. 

Continuing this parallelism to porn-addiction, Johnson explains the Ex-Gay movement in section two, “The Paradigm of Cure.” Without the discoveries articulated by Johnson, I do not blame someone who believed homosexuality was able to be cured. That is the hope for all Christians on this side of heaven, that their corruption and sinfulness would be cured. However, like all other Christians, this is not actualized until Christ returns. I believe many in those movements were genuinely wanting to help. If I were around in that time, I may have even been an advocate for them. However, like Johnson states, very few people were “cured,” and from those who were, many were highly exaggerated by spokespersons. I believe the “cure” of a lifestyle of celibacy is the most likely proper way of handling homosexuality. 

In section three, “The Rising Challenge to a Historical Ethic,” I would agree with Johnson fully, though I am curious to see what a denier would say in response. The biblical text does seem to agree with the convictions of Johnson. Given what Johnson wrote, I do not know if there can be a comprehensive argument that does not fail. One could continue to argue the historicity of Johnson’s claims (the nature of ancient homosexual acts), but I believe Johnson’s work proves proficient. 

In section four, “A Path Forward,” Johnson applies the discussion to today. I think his application suits the current social climate. His stance is both tempered to what culture needs, while not compromising the biblical message. By that, I mean the post ex-gay script and terminology (i. e., a “gay Christian,” or similar terminology) can, if one understands the terms, communicate well the ideas presented earlier. Culture (rightly) advocates for the personhood of homosexual individuals. However, they go too far in affirming homosexual behavior. On the other hand, the church (rightly) advocates against homosexual behavior, however, they go too far in denying the personhood of homosexuals. I believe the affirmation of the personhood and image-bearing nature of homosexual individuals, while also affirming the evil of homosexual behavior, is exactly the biblical model.