A review of David P. Gushee’s book Changing Our Mind 

Recently, a friend asked that I comment on David P. Gushee’s book Changing Our Mind. David Gushee is a minister, a Distinguished University Professor of Christian Ethics, and director of the Center for Theology and Public Life at Mercer University. He is an evangelical teacher and author. Gushee’s position is that God does not object to same sex relationship and, therefore, we are free to change our mind. Dr. Gushee’s analysis is illogical and cannot be supported by scripture, God’s Word. Below is my response to Margaret, my friend.

Dear Margaret,

I am almost finished with the book; I’m on page 105. I thought I would begin sharing my thoughts. Please excuse the typing. After considering my handwriting, I thought typing would be better. Once you have read this please call me and let’s discuss my thoughts.

A. My assessment of the Author’s Analysis
First, Gushee argues persuasively, often subtly, creating doubt as to the meaning of God’s Word. His apparent goal is to create a basis for reinterpreting the Word of God, varying the traditional perspective on same sex sexual relationships. Therefore, the Words spoken by God and the Hebrew text become most important in understanding what God actually said. Below is Leviticus 18:8-24 (Complete Jewish Bible). This is one of the critical scriptures in Gushee’s analysis:
“You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that is your father’s prerogative. You are not to have sexual relations with your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother . . . You are not to have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or with your daughter’s daughter. Do not have sexual relations with them, because their sexual disgrace will be your own. You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s wife’s daughter, born to your father . . . You are not to have sexual relations with your father’s sister . . . You are not to have sexual relations with your mother’s sister . . . You are not to disgrace your father’s brother by having sexual relations with his wife . . . You are not to have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law . . . You are not to have sexual relations with your brother’s wife, because this is your brother’s prerogative. “‘You are not to have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter, nor are you to have sexual relations with her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are close relatives of hers, and it would be shameful. You are not to take a woman to be a rival with her sister and have sexual relations with her while her sister is still alive. You are not to approach a woman in order to have sexual relations with her when she is unclean from her time of niddah (her period). You are not to go to bed with your neighbor’s wife and thus become unclean with her. “‘You are not to let any of your children be sacrificed to Molekh, thereby profaning the name of your God; I am Adonai. “‘You are not to go to bed with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination. “‘You are not to have sexual relations with any kind of animal and thus become unclean with it; nor is any woman to present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; it is perversion. “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, because all the nations which I am expelling ahead of you are defiled with them.”

God said avoid these sexual relationships; they will make the participant unclean. Neither context nor cultural limitations were set. The nations, people groups and distinguishable cultures, were being driven out of the land because they engaged in these acts. Acts that God said His people should avoid.

Second, Gushee distinguishes abusive, violent same sex sexual acts from covenant, loving same sex acts. Gushee makes a case for the recognition of covenantal-marital sexual same sex relationships as acceptable to the church. He does not assert that such a relationship is acceptable to God. (See page 105.) Gushee’s foundational scripture for this position is Genesis 19, primarily, and Judges 19 is used for support. He asserts the conduct of the men of Sodom, attempted gang raping of the two strangers who visited Lot, is the reason for the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is incorrect. The decision to judge Sodom and Gomorrah was made before the opening of Genesis 18. In Genesis 18 we discover three (3) men outside of Abraham’s tent: the pre-incarnate Messiah and two angels. The “Lord” shares that the outcry against Sodom is great, but He wants to see for Himself the condition of these cities before the cities are destroyed. However, because of the intercession of Abraham, the Angel of the Lord agrees not to destroy the cities if 10-righteous can be found in them. In Genesis 19, we have only two strangers, I believe the two angels. What happened to the third? Had the Lord seen for Himself the conduct of Sodom and Gomorrah? Did He return to heaven after dispatching the two angels to retrieve Lot and his family and any other righteous before the destruction began?

The conduct in Genesis 19, the attempted gang rape, isn’t the conduct that brought the judgment of God. The attempted gang rape occurs after the three emissaries arrived at Sodom to determine the City’s condition. Gushee’s foundation is faulty and cannot support a theoretical distinction between same sex acts based on context. The conduct that brought judgment occurred before Genesis 18.

The quote from Leviticus 18 is of God speaking. He did not distinguish between the manner or context of the sexual act but outlawed the act: A man shall not lie with a man. Does this mean that the prohibition is inapplicable to women? No!

Third, Gushee uses cultural context to explain and to limit the applicability of one of the New Testament’s most direct statement against same sex relationships, men with men and women with women, found in Romans 1:25-28. (See page 88 for Gushee’s discussion.) Yet, he does not address Paul’s similarly stern injunction against another sexual sin, a man having a sexual relationship with his father’s wife; this occurs within the non-violent confines of the church at Corinth. (See 1 Corinthians 5.) The sins addressed in Romans chapter 1 and I Corinthians chapter 5 are the same as those listed in Leviticus 18. We see Paul reaffirming the applicability of God’s pronounced standard for sexual conduct in Leviticus. As the founder/mentor of many Gentile churches, Paul would certainly have clearly defined the limits of his words. It was Paul and Barnabas, as recorded in Acts 15, who asked the Apostles to define the degree to which the Gentiles had to abide by Jewish law. Some Messianic Jews were directing new Gentile believers that they needed to be circumcised. James, the Bishop/Pastor of the church at Jerusalem said: “Therefore, my opinion is that we should not put obstacles in the way of the Goyim (Gentiles) who are turning to God. Instead, we should write them a letter telling them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from fornication, from what is strangled and from blood. For from the earliest times, Moshe (Moses) has had in every city those who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.” The Greek word fornication means: adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals; sexual intercourse with close relatives (Lev 18). (https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4202&t=NAS)

These were the limits imposed on the Gentiles; Paul is teaching consistent with these limits. In addition, the Gentiles would learn the Laws of Moses as they attended the synagogues. This did not include all the rabbinical laws such as the rule that a Jew may not enter a Gentile’s home.
We must look at God’s design in creation. 1 Corinthians 11: 9 provides: “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” Woman was formed for the specific purpose of being the man’s companion. Take a moment and read Genesis chapter 2, verses 18-22.

Finally, Gushee asserts that we live in a fallen world, post-Genesis chapter 3, where sin prevails including same sex sexual conduct and the answer to sin, Gushee suggests, is same sex covenant relationship. (See Gushee page 97-98) Here, Gushee negates the redemptive role of Jesus (Yeshua) and His suffering. As believers, we live in a fallen world with the Genesis chapter 1 and 2 conditions as part of the redemptive rights/package that Jesus (Yeshua) acquired for us on a very bloody cross. We are not alone in this world but we are in Jesus (Yeshua) and He is in the Father and Jesus is in us, inseparable unity in Jesus (Yeshua). Romans 12:1 directs us to not be conformed to this world but we are to be transformed by renewing our minds. Same sex conduct isn’t new in this world. This conduct existed before Jesus (Yeshua) was born and after He died on the cross. During His life Jesus (Yeshua) spoke directly to the issue of fornication. A woman was caught in the act of adultery, sex with a married man or fornication. (See John 8) Jesus (Yeshua) was asked by the men who caught her what should be done. Jesus (Yeshua) directed that any one who was without sin to throw the first stone. He recognized the law and the applicable punishment. Each man dropped his stone and left; each had some sin in his life. Jesus (Yeshua) did not condemn the woman to death, He didn’t stone her but admonished her to go and sin no more. He could not have told her to “sin no more” if that was impossible. Furthermore, He came to pay the price for her sin; He came to die in her place and willingly suffered that she might live.

B. Gushee has limited knowledge of God.
As an Evangelical, Gushee’s religious tradition does not recognize the power of El Shaddi to heal or to deliver a person from an unclean spirit and the deception, oppression, and the manifestations of demonic oppression. Gushee presumes that same sex attraction and orientation are natural rather than supernatural or spiritually based. Act 10:38 tells us that Jesus (Yeshua) was anointed with the Spirit of God and power and He went about doing good setting free ALL who were oppressed by the devil because God was with Him. Despite the church’s unwillingness to recognize the presence and activity of satan in society and culture, especially in the area of sexual sin, the devil did not cease to exist when Jesus (Yeshua) ascended to heaven. Demonic activity must be confronted with the name of Jesus (Yeshua), with the blood of Yeshua, and the power of Holy Spirit.

Gushee is faced with a dilemma. His sister is living a lesbian lifestyle. He loves his sister and she loves God. Because of his religious tradition, his sister’s alternative is to live alone without sex or without God. His rationale is an attempt to resolve this dilemma. His method is to reinterpret the Word of God because he does not know the power of God or recognize that an unclean spirit is the source of her difficulty. He denies the redemptive power of Jesus (Yeshua) to heal her, to make her whole, and to meet her need for a relationship within the will of God. It can be done! It takes obedience to the Word of God, honesty with herself and God, and a belief that nothing is impossible for God. Once she received the ministry of deliverance from an unclean spirit, she must recognize that the evil one may try to return. She must keep herself filled with God’s spirit —studying the Word, fellowshipping with believers who are submitted to God, praying and praising, and living a joy filled – a happy, balanced life– in the Holy Spirit.

C. Where Gushee and I Agree
First, we agree that our God is a God of love, mercy, and compassion. But, God is also a God of truth. We can trust God because He is consistent, the same yesterday, today, and always. What was truth; is truth; and will be truth. As Jesus (Yeshua) told the woman caught in adultery, He does not condemn us but because we have met Him and been confronted by Him, He expects us to repent and go forward – without condemnation, living free of sin. He will forgive us, cleanse us from unrighteousness, and empower us to live free. (See 1 John 1:9.)

Second, we agree that God does not want individuals to live alone. Marriage, sexual pleasure, was God’s idea. He designed a suitable companion for man and presented her to him. He did not give man a choice between a man or a woman. After speaking man’s need and before creating woman, God created animals and brought them before Adam. Adam did not find among them a suitable companion. Only then did God make and present the suitable companion. (Genesis 2:18-22) We must locate the deception of the enemy that hinders our ability to receive from the opposite sex or that draws us to same sex attraction. We must go to God for healing and walk out our deliverance believing God and what He promises.

Third, Gushee and I agree that covenantal, loving marital ethic is God’s design and should be the standard within the Church. The convergence of three factors results in a conclusion that the covenant, loving marital ethic is a heterosexual one. These three factors are the divine pattern for relationship, God’s prohibition of “other” sexual activity, and the availability of the love and power of God for everything contrary.

Finally, LGBT must not be threatened or bullied by the church or its members. The love of Jesus (Yeshua) constrains us to share God’s redemptive plan and the power of God. The Great Commission directs us to teach all nations (including the ethnic group of LGBT), seek the lost, lay hands upon the sick and to cast out devils. (Matthew 28:19 & 20; Mark 17).