Wesleys Quadrilateral and Homosexuality:

A Response to James Nelson

C. Walter Overman
ETH 7695 Christian Sexual Ethics
Dec. 1, 2014

Wesleys Quadrilateral and Homosexuality:

A Response to James Nelson
According to Methodist theologian Don Thorsen, John Wesley was a staunch defender of
the Bible, affirming that the Bible was the inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy revelation of
God.1 Although Wesley incorporated sources from church history (tradition), reason, and
experience in his theological reflection, he maintained the primacy of Scripture above all others.
Wesleys high regard for Scripture ensured his legacy as one who was faithful to the doctrines of
historic Christianity.
Wesleys integrated use of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (the so-called
Wesleyan quadrilateral), provided the framework for James B. Nelsons attempt to affirm
homosexuality as normative for Christians in his article, Sources for Body Theology:
Homosexuality as a Test Case.2 In the article, Nelson admits that Wesley gave central weight
to Scripture, but he [Wesley] did so against the biblical literalizers and simplifiers.3 The
inference of Nelsons remark is that Wesley would disagree with modern theologians and
churchmen who uphold both the inerrancy of the Bible and historical Christianitys view of
sexual ethics. Not surprisingly, Nelsons conclusion from his application of the quadrilateral is
that the church must accept homosexual practice as normative for the Christian experience.

Donald Thorsen, "Sola scriptura and the Wesleyan quadrilateral." Wesleyan Theological Journal 41, no. 2
(2006): 7-27. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 10, 2014), 21.
2

James B. Nelson and Sandra P. Longfellow, eds., Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for Theological
Reflection (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 374-386.
3

Ibid., 376.

Nelsons conclusions are completely foreign to Wesley and his understanding of

Scripture. When the Wesleyan quadrilateral is rightly applied using Wesleys high view of
Scripture, the voices of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience present a unified voice that
reject modern revisionist claims while upholding traditional Christian sexual ethics. Turning now
to Nelsons claims, this work will summarize, evaluate, and respond to Nelsons application of
Wesleys quadrilateral to the issue of homosexuality and the church.
Homosexuality and Scripture
In reference to Scripture, Nelson claims that homosexuality is not a major scriptural
preoccupation.4 He bases his claim on the fact that Jesus never mentions the topic and that
homosexuality is mentioned directly in Scripture only seven times. Although Nelson fails to
mention the texts, he is likely referring to four Old Testament and three New Testament
passages: the stories of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-9) and the Levite at Gibeah (Judges 19:22-25) plus
the two prohibitions in Leviticus (Lev. 18:22; 20:13) and the Pauline texts (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor.
6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10).
Without giving specifics, Nelson dismisses the relevant texts on the grounds that they
only prohibit homosexual rape (cf. Gen. 19; Judges 19); are injunctions against idolatry (cf. Lev.
18:22; 20:13); are ignorant of sexual orientation and or only condemn pederasty (Rom. 1:18-32;
1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10). Such arguments are common among revisionists, who claim that
theologians have historically misunderstood the meaning of these texts.5 Nelson concludes by

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 376.

James B. DeYoung, Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other
Ancient Literature and Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000), 25-26. Nelson briefly mentions the
arguments without reference to specific texts. DeYoung gives a summary of revisionist claims along with specific
texts, all of which are in step with Nelsons argument.

quoting fellow revisionist Walter Wink, who says, The Bible knows only a love ethic.6 For
Nelson, biblical sexual ethics is based on sexual relationships that are loving, mutual and nonexploitative. According to Nelson, the Bible knows of no condemnation of committed
homosexuals. All that matters is that sexuality be expressed in acts shaped by love, justice,
equality, fidelity, mutual respect, compassion, and grateful joy.7
Evaluation and Response
Contra to Nelsons conclusion, genuine biblical sexual ethics is not based on feelings of
mutual love and consent alone. When the totality of Scripture is examined, it is clear that Gods
design for sex is limited to male and female complementary intercourse in the confines of
marriage. This interpretation is the witness of the Old Testament, the New Testament and the
teachings of Jesus.
At the beginning of Scripture, God created a helper that was fit for Adam, because, at
the time, there were no creatures suitable for Adam (Gen. 2:18-20; ESV). He was alone and
lacked intimacy with a partner, which God said was not good (Gen. 2:18). In response, God
created a woman who was not identical to Adam. Rather, the two complemented each other
sexually for the purpose of becoming one flesh (Gen. 2:24). Christian ethicist Daniel Heimbach
says the result is that only a complementary relationship characterized by the joining of
corresponding difference fulfills the good that God said was lacking from Adam.8 At the
beginning of the cannon, then, the sexual ethic of complementary union of the two sexes is the
standard ethic, a standard that will reappear through the Old and New Testaments.
6

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 379.

Ibid.

Daniel R. Heimbach, True Sexuality Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in Crisis
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2004), 171.

A careful study of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 confirms the complementary biblical ethos.
Several lines of evidence indicate that the Levitical Code is not forbidding cult prostitution or
exploitative homosexual sex. For example, the prohibitions use the word for male rather than
words for cult prostitute or boy, words that could have been used. Furthermore, the punishments
related to these prohibitions are directed at both parties.9 The above evidence shows that
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit consensual homosexual intercourse.
The above view is supported further by an accurate understanding of the prohibition
preventing males to lie with others males as with a woman (Lev. 18:22; 20:13). In view here,
at least partially, is the social understanding of maleness and the corresponding virtues of honor
and shame among ancient Israelitessocial understandings based upon the created order (cf.
Gen. 2). In ancient Israelite society, the male was to be the active penetrator during sexual
intercourse. Consequently, a male who willingly took on the passive role of being penetrated
would have brought shame to himself. Old Testament scholar Jerome Walsh says Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13 picture, anal intercourse between two men, one of whomtakes the passive
sexual role of being penetrated by the other.10
In short, the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexual behavior are rooted in its
concern for observing Gods design of sexual complementary roles. Robert Gagnon states
unequivocally that the practice condemned in the Old Testament is presuming that God's

Robert A. J. Gagnon and Dan O. Via, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2003), 724-725, Kindle.
10

Jerome T. Walsh, "Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: who is doing what to whom?." Journal Of Biblical
Literature 120, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 201-209. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 12, 2014).

differentiation of the sexes in creation amounted to nothing.11

In the New Testament, Paul used a rare compound word, arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9;1 Tim.
1:10), to condemn homosexuality in accord with the Old Testament witness. Gagnon says the
term is almost certainly derived from the Septuagint (Greek) translation of Lev 18:22 and
20:13, which employs the words "male" (arsen) and "lying" (koite).12 Paul could have used
other Greek words to describe prohibitions against cult prostitution or pederasty, but instead he
used, perhaps even coining, the phrase to deliberately echo linguistically and theologically the
Old Testaments prohibition against male-male sexual intercourse.13
Paul likely had the same prohibition in mind in Romans 1:27, where he literally wrote
males with males committing indecent acts.14 Notice also that Paul does not distinguish
between men and boys. It is assumed that the behavior being condemned is between two men.
Importantly, Paul also compared adult male-male intercourse to adult lesbianism in Romans 1:26
by linking the two with the word likewise in Romans 1:27. In all three Pauline texts, Paul
affirms the biblical sexual ethic instituted by God at creation.
With regards to Jesus, it is true that Jesus never spoke directly about homosexuality.
However, in Mark 10:7-8, Jesus quoted from Genesis 2:24, affirming the sexual ethic of malefemale complementary roles. In addition, there was no need for Jesus to speak to the issue of
homosexuality in his day. Homosexuality was simply not an issue in first-century Judaism,

11

Gagnon and Via, Homosexuality, 994-995, Kindle.

12

Ibid., 764-766, Kindle.

13

James B DeYoung, "The meaning of "nature" in Romans 1 and its implications for biblical proscriptions
of homosexual behavior." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 4 (1988): 429-441. ATLA
Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2014). p.439.
14

Ibid.

owing to the fact that violations of the strict societal and scriptural prohibitions against
homosexuality were rare. Further, if Jesus disagreed with Scripture and the societal norms, it
seems likely that he would have addressed the issue, per his custom. Thus, Jesus was silent on
homosexuality for the same reason he was silent on bestiality and incest. He was in complete
agreement with the Scriptures and the societal practice of the day.15
Despite the efforts of revisionists to claim otherwise, the Bible routinely affirms Gods
design for sex while condemning all forms of homosexual practice. There is no love ethic as
Nelson envisions. Rather, the Bible consistently affirms the ethic of male-female complementary
roles in which corresponding differences are united in marriage via sexual intercourse by which
two become one flesh. This is the ethic instituted at creation, which God affirmed as good
(Gen. 1:31).
Homosexuality and Tradition
In regards to church history, Nelson argues that proponents of the traditional Christian
sexual ethic are selective in their use of Church history, in much the same way as they are
selective in their use of limited biblical data. He claims that many opponents of homosexuality
overstate the case of the churchs witness against normalizing homosexual behavior. According
to Nelson, there is no consistent sexual ethic throughout the whole of church history.16
Citing the work of John Boswell, Nelson states that during the first two centuries the
church did not oppose homosexual behavior, per se, and at times there was remarkable

15

Gagnon and Via, Homosexuality, 837-838, Kindle.

16

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 380.

acceptance of homosexuals.17 When opposition to homosexuality did arise in the third to sixth
centuries, Nelson argues, the opposition was not based on theology or the authority of Scripture.
Instead, it was born out the demise of urban culture, the rise of government intrusions into
personal morality and the churchs move toward asceticism.18
From here, Nelsons argument shifts to the issue of marriage. Among other things, he
argues that heterosexual marriage has not always been the top sexual ethic of the church. Instead,
there was a time when celibacy was prized above marriage, namely from the inception of the
church to the Reformation.19 He goes so far as to claim that there is evidence suggesting that the
church celebrated and affirmed homosexual unions before heterosexual unions.20
Evaluation and Response
As stated above, Nelsons primary authority on church history is the work of John
Boswell. Although Boswells work has been influential and accepted by many in the secular
media and by Christian revisionists, it should be noted that many of his claims have been
accepted uncritically by those sympathetic to his cause. However, when Boswells work has
been critically examined, it has not fared so well.21
Case in point is Boswells claim that prior to the fourth century the church did not oppose
homosexual behavior. Fellow historian David Wright, a well-respected evangelical church

17

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 380.

18

Ibid.

19

Ibid.

20

Ibid.

21

Richard John Neuhaus, "In the Case of John Boswell." First Things no. 41 (1994): 56-59. ATLA Religion
Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24, 2014), 56.

historian, writes that Boswells claims regarding the early church are highly misleading.22
Conservative Catholic priest John Neuhaus states that Boswell never produced any evidence
whatever that authoritative Christian teaching ever departed from the recognition that
homosexual acts are morally wrong.23
Speaking to the claim that the early or medieval church affirmed homosexual marriages,
New Testament scholar Thomas Schmidt points out that Boswells work relied on quotations
removed from their context that were based on questionable translations and speculation that
Boswell used to fill in very wide gaps.24 Schmidt convincingly demonstrates that Boswells
evidence of early same-sex Christian marriages is in actuality evidence of a ceremony of
ritualized brotherhood. Schmidt concludes that Boswell offered no historical data to back his
claim.25 Nelsons conclusions, which were based on the work of Boswell, must likewise be met
with skepticism.
The fact is, until recent decades there was remarkable consistency in interpreting and
applying the relevant scriptural passages regarding homosexuality. The witness of the church,
however, does not stand alone. The churchs tradition begins with the ancient Jewish tradition,
which influenced the early churchs position. Therefore, any survey of the churchs historical
position on homosexuality must include the Jewish tradition as well as the writings of many of
the churchs most influential writers, theologians, and philosophers.

22

Neuhaus, "In the Case of John Boswell," 57.

23

Ibid.

24

Thomas E. Schmidt, Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995), 135.
25

Ibid.

Jewish philosopher and theologian, Philo, who was also a contemporary of Paul and
Jesus, affirmed the traditional Jewish interpretation of male-female complementary sexual roles.
Commenting on Sodom and Gomorrah, Philo said that men mounted males without respect for
the sex nature which the active partner shares with the passive. 26 Twentieth-century rabbi
Yoel H. Khan, when referring to specific claims that the Levitical Codes prohibitions were
directed at something other than consensual homosexual behavior, says that the consistent
interpretation of Jewish law since biblical time has been against such an understanding.27 These
voices summarize the position of Jewish tradition at the inception of the church.
The early church fathers upheld the Jewish tradition. Commenting on Romans 1:26-27,
John Chrysostom said that the delights of sodomyare an unpardonable insult to nature.28
Augustine, commenting on Sodom, said that the fellowship that should be between God and
us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust.29
Early church councils, such as the Council of Elvira (305-6) and the Council of Ancyra (314)
excluded homosexuals from receiving baptism until they repented. In 375, Basil likewise
declared that homosexuals be excluded from the sacraments until they had done penance for
fifteen years.30 By the medieval period, with Christians in power, homosexuality became a

26

DeYoung, Homosexuality, 265.

27

Richard Hansbany, ed., Homosexuality and Religion (New York: Routledge, 2012), 49.

28

Gary H. Strauss, "An Evangelical Looks at Homosexuality : From the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to a
Postmodern Tetralectic." Christian Scholar's Review 26, no. 4 (June 1, 1997): 514-539. ATLA Religion Database
with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 31, 2014), 526.
29

Albert Cook Outler, ed and translator, The Confessions of St. Augustine (Philadelphia: West Minster
Press, 1955),41.
30

Strauss, "An Evangelical Looks at Homosexuality, 526.

10

crime punishable by death.31Although such penalties are a blight on Christian witness, it

nevertheless points to the unified opposition to homosexuality during that era.
The Reformers and Puritans continued the churchs stance against homosexuality in
defense of Gods design for sex. Luther, commenting on the sin of Sodom, claimed that the
people of Sodom departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female,
which was implanted by God.32 Commenting on Romans, John Calvin remarked that
homosexuality was a fearful crime of unnatural lust and Matthew Henry said that the Levitical
Law was, A law against unnatural lusts, sodomy.33 The position of the Reformers and
Puritans remained the unified voice of the church until recent decades. It was only then that
revisionists began their assault on the historical view of the church.
In sum, Nelsons claims of early church acceptance of homosexualseven acceptance of
same-sex marriagesare based on the less-than-genuine scholarship of Boswell. The body of
evidence demonstrates that church tradition, built on the ancient Jewish tradition and a careful
examination of the relevant biblical texts, was unified in its opposition to homosexuality and
affirmation of true biblical sexual morality through the mid-twentieth century. The vast majority
of Jews and Christians have affirmed that view, and only that view, until recent decades.
Homosexuality and Reason
Turning now to reason, Nelson appeals to the biological, psychological and social
sciences in an attempt to discern causation for homosexuality. His appeal to reason falls along

31

Strauss, "An Evangelical Looks at Homosexuality, 528.

32

Ibid.

33

Ibid., 528-529.

11

two primary fronts. The first is that homosexuals comprise a larger portion of society than most
realize. The second premise is that sexual orientation is not a choice. Rather, ones sexual
orientation is given and established early in life. Although he does not state his conclusion,
Nelson undoubtedly affirms the view of fellow revisionists, who reason that since homosexuality
is caused, not chosen, homosexuals should be accepted by society and in the church as normal.34
As to the first point, Nelson refers to the work of Alfred Kinsey, quoting Kinseys
findings that at least 50 percent of males engage in homosexual sex at some point in their lives.35
Nelsons argument echoes that of other revisionists, who appeal to Kinsey to demonstrate that 10
to 15 percent of the population is exclusively gay or lesbian. Revisionist Episcopal bishop John
Spong, for example, reasoned from Kinseys findings to conclude that God intended to create
and bless homosexuals.36 Nelsons second argument, that sexual orientation is not a choice, has
also been championed by Spong and other revisionists. Spong is adamant that science has
determined that homosexuality is caused, rather than chosen, therefore he concludes that
homosexuality cannot be immoral.37
Evaluation and Response
At the outset it must be noted that Kinseys findings have been proven to be deeply
flawed. His research method relied on the oversampling of several demographics, such as college
graduates (during a time when relatively few people went to college), prison inmates who were

34

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Churchs
Moral Debate (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 32-33.
35

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 382.

36

Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 32-33.

37

Ibid, 48.

12

sexual offenders, and people who identified as homosexual.38 By contrast, modern science
estimates that 2 percent of men and 1 percent of women identify as homosexual.39 Moreover,
Christians have solid scientific reason to reject the claim that homosexuality is caused by a
combination of genetic and environmental predispositions.40 For the above reasons, Nelsons
argument from reason is unpersuasive.
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument lets assume that Nelson is right. If genetic and
environmental factors cause irreversible sexual orientation, should Christians accept homosexual
behavior as normal and innate? The short answer is no, for such reasoning is contrary to reason
itself. For instance, genetic science has claimed, among other things, that alcoholism, criminality
and disease are, at times at least, genetic. Yet, not every condition caused by genetic and
environmental predispositions are considered normal. Alcoholism, criminal conduct and diseases
such as sickle-cell anemia are not considered part of the normal human condition and received as
acceptable. Rather, science does all it can to combat these human conditions.41
Science has also demonstrated that not all who have genetic predispositions to certain
disease or behaviors become diseased or behave in ways aligned with their genetic markers. Not
everyone predisposed to alcoholism become alcoholics and the same is true for those
predisposed to criminal behavior. The same is true for homosexuality, where high percentages of

38

Jones and Yarhouse, Homosexuality, 36-37.

39

Ibid.

40

A full treatment of the scientific evidence is not possible here. See Stanton L. Jones and Alex W. Kwee.
"Scientific research, homosexuality, and the church's moral debate: an update." Journal Of Psychology And
Christianity 24, no. 4 (2005): 304-316. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 14, 2014). Their peer reviewed work finds fatal flaws in scientific research claiming that genetic and
environmental factors predispose sexual orientation.
41

John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P
& R, 2008), 262-263.

13

twin brothers of homosexuals are not homosexuals.42 Twin brothers not only share the same
genetic markers, they are also, generally speaking, raised in identical environmental
surroundings. A clear connection between genetic and environmental predisposition and
resulting behavior does not exist.
Reason also demonstrates that Gods design of complementary sexuality is evident in the
physiological make-up of human sexuality. As Schmidt says, That is, the penis fits inside the
vagina, and the fit is pleasurable to both partners.43 The same, of course, cannot be said of
same-sex intercourse, which in the case of male-male sex, is usually damaging to the rectum,
leading directly to a high rate of HIV transmission.44 The point being, males and females are
designed physically for vaginal not anal intercourse.
That such design is not just physiological, but also psychological, is likewise confirmed
by reason. Consider, for instance, that the human design for sexuality allows for sex to occur
face-to-face, a practice that is not found in any other species.45 Psychologist Gary Strauss
concludes, based on physiological and psychological evidence, that the fullest possible
relationship available to us as human beings can only be experienced in a healthy and fulfilling
heterosexual union. 46
Christians, then, must not fear the pursuit of reason when addressing the issue of
homosexuality. The scientific evidence, including biological, social, and psychological, give
42

Frame, The Doctrine, 263. Frame cites studies that show that number is as high as 80 percent.

43

Schmidt, Straight and narrow, 45.

44

Strauss, "An Evangelical Looks at Homosexuality, 534.

45

Ibid.

.
46

Ibid., 536.

14

Christians a solid basis from which they can affirm Gods design of complementary sexual
union. Modern Christians can echo the words of John Wesley, who, as quoted by Nelson, said
that religion and reason go hand in hand and to renounce reason is to renounce religion.47
Indeed, twenty-first-century Christians should embrace reason in the debate over homosexual
practice and the church.
Homosexuality and Experience
Regarding experience, Nelson shares how his personal experience of befriending gays
and lesbians taught him two important truths about his upbringing. First, he learned that his
combined experiences shaped him to be homophobic. Secondly, he learned that his combined
experiences forced him to suffer from erotophobiathe fear of sexuality and pleasure.
According to Nelson, at the age of 40 he suddenly became aware of his own homophobia,
wrought by the male-dominated bifurcated-society in which he lived. Because he was raised to
be a good male in society, that is, one who should project the air of masculinity at all times, he
suddenly realized that he was raised to become a homophobe. It was his upbringing that caused
him to fear gays and lesbiansas both groups were, he thought, a threat to his masculinity.
He also came to realize that he suffered from erotophobia. Though he enjoyed his sexual
experiences, he came to understand that, due once again to being raised in a bifurcating culture,
he was raised to suppress his sexuality. When he came to know and understand homosexuals and
lesbians more fully, he became aware that they represented sexuality in a fuller way. 48
Nelsons experience led him to conclude that Christianity must change its approach to sexual

47

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 381.

48

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality, 385.

15

ethics. He says, now more than ever, Christianity needs erotic theologies in which the fear of
pleasure and sexuality and the repression of sexual expression is overturned with grace and the
understanding that people are worthy and that none must prove their worth by their sexuality.49
Evaluation and Response
It should be noted that Nelson expands the emphasis of experience beyond Wesleys
understanding. Wesley focused on the Holy Spirits role of validating a Christians experience in
agreement with Gods revealed truth, and that Gods Word alone was the primary authority.50 As
important as tradition, reason, and experience were to Wesley, they all fell under the authority of
Scripture. But Nelson argues that experience should include humanitys search for things that
nurture wholeness and those things which are destructive to our best humanity.51 Obviously,
reliance upon such experiences go beyond confirmation by the Word of God to include that
which the non-redeemed secular world deems nurturing and or destructive to human flourishing.
Nelsons premise that a bifurcating society lends itself to predispositions against
homosexuality led him to conclude that society must do away with dualisms. Though he does not
state it directly, the inference is clear: society must put away all notions of differences between
the sexes. Nelsons position is in step with other revisionists who seek to eliminate sexual
complementarianism and replace it with the idea of gender sameness without distinction.52
Such a view, however, falls far outside of the revealed Word of God, which affirms that God
made humanity male and female (Gen. 1:27). That is to say, God made men and women
49

Ibid.

50

Thorsen, "Sola scriptura," 19. Thorsen notes that Wesley affirmed sola scriptura and that experience
includes receiving the authority of biblical revelation by faith.
51

Nelson and Longfellow, Sexuality,, 383.

52

Heimbach, True, 125.

16

equally but assigned each different functions. Attempts to undermine the God-given roles of men
and women is completely contrary to Wesleys understanding of the role of experience and
Scripture.
Nelsons assertion that the church much adopt erotic theologies is based on a false
premise that suggests that Christians are inherently afraid of sexual pleasure and expression. The
premise ignores the fact that Christians affirm that God created sex for humans to enjoy and reap
its pleasures. Among other things, God created sex so that men and women could enjoy intimacy
(Song of Sol. 1:13; 2:3; 2:6; 4:5; Gen. 2:24); companionship (Song of Sol. 3:1); and physical
pleasure (Song of Sol.1:2). Of course, such benefits are dependent upon sex remaining within the
boundaries set by God in his Word; within the confines of marriage between one man and one
woman (Gen. 2:24). Many Christians can testify, the present writer included, of how their own
experience of having sex according to Gods design has resulted in intense pleasure, joy and
satisfaction, the likes of which nothing can compare.
When applied in the spirit of Wesleys intentions, the Christian experience cannot affirm
homosexuality. Rather, genuine Christian sexual experience affirms the Bibles ethic of
complementary sexual union. Those who keep sex within Gods standards know that it is safe
and pure, while psychologically and physically fulfilling. Unlike the surrounding culture who
pervert Gods design for sex, Christian husbands and wives can experience the fullness of sex
without feeling ashamedwhich is exactly the way sex was experienced at creation (Gen.
2:25).
Conclusion
If John Wesley were alive today, would he affirm the attempts of revisionists to overturn

17

Christianitys historic affirmation of the male-female complementary sexual ethic? For a man
who believed the Bible to be the inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy Word of God, such a
claim goes too far. Indeed, when Wesleys integrated approach to theological reflection is
applied with a high view of Gods Word, the voices of Scripture, tradition, reason, and
experience present a unified voice that reject modern revisionist claims while upholding
traditional Christian sexual ethics.
Some will naturally conclude that the above is intolerant, bigoted, and anachronistic. Let
it be known that bigotry and intolerance have no share in the above work, nor do they have a
share in the timeless Word of God. The Word of God is full of grace and it extends the offer of
Gods unmeasurable grace to all people, including those who identify as homosexuals. As Paul
reminds us in 1 Corinthians 6:11, the power of God can change homosexuals (such were some
of you), but the power to change is dependent upon being washed in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Those who repent of their sin, trusting in Christ for
the forgiveness of their sin, receive, not only grace and mercy, but the power to pursue sex
according to Gods design.

Works Cited
DeYoung, James B. Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and
Other Ancient Literature and Law. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2000.
. "The meaning of "nature" in Romans 1 and its implications for biblical proscriptions of
homosexual behavior." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 31, no. 4

18

(December 1, 1988): 429-441. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost

(accessed October 31, 2014).
Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Christian Life: A Theology of Lordship. Phillipsburg, New
Jersey: P & R, 2008.
Gagnon, Robert A.J., and Dan O. Via. Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003.
Hansbany, Richard, ed. Homosexuality and Religion. New York: Routledge, 2012.
Heimbach, Daniel R. True Sexuality Morality: Recovering Biblical Standards for a Culture in
Crisis. Wheaton: Crossway, 2004.
Jones, Stanton L., and Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the
Churchs Moral Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Jones, Stanton L., and Alex W. Kwee. "Scientific research, homosexuality, and the church's
moral debate: an update." Journal Of Psychology And Christianity 24, no. 4 (December
1, 2005): 304-316. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
November 12, 2014).
Nelson, James B., and Sandra P. Longfellow, eds. Sexuality and the Sacred: Sources for
Theological Reflection. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.
Neuhaus, Richard John. "In the Case of John Boswell." First Things no. 41 (March 1, 1994): 5659. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 24,
2014).
Outler, Albert Cook, ed and translator. The Confessions of St. Augustine. Philadelphia: West
Minster Press, 1955.
Schmidt, Thomas E. Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality
Debate. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Strauss, Gary H. "An Evangelical Looks at Homosexuality : From the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to
a Postmodern Tetralectic." Christian Scholar's Review 26, no. 4 (June 1, 1997): 514-539.
ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed October 31, 2014).
Thorsen, Donald. "Sola scriptura and the Wesleyan quadrilateral." Wesleyan Theological Journal
41, no. 2 (September 1, 2006): 7-27. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials,
EBSCOhost (accessed November 10, 2014).
Walsh, Jerome T. "Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: who is doing what to whom?." Journal Of Biblical
Literature 120, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 201-209. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed November 12, 2014).

19