Are same-sex sexual relationships and transgender identities matters about which Christians can agree to disagree? The editors of Christlike Acceptance across Deep Difference, Karen Keen and Ronald Pierce, believe so. In fact, despite deep differences between them, most of the contributors to this volume agree with its two central claims: (1) that same-sex sexual relationships and gender transitioning are “disputable matters”; and (2) that Christians who disagree about such matters must accept one other as faithful members of Christ’s body.

The book is divided into three parts: the first (“Biblical Wisdom beyond the Debate”) attempts to ground the larger argument on several key biblical passages; the second (“Successfully Navigating Divides”) offers wisdom for negotiating disagreements with fellow Christians; and the third (“Ministry with LGBTQ People, Families, and Friends”) provides practical guidance for personal and pastoral ministry.

As the conclusion that Christian disagreement about LGBTQ relationships and identities is not fellowship dividing (claim 2) is built upon the premise that these issues are “secondary” and “disputable” (claim 1), I will confine this review to a brief summary of the key arguments that buttress this first claim from the chapters in part 1 of the book. This will then be followed by two points of critique.

The central passage of Scripture used by author and editor Ronald Pierce is Romans 14:1–15:13. Just as Paul advised the Romans to accept each other despite their differences over days and diet, Pierce argues that Christians can “accept other followers of Jesus whose understanding of Scripture regarding sexuality and gender differs from ours without passing judgment on them” (p. 4). He acknowledges that the church, historically, has not affirmed LGBTQ relationships and identities, but he also believes that the “moral absolutes” and “universal beliefs” of the church have changed. For instance, since the church once supported slavery (and now does not) and strongly prohibited divorce and usury (but now allows it), it is not ludicrous that the “Western church is slowly but steadily acknowledging the growing number of queer and affirming people who love Christ and the Bible” and “who desire to lead lives of obedience to their Lord” (p. 12). Hence, we should welcome them with Christlike acceptance as faithful brothers and sisters.

Pierce also posits some ambiguity in Paul’s words to the Corinthians about those who practice homosexuality not inheriting the kingdom of God. He argues that the command is not as straightforward as it might appear, for the Greek nouns μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται (1 Cor 6:9) can be interpreted in many ways. Paul could be referring to exploitative and abusive sexual acts or excessive lust, and it is up for debate whether Paul was “even aware of loving, same-sex relationships between people of equal class and/or status” (p. 13).

For Pierce, accepting a person is not the same as affirming their behavior. Indeed, for him, “Acceptance sits at the center of the welcoming-accepting-affirming spectrum” (p. 14). And so, just as a natural family can accept a member living in their home without affirming all of their views and behaviors, the spiritual family can accept LGBTQ Christians without affirming or agreeing with all of their views and behaviors. Pierce writes, “We are spiritual siblings not because we agree but because we share a saving relationship with the same Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” (p. 15). He also argues that accepting LGBTQ people into the church is not the same as condoning sexual immorality. Once more, Pierce asserts that Christians in good faith cannot correlate faithful LGBTQ Christians with idolatrous people, as Paul describes in Romans 1. Indeed, since there is “an ongoing debate” about interpretation of Romans 1, Pierce suggests that non-affirming traditionalists (among whom he numbers himself) could be wrong and thus should refrain from passing judgment (p. 15).

Pierce concludes his chapter by positing two ways non-affirming Christians can practice acceptance toward affirming Christians. First, they can simultaneously love, befriend, and work alongside their “spiritual siblings,” while maintaining their contrary convictions—albeit non-judgmentally. That is, Pierce argues that Christians can be explicitly accepting while remaining non-affirming (p. 16). Second, non-affirming Christians can practice acceptance in Christian organizations by taking cues from the Church of England and the Catholic Church to “bless but not affirm” same-sex unions. Churches should also consider whether agreement with their views on gender and sexuality might be “less important for someone on the maintenance staff than for someone who leads a Bible study” (p. 17).

In her chapter, “Genesis, Discernment, and God’s Will,” Karen Keen argues that we should look beyond the debate over sexuality and gender and focus on how the story of our origins can provide insight into discerning God’s will in ethics. Because all human beings are made in God’s image, Keen believes that each person has been endowed with agency to practice discernment and make wise choices. For Keen, stories in the Old Testament highlight the need to discern God’s will in complex situations (e.g., Adam and Eve’s temptation in Gen 3; Moses’s dilemma in Exod 18:13−36).

Discernment is especially needed when laws seem to conflict or are overridden by a greater good. For example, David and his men, and later Jesus and his disciples, ate consecrated bread which only the Levitical priests were permitted to eat (Lev 24:5–9). But according to Keen, both David and Jesus used their God-given discernment to break the law because it “was the right thing to do because people were hungry, and the whole point of the law is to serve the common good of human beings” (p. 27). In fact, Keen argues that listening to differing opinions is necessary for discerning the truth: “The pursuit of truth requires being open to evidence, including opposing perspectives and insights we have yet to sincerely wrestle with” (p. 30).

For Keen, practicing discernment in our disagreements over sexual ethics yields three applications. First, we should seek oneness rather than uniformity, for we are all one in Christ but not necessarily in our beliefs. If the early church disagreed about food sacrificed to idols and yet remained unified, Keen posits that we can disagree over our discernment of God’s will in sexual ethics and still be one in Christ (p. 31). Second, we should imitate God’s generosity toward one another. Instead of labeling those with whom we disagree as being in error, we should be generous toward them and recognize that our understanding of the Scriptures could also be flawed. Even if we disagree with Christians on sexual ethics, God’s generosity is the model for us. For “if the Master of the Universe is willing to share a throne with you, a sinner, are you not willing to work together with someone across the table?” (p. 33). Third, we must always listen to the other side (Prov 18:17). Again, we cannot practice discernment if we are not willing to consider opposing views, for what need is there for discernment if there are no other options to weigh? Thus, to discern the truth, we should take the opinions of outsiders seriously, otherwise “we may miss what God is doing” (p. 34).

In the last three chapters of Part 1, David Bennett, J. R. Daniel Kirk, and Wesley Hill offer different perspectives on a range of New Testament texts that address questions of sexual ethics. First, Bennett argues for a balance between radical holiness and radical inclusion. He uses the acceptance of eunuchs in Isaiah 56 and Matthew 19 to suggest that these texts serve as a “paradigm from which we might adjudicate and approach the question of sexual orientation and gender dysphoria in the church today.” In his view, “we can still have solidarity with those whom we disagree, even if we may wrestle with how, if at all, fellowship is possible” (p. 46).

Next, Kirk proclaims that “The Good News of Romans 1” is that Gentile inclusion through the Spirit, not physical descent, removes the stipulations of procreation, circumcision, and adherence to the law for Gentile believers. How so? Since “contrary to nature,” they have been grafted into the olive tree of the people of God (Rom 11:24), their sexual acts that are “contrary to nature” (Rom 1:26) are also acceptable. Kirk is explicit on this point, writing that “when gentiles are brought in, they are not made to conform to the standards that had previously existed for demarcating the people of God” (p. 63). Romans 1, then, does not condemn LGBTQ relationships and identities because it does not point back to the old creation of Genesis 1 but rather to the new creation of Galatians 3:28, where there is neither male nor female, but all are one through faith in Christ Jesus.

Lastly, Hill argues that the biggest roadblock to Christians accepting those with whom they disagree about LGBTQ matters is the apparent condemnation of LGBTQ relationships and identities in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. For Hill, however, “there are too many ambiguities and complexities in the Pauline text for it to be pressed and wielded in the way traditionalists have done, often to the spiritual harm of gay Christians” (p. 67). The ambiguities Hill mentions surround the Greek terms μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται. Because of these ambiguities, Hill says Christians should look instead to Romans 1 as a passage that is clearer in condemning same-sex sexual behavior. However, since this passage “does not directly speak into the life of the church,” there is room for nuance and negotiation in how to address this topic among Spirit-filled Christians (p. 70). Hill thus concludes that while same-sex sexual acts are sinful, there is “no neat, clean, straight line to be drawn from Paul’s text to our current pastoral and cultural dilemmas.” So, to use 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 to threaten “affirming gay Christians” with judgment is to misuse the text. “Our job, rather, is to mention such threats only on the way to proclaiming their nullity” (p. 78).

The main aim of Christlike Acceptance across Deep Difference is honorable. It is a genuine attempt to bridge the gap between Christians who disagree about LGBTQ relationships and identities and to promote greater unity within the church. Moreover, many of the authors pose good questions that demand a cogent biblical and theological response. Some chapters, such as Tim Muehlhoff’s “Speaking Truth in Love” (ch. 7), offer helpful advice for engaging in conversations with people with whom we might disagree about any number of matters. Nevertheless, despite the authors’ intentions, their arguments frequently sacrifice the truth of Scripture for a pseudo-unity. As the following two points demonstrate, the primary problem is that they fail to plausibly defend the claim that LGBTQ relationships and identities are in fact “disputable matters”—i.e., tolerable differences.

First, it is hermeneutically invalid to compare disputes about LGBTQ relationships and identities with the continuing applicability of Old Testament food laws. Yet in almost every chapter, the authors cite the early Christians’ disputes over eating certain foods and observing religious days as an example of how we can disagree over LGBTQ issues and still be one in Christ. However, as Jesus makes clear (Mark 7:14–23), what goes into your body and what you do with your body are on completely different planes, morally speaking. The food laws and holy days given in the Old Testament were for a specific period to promote the principle that Israel was to be separate from the other nations. When Jesus came, he declared all foods clean (Mark 7:18-19). God’s people were no longer to be set apart by food but by being filled with God’s Spirit and living holy lives. Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that eating animals formerly regarded as unclean is sinful. This is why Paul can regard it as a matter of conscience and encourage stronger believers to be willing to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of weaker believers.

In contrast, consistent biblical condemnation of sexual immorality (including homosexual acts and desires) is not confined to the Old Testament (e.g., Matt 5:19–20; Mark 7:21–23; Rom 13:13–14; 1 Cor 5–6; 10; Gal 5:19–21; 1 Thess 4:1–8; Eph 5:3–4; Col 3:5–6). Hence, sexual ethics cannot be treated as matters of conscience or placed in the same category as ceremonial laws fulfilled by the coming of Jesus. Rather, all forms of sexual immorality should be met with repudiation, resistance, and repentance.

Second, it is not possible to live Spirit-filled lives of obedience and to indulge in the desires of the flesh. Yet many of the authors of this volume argue that Christian people in loving same-sex sexual relationships should be seen as faithful brothers and sisters in Christ. One clarification that both Pierce and Hill offer is that they are speaking of those who “desire to lead lives of obedience to their Lord as they best understand the Scripture’s teaching on sexuality and gender” (p. 12). The implication here, however, is that Scripture is not clear about how its teaching on sexuality and gender applies in daily life. And so, if a person sins in ignorance (due to a misunderstanding of biblical sexual ethics), God will excuse them. Doubtless, greater knowledge brings greater responsibility. Nevertheless, the Scriptures teach that sins committed in ignorance will still be punished, albeit to a lesser degree than intentional sins (Lev 5:17–19; Luke 12:47–48). We do people no favors, then, if we leave them in ignorance or fail to warn them that “those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21).

Furthermore, the Scriptures leave no room for ambivalence. It is clear what a Spirit-filled life looks like—bearing the fruit of the Spirit and crucifying the desires of the flesh. One of the deeds of the flesh is sexual immorality, which would include the pursuit of LGBTQ relationships and identities (as opposed to unbidden sexual temptation or unwanted gender confusion). In short, a person cannot be walking in the Spirit if they are actively practicing or promoting sin (1 John 3:8–10).

Christian unity need not be damaged by differences over adiaphora. However, LGBTQ relationships and identities do not belong to this category. Therefore, they can neither be affirmed as good nor accepted as “disputable.” While we must never fail to love another, we should never lie to one another. This, then, is not a matter about which the church can afford to compromise if it wishes to remain faithful to Jesus.