Out of all the pressing theological issues relevant to the early twenty-first century, perhaps none are more significant or as highly debated as the Bible’s conclusions on the topic of homosexuality. Erwin Lutzer comments on this heavily discussed issue by saying, “There is reason to believe that this revolution to remake the family has the potential to destroy the very concept of marriage along with freedom of religion. If God’s people do not act now, it might be too late.” Recently, a well-known evangelical pastor, Louie Giglio, was “disinvited” to appear at President Barak Obama’s second inaugural ceremony as the man to lead in the inaugural public prayer. Currently, online discussion forums (even those of no relation to sexuality or ethics) are being flooded with comments on homosexuality, books are being published by homosexual advocates, movies are being filmed with homosexual agendas, television shows portray storylines highlighting the homosexual lifestyle, with countless other avenues that could be mentioned to make the case that Americans encounter a substantial amount of pro-homosexual propaganda. No doubt, churches are being greatly influenced by this cultural phenomenon. Likewise, churches are also confronted with another critical issue, evangelical feminism. Both evangelical feminism and homosexuality are two distinct issues, yet are intertwined together in their relation to the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality. Most of all, what links the two together is the methodology of biblical interpretation. Therefore, after surveying both issues, and summarizing both comparisons and contrasts between the two topics, it will be made clear that the hermeneutic espoused by evangelical feminists is closely related to the interpretive methodology incorporated by Christians who condone homosexuality. And thus, the Church ought to know the implications of these parallels and how to respond to the culture in a Christ-like fashion.
Overview Of Homosexuality and Evangelical Feminism
Perhaps the best place to start in understanding homosexuality’s influence in America is 1948. It was at this time that the Kinsey Institute Report had done some fairly extensive research on homosexuality. During this stage of research, it was reported and popularized that as many as 10 percent of people were found to be homosexual. However, Kinsey’s research was later determined to have been faulty due to a poor methodology. Nevertheless, it made way for further research, and by the 1960s, “Sexual self-expression, which traditionally had been regarded as a privilege, became perceived as a right – something to be expressed publicly.” By 1973 gay-rights activists had “persuaded the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric illnesses and reclassify it as normal behavior.” Astonishingly, the APA conceded to the requests of the gay-rights proponents, but did so without any scientific reasoning.
Christians, it should also be noted, were not uninvolved pertaining to matters of homosexuality, including in their acceptance of this lifestyle. In 1986, the Evangelical Women’s Caucus (EWC) made the decision to embrace homosexuality as being biblically permissible. Denominations have also been persuaded to the perceived importance of accepting homosexuality as a legitimate form of sexual conduct. After the PCUSA’s General Assembly called for churches to eliminate civil laws prohibiting homosexuality in 1987, by the very next year, the “National Network of Presbyterian College Women” had produced materials advocating that lesbianism was an acceptable lifestyle for Christians. Although the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) has appeared to have been slightly more cautious than the PCUSA, David Jones nevertheless denounces, “Some within the ELCA are arguing for the endorsement of homosexuality.” The United Methodist Church (UMC) is yet another denomination that has battled for the inclusion of homosexuality being permissible. Jones writes, “As of the year 2000, there were at least seven pro-homosexual groups working exclusively within the UMC to persuade the denomination to change its position on issues such as same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.” Baptists have not been untouched by the homosexual-inclusion debate either. Tony Campolo, associate pastor of Mount Carmel Baptist Church and professor of Sociology, has a somewhat odd, but noteworthy take on this issue: “Homosexual lovers ought to live together in a lifelong covenant without having sex.” Additionally, there’s even an entire denomination that is pro-gay, namely the “Metropolitan Community Church.” Undoubtedly, churches across the nation have openly accepted homosexuality as a biblically legitimate form of male and female sexuality, and doing so at an astounding pace. But perhaps this acceptance did not rise strictly from secular influences outside of churches. Rather, evidence must be examined to see if the spread of evangelical feminism helped to open up the door (particularly by the proponents’ hermeneutic) to permit the recent rise of accepting homosexuality within evangelicalism.
B. Evangelical Feminism
What was previously mentioned regarding the EWC did not contain the full story of what happened in history. While the EWC did begin to officially affirm the inclusion of homosexuality in 1986, there was a movement that dissented from the EWC, formed of evangelical feminists who did not support homosexuality. This group of dissenters formulated the group, “Men, Women, and God: Christians for Biblical Equality,” though the name was shortened to just “Christians for Biblical Equality” by 1987. And thus, in the last few decades the two issues of sexuality up for debate, evangelical feminism and homosexuality, are usually closely linked together with the former leading the way for condoning homosexuality to be possible. The history of the groups presented earlier (the PCUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC) will be looked at in further detail in order to see the similarities that were present within the EWC.
First of all, the PCUSA is a denomination to be studied in relation to views on sexuality. While egalitarianism had already made some impact in the 1920s and 1930s within the predecessor denominations that are now formed into the PCUSA, by the late 1950s and early 1960s, evangelical feminism was firmly settled within these Presbyterians. During the latter era, women had been fully permitted to be ordained as Presbyterian clergy. Although Presbyterianism has historically viewed homosexuality as being contrary to God’s purposes for male and female sexuality, recent years have seen a push for homosexuality acceptance, including clergy. In 2006,
the [General] Assembly approved a report (the so-called PUP Report, for “Peace, Unity, and Purity”), that allowed the governing bodies that ordain church officers to decide for themselves whether a candidate for ordination needed to obey the stated rule [of marital fidelity or chaste singleness] or not. No longer would a candidate be required, according to this new guidance, to practice fidelity in marriage or chastity in singleness. Any governing body was free to determine its own conclusion in the matter, thus opening up the door to the ordination of people who were sexually active outside of marriage, whether in straight or gay relationships.
Meanwhile, evangelical feminists currently maintain a strong opposition to complementarianism. Kathy Keller records in The Meaning of Marriage, “When I announced to Pittsburgh Presbytery my decision to pull out of the ordination track that I had been on in my seminary education and instead pursue an unordained status ‘because I believe that [the complementarian view of eldership] is what the Bible teaches,’ I was booed and hissed by a majority of the 350 ministers and elders attending the meeting!” There seems, then, to be a connection in the PCUSA regarding how evangelical feminism (egalitarianism) was accepted, which then opened the door for further discussions of sexuality. The chronology is at least visible: this denomination first allowed evangelical feminism and then homosexuality, though the latter is still progressing for further acceptance. Thus, the effects have been manifested, but the questions remains as to “how” this could happen. In other words, what was the prominent cause for drifting from complementarianism, to evangelical feminism, and then to accepting homosexuality? A proposed answer will be explored after viewing the similar examples of both the ELCA and UMC.
While the history of the PCUSA denomination reveals an acceptance of evangelical feminism (egalitarianism) within the 20th century and then homosexuality within 21st century, the ELCA has a remarkably similar story to tell. Like the PCUSA, the ELCA was formed from previous denominations that united together to form a new one. The ELCA was officially formed on January 4, 1988 from three previously existing Lutheran denominations: the American Lutheran Church (ALC), the Lutheran Church in America (LCA), and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC). While “the ALC and the LCA began ordaining female pastors in 1970,” the AELC followed suit in 1977. Of course, then, when the ELCA was formed, the evangelical feminism agendas were also transferred. Subsequently, Jones writes, “Since the mid-1970s a number of groups affiliated with the affiliation have been lobbying the ELCA to change its historical position on homosexuality and to produce a social statement of its own that affirms homosexual unions and ordinations.” Lutheran Bishop R.L. DeJaynes even believes that the evangelical feminists within the ELCA “have been the greatest supporters of the homosexual agenda.” Such supporters finally won out in their agenda on August 21, 2009, when the ELCA announced: “The 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted today to open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships.” One ELCA bishop even said, “It’s a matter of justice, a matter of hospitality, it’s what Jesus would have us do.” Due to what has happened in recent history within the ELCA, there seems to be an apparent correlation between evangelical feminism and the acceptance of homosexuality. Therefore, it will be quite important to observe the chronology of what has happened in the UMC as well.
Similar to the previous two denominations that were observed, the UMC is a denomination that was formed by pre-existing denominations. In this case, the UMC was established officially in 1968 when both the “Methodist Church” (founded in 1784 with Francis Asbury as the first American Methodist bishop) and the “Evangelical United Brethren Church” came together. Even before the 20th century, the two predecessor denominations of the presently known UMC had an egalitarian church leadership perspective, allowing women to be pastors, evangelists, and preachers. Throughout the heritage of the UMC, this denomination consistently refused to condone homosexuality. However, by the turn of the 21st century, “There were at least seven pro-homosexual groups working exclusively within the UMC to persuade the denomination to change its position on issues such as same-sex marriage and the ordination of homosexuals.” In 2012, although the UMC did not vote to revise their position on homosexuality that is, according to their doctrinal statement, “Incompatible with Christian teaching,” The Washington Post reported that about 1,200 UMC clergy have agreed to oppose the denomination’s standard and marry homosexual couples anyway. The examples from the PCUSA, the ELCA, and the UMC have extraordinary similarities in what has occurred in recent history, that is, the progressive acceptance of homosexuality following an evangelical feminist approach to gender roles and church leadership. Perhaps, it was simply the pressing influence of the surrounding culture that led to the presently strong influx of pro-homosexuality voices within these denominations. On the other hand, evidence will be presented to show that there has been a powerful contribution from within the churches, namely the hermeneutic.
Hermeneutic Espoused By Christians in Favor of Condoning Homosexuality
Men and women who condone homosexuality are struck with a major dilemma upon studying the Scriptures. There are really only three options: (1) Disregard the authority of the biblical text; (2) allow the text of Scripture to alter their presuppositions regarding homosexuality; or (3) change their hermeneutic in order to retain their presuppositions of condoning homosexuality. What seems to be most common among contemporary scholars who support homosexuality is, of course, option three – proponents change their hermeneutic. In order to gain insight concerning the hermeneutic of those who condone homosexuality, it will be profitable to consider four main passages of the Bible.
One of the most common passages that evangelicals use to support heterosexual, monogamous marriage is Leviticus 20:13. This passage declares, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” Generally, homosexual advocates have argued “that such case-laws were only intended for the nation of Israel, and thus, have no additional application whatsoever.” Exegetically, however, it is fallacious to confuse something that is an “abomination” to God with a ceremonial law such as the Leviticus 11 mandates on what is a clean or unclean creature. Typically, it would be better for Christians to incorporate other passages to defend the biblical view of sexuality simply because explaining the fulfillment of the ceremonial laws can be a somewhat complex issue, yet a resolvable one nonetheless.
Romans 1:26-27 is possibly the biblical passage pertaining to homosexuality with the most varying views among those who condone the practice. While several variations and distinct views could be considered, just two views will be substantial enough. The first view proposes that Romans 1 condemns perverted forms of homosexuality. Romans 1:26-27 states, “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” John Boswell, an advocate of the first view writes, “The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons.” He adds, “It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction [between gay persons with a permanent homosexual preference and heterosexual persons], but it is quite apparent that—whether or not he was aware of their existence—Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.” Malick questions the first view, saying, “Boswell claims that Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts (with the idea that no one in Paul’s day distinguished between those who were inwardly gay and those who were simply carrying out homosexual acts). However, if Paul did not make such a distinction himself, how can it be maintained that Romans 1:26–27 strictly observes the distinction?” Overall, this first view professes to be one of abundant textual clarity, yet all exegetical support lacks immensely.
Romans 1:26-27 is also interpreted to be a condemnation of “pederasty.” Robin Scroggs is one proponent of this view, which propagates that the Apostle Paul is warning against the sin of adult men committing sexual acts with boys. There are two severe problems with Scroggs’ view. First of all, it is a wonder as to why Paul was not clearer in this text if his rebuke was against pederasty alone, and not all other forms of homosexuality. Secondly, his argument is proven weak by the fact that pederasty involves only males, yet Paul also describes homosexual female activity: “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26). Clearly, the only consistent exegesis of the passage is that Paul acknowledges that homosexuality is a sin and contrary to God’s prescription for human sexuality.
The final two passages to consider can be observed simultaneously: First Corinthians 6:9-10 and First Timothy 1:9-10. Both sections of Scripture contain lists of sins that define unbelievers, who live without the justifying and sanctifying work of God. First Corinthians 6:9-10 says, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (italics added). It would be graceless to end the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality at this point, for the very next verse declares, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11). The final passage, First Timothy 1:9-10 states, “…the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…” So yes, the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but it is not the king of all sins, and is conquerable through the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, it must be concluded that for proponents to condone homosexuality, they have quite an extensive amount of work to accomplish in order to make their presuppositions fit into the Bible. Otherwise, they are left with the option to completely discount the authority of Scripture or to reconsider their standards on sexuality. Whatever the case, a consistent hermeneutic for those who condone homosexuality is simply impossible.
Hermeneutic Espoused By Evangelical Feminists
Without question, many evangelical feminists are quick to defend their beliefs in the authority of Scripture. However, upon studying some examples of evangelical feminists and their hermeneutic, the question will evidently not be “do they believe in the authority of the Scriptures?” but “do they have a consistent hermeneutic?” After all, a hermeneutic need not be inconsistent if the text of the Scripture can speak for itself consistently. Although Scripture is full of examples that are worth observing, three passages will be considered in order to identify the hermeneutic within evangelical feminism.
Galatians 3:28 is the absolute bedrock verse used by evangelical feminists to promote gender equality in all things, including functions in the home and through the local church. It says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Now, the obvious first step into making a decision in exegesis is to figure out the context of Galatians chapter three. Clearly, this passage is not talking about gender neutrality in relation to male/female functional roles, but is referring to the spiritual blessings available to all people who believe on Christ, regardless of their physical classification. But this verse is definitely not asserting that a Christian woman revokes her femininity. After all, a slave is still subject to his master once he is justified; a Jew is still Jewish. Rather than providing support for evangelical feminists, Galatians 3:28, when interpreted with a normal, consistent hermeneutic, still aligns with complementarianism.
A second passage worth considering is First Timothy 2:11-12. These verses say, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” There are a couple of ways to interpret this passage: (1) Paul was dealing with a problem only relative to the first century, so therefore, this is not applicable to how men and women function in the local church. (2) Paul’s words are binding in the local church for all centuries. Evangelical feminists obviously take the first view. Catherine Kroeger advocates that Paul’s words are relative to an unmentioned, feminist “heresy” in Ephesus. However, as Wayne Grudem writes, “No clear proof of women teaching false doctrine at Ephesus has been found either inside the Bible or outside the Bible.” Additionally, it would be awfully strange for Paul to have been referring to a specific Ephesian heresy in this context, yet fail to ever mention it in this letter to Timothy or in another. Perhaps, then, it was not a specified “heresy,” but just a culturally conditional standard, says the evangelical feminist. Contextually, however, it would not make sense for Paul to write the final three verses: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” (1 Timothy 2:13-15). In other words, Paul is not basing his standard for gender roles in the church on a cultural norm, but on the order of creation. Therefore, the hermeneutic employed in this case is one that attempts to label passages as culturally irrelevant even though there is a God-given prescription within the text.
The third and final passage to observe in regards to the evangelical feminists’ hermeneutic is First Timothy chapter three. As if chapter two of First Timothy was not clear enough on the gender roles within the local church, chapter three gives the qualifications of both pastors and deacons. Interestingly enough, both pastors/overseers and deacons are required to be “the husband of one wife [μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα]” (1 Timothy 3:2 and 3:12). Paul’s argument of male-only pastoral and diaconal leadership is carried over from chapter two into the specific character qualifications, one of them being that he is devoted to his sole wife. While there are plenty of interpretations of this phrase, “husband of one wife,” it cannot be ignored that the word ἄνδρα is used here for “man,” and not the generic word sometimes translated in other modern translations as “person” [ανθρωπος]. Overall, it is quite clear from this passage of Scripture that God has given men and women differing functions within the local church.
There are two conclusions regarding the hermeneutic of evangelical feminists that are important to make known. First of all, there is often a “trajectory” model of interpretation incorporated by evangelical feminists. Speaking of the Bible’s stance on complementarianism versus egalitarianism, David Thompson writes, “The canonical conversation at this point closed without final resolution. But the trajectory was clearly set toward egalitarian relationships.” In other words, it is not possible to formulate a proper theology regarding egalitarianism from the words of Scripture alone. Instead, authority is found in the foreseen path that the New Testament was taking regarding gender distinctions. Grudem responds to Thompson’s view by stating, “This trajectory argument is similar to the view of the Roman Catholic church, which bases doctrines not only on the Bible but also on the authoritative teachings of the church that have come after the Bible was written.” Indeed, the trajectory proposition is both somewhat alarming and likewise barren of authority, save the individual interpreter with a presupposed bent toward egalitarianism.
Secondly, evangelical feminists are noticeably inconsistent in their hermeneutic. Proponents seem to frequently digress from the meaning of each text that has some culturally relative information. Examples are not limited to, but include: First Corinthians 11:2-16 regarding “head coverings,” Romans 16:16 which informs people to “greet one another with a holy kiss,” and Paul’s words for slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9. In each passage, the logic of interpreting these passages usually goes as follows: (1) The passage is speaking to some custom or culturally relative function; (2) believers no longer explicitly follow the command as written; (3) therefore, the passage is no longer binding whatsoever for believers. Instead of discarding certain passages, complementarians interpret each text as is, though still apply the meaning found in each passage. For example, Wayne Grudem writes in relation to First Corinthians 11, “Our approach [complementarianism] here is very different from any egalitarian argument that says, ‘We don’t have to obey the passage on head coverings, and we don’t have to obey the passage on holy kisses, and we don’t have to obey the passage on foot washing, so we probably don’t have to obey the passages on male headship in marriage either.” Instead, he proposes,
The thing that God was concerned about in each case was not the outward form but the
meaning conveyed by that form…’Wives, submit to your own husbands,’ and ‘Husbands, love your wives’ (Ephesians 5:22, 25) are not mere symbols of some deeper reality. They are the reality itself!…Similarly, leadership of the church by male elders (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2) is not a temporary symbol of some deeper reality, but is the reality itself. It characterizes the ongoing leadership pattern of the church throughout all of its days.
Thus, while egalitarians are comfortable with discarding “problem” passages, complementarians retain these valuable words of wisdom from God. Why is this so? The hermeneutic between egalitarians and complementarians makes all of the difference. And likewise, the hermeneutic between evangelical feminists and those who condone homosexuality is quite important to consider as well for final observations.
While evangelical feminists and proponents who condone homosexuality obviously have different theological conclusions in their own subjects of debate, it is hard to ignore both the examples of history concerning both viewpoints and each representative hermeneutic adopted without posing the question, “Are these two groups connected in some way?” Although certainly it would be fallacious to falsely assume that each and every egalitarian will necessarily condone homosexuality over time, the truth of the matter is that history is filled with examples. Even in the case of the CBE (“Christians for Biblical Equality”) origins, there is a connection between them and Christians who condone homosexuality, that is, being born from a group of dissenters from the EWC (“Evangelical Women’s Caucus”). Jones says, “The likelihood of an egalitarian view of male/female gender roles leading to the endorsement of homosexuality increases with the passage of time.” And the reason as to why Jones can make such an assertion is because at their roots both evangelical feminism and proponents who condone homosexuality stand on unstable ground hermeneutically. The latter group cannot accept what is clearly written in Scripture concerning homosexuality. Therefore, in order to condone homosexuality, proponents cannot afford to adopt a consistent hermeneutic, but instead have to offer revised interpretations that conflict with all of church history, a normal reading of Scripture, and the historical intentions and meanings of each passage. Likewise, evangelical feminists are unable to consistently interpret Scripture, but instead are often forced into justifying their view by deeming passages culturally relative and non-applicable for twenty first century believers. Conclusions cannot be solidified in the authority of the text alone. Thus, the hermeneutic espoused by each group is simply not strong enough to maintain consistent interpretations of God’s holy Word.
 Erwin Lutzer. The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 2004.
 Albert Mohler, “The Giglio Imbroglio — The Public Inauguration of a New Moral McCarthyism,” http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/01/10/the-giglio-imbroglio-the-public-inauguration-of-a-new-moral-mccarthyism/ (accessed January 11, 2013). The statement from the President Inaugural Committee in response to Giglio explained, “We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection, and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this inaugural. Pastor Giglio was asked to deliver the benediction in large part because of his leadership in combating human trafficking around the world. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.”
 It is important to note from the beginning that not all evangelical feminists support homosexuality, as proven by the research in the following pages. However, among the more “conservative” evangelical feminists (those who do not support homosexuality), the hermeneutic is nevertheless connected with the less strict evangelical feminists and/or those who support homosexuality. Because of this connection, the following research and critique will be presented.
 David Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27” Bibliotecha Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993), 327.
 Alan Chambers, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2006), 36.
 Ibid., 36-37.
 Erwin Lutzer, The Truth About Same-Sex Marriage, 17.
 Ibid., 18-19.
 Ibid., 19. Lutzer quotes a psychiatrist, also on page 19, who said, “It was the first time in psychiatric history that a scientific society ignored scientific evidence and yielded to the demands of a militant group.”
 Mark Rogers, “Whence Evangelical Feminism?” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 14:2 (Fall 2009), 58.
 David W. Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous
Ideologies?” Journal of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 8:2 (Fall 2003), 7.
 Ibid., 9.
 Ibid., 10.
 Chambers, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door, 262.
 Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous
 In reference to the case of the EWC and CBE, it would be logically fallacious to simply assume that all groups who start off evangelical feminists will necessarily embrace homosexuality. Yet, the point that will be presented is that the methodology of biblical interpretation between the two groups is quite similar. And because of the parallels, Christians should be aware of the “greater chance” for evangelical feminist groups in the future to possibly follow in the footsteps of the EWC.
 Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?”, 6-7. The two Presbyterian denominations (PCUS [Presbyterian Church in the U.S.] and the UPCUSA [United Presbyterian Church of the U.S.A.]) officially reunited in 1983 after 122 years of being separate from one another. Thus, when both the PCUS and UPCUSA came together to reunite in the name PCUSA, they carried along their egalitarian views with them.
 Ibid., 7.
 Ibid., 7.
 Mark D. Roberts, “The End of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)? Revisted.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/the-end-of-the-presbyterian-church-u-s-a-revisited/ 2008. (accessed January 13, 2013).
 Tim and Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage (New York, NY: Dutton Group Inc., 2011), end note 14 from chapter six. It should also be noted, though, that Kathy Keller did not specify if the Presbytery was from the PCUSA or another Presbyterian denomination.
 Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?”, 8.
 Ibid., 9. Jones records five groups that are actively pursuing the acceptance for homosexuality within the ELCA: (1) The Network for Inclusive Vision (2) Lutherans Concerned/North America (3) Wingspan (4) Lutheran Lesbian and Gay Ministries (5) The Extraordinary Candidacy Project.
 R.L. DeJaynes, Coming Out From Among Them: A Journey Out of the Lutheran Church in America (Decatur, IL: Johan Gerhard Institute, 1996), 27.
 ELCA, “ELCA Assembly Opens Ministry to Partnered Gay and Lesbian Lutherans,” http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4253 (accessed January 14, 2013).
 Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?”, 9-10.
 Ibid., 10.
 Daniel Burke, “Why the United Methodist Church Canceled Votes on Same-Sex Marriage and Gay Clergy,” The Washington Post. May 7, 2012, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-05-07/national/35458535_1_gay-clergy-gay-advocates-gay-rights (accessed January 14, 2013).
 George Grant and Mark Horne, Unnatural Affections (Franklin, TN: Legacy Press, 1991), 37.
 For example, Proverbs 12:22 says, “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord.” God’s thoughts towards “lying lips” will always be the same, but the purposes for ceremonial laws are vastly different from identifying the things that God eternally opposes.
 Quoted in Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27,” 337.
 See Ibid., 338.
 See Ibid., 339.
 Italics added.
 Catherine C. Kroeger, “Ancient Heresies and a Strange Greek Verb,” Reformed Journal 29 no. 3, 1979, 12-15.
 Wayne Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism (Colorado Springs, CO: Multnomah, 2006), 163.
 Thompson, David. “Women, Men, Slaves and the Bible,” Christian Scholars’ Review 25:3 (March, 1996).
 Wayne Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, 219.
 Wayne Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism, 206.
 Ibid., 206-207.
 Jones, “Egalitarianism and Homosexuality: Connected or Autonomous Ideologies?”, 6.
 Ibid., 11.