A Critique of Karen R. Keen’s Hermeneutical Method

Editor’s Note: The following article appears in the Spring 2025 issue of Eikon.

How one interprets a text will dictate what one believes, including about sexual ethics. Therefore, due to the importance of correctly interpreting the Bible’s sexual ethic, I will critique how Karen R. Keen, who professes to be an LGBTQ-affirming Christian, concludes that the Bible affirms same-sex relationships.^[1] I will argue that Keen’s arguments are flawed as she misinterprets the meaning of the law, the fruit of the Spirit, and Romans 1:24−27.

What Is the Main Intent of the Law in Leviticus?

Karen Keen’s hermeneutical method can be seen through her interpretation of the Old Testament laws prohibiting same-sex relationships and her implementation of virtue ethics in living out the fruit of the Spirit to deem an action right and pleasing to God. Her main argument is that we should interpret these laws by seeing God’s main intent of the law to promote a “good and just world” that “provides care for neighbor, fair treatment, compensation for offenses, and general well-being.”^[2] Keen is correct that one of the purposes of the law was to promote a good and just society, to protect the helpless, provide for the needy, and treat others the way we would want to be treated. Her understanding, however, of the main intent of the law is only partially correct. By observing the larger context of the Holiness Code in Leviticus, as well as the biblical narrative, it becomes clear that her definition of a “good and just society” that affirms same-sex relationships is found wanting on several fronts.^[3]

The Holiness Code

To start, we need to observe the texts about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Keen says we must see the main intent of the law from this passage — how it promotes a good and just society — in order to understand how we must obey these principles today. The intent of the law is found in the moral law underlying each of the civil laws given in the Old Testament. As Keen argues, the reason we cannot simply throw away these commands entirely is because they are tied to the nature and character of God, and there is a reason why God gave them to us.^[4] The civil applications of this law (putting someone to death who commits homosexuality) are no longer binding, not because God did not inspire them, but because we no longer live in a theocentric society like Israel. So, the question we must answer is how the command for a man not to lie with a man is connected to the eternal, moral nature that reflects God’s unchanging character. Why would God specifically give this sexual ethic? And how does this command promote a good and just society according to God?

To see how this command connects with God’s moral character, we must understand the literary context in which the law was given, beginning with its inclusion in the Pentateuch.^[5] In Genesis, Moses describes God as the Creator who is good and has made all things for his glory (Gen 1–2; Isa 43:7; Col 1:16). God made human beings specifically in his image to represent him through all the earth by emulating his character.^[6] Humanity’s sole purpose was to glorify and enjoy God forever in a relationship with him, and the way they worshiped and demonstrated their love for God was through obeying his commands.^[7]

God revealed humanity’s sexual ethic through the establishment of the first marriage in Genesis 2. In verses 20−24, we read that to allow man to fulfill his task to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth (Gen 1:27−28), God created a woman to help him so that together they could fill the world with worshippers who would glorify him.^[8] God made woman different from man but equally in his image to complement man, so that together they could fulfill God’s command to multiply and fill the earth.^[9] We also learn from Genesis 1−2 that everything God created was good (Gen 1:31) — since God himself is good and just. He can do no wrong (Deut 32:4). We can therefore conclude that, in the creation of marriage between one man and one woman, God provided a clear sexual ethic for mankind. Only in obedience to it will humanity emulate God’s moral nature and promote a good and just world that would glorify his name.

Moving now to the immediate literary context, the Holiness Code (Lev 17−26) was explicitly given to set Israel apart as different from other nations so that the nations would see the glory and holiness of God through his people and lead them to worship and serve Yahweh (Lev 20:26; 1 Pet 1:16). All the Levitical laws can be summed up in the idea that Israel was not to be like the other nations. One way God specifically commanded Israel not to be like the other nations was by abstaining from participating in many forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality.^[10] The reason God gave these prohibitions against homosexuality was because it contradicts his holy design established for sexual relations in Genesis 1−2. Homosexual acts do not represent God’s holy character, reflected in his design for sexuality, but instead represent a distorted picture of sex that was practiced by the surrounding nations.

But contrary to this expression of orthodox Christian sexual ethics, Keen argues that the main intent of the prohibitions against same-sex relationships in Leviticus was due to a violation of gender norms, lack of procreative potential, participation in pagan practices, and participation in male prostitution. Therefore, Israel was commanded not to participate in homosexual acts not because they went against God’s holy and moral character as revealed in the first marriage, but only because they would lead to pagan worship practices that exploited and harmed others.^[11] Keen’s interpretation, however, does not properly place this command in its literary context. Contrary to Keen, William Loader, who affirms same-sex relationships, says that the commands against homosexual actions cannot be placed merely in cultic contexts (pagan worship, procreative potential, patriarchal hierarchy). Instead, these acts are an offense against God because they go against his divine will.^[12]

God gave these commands because he wanted his people to imitate his holiness and be different from the other nations. God called his people to be holy as he was holy. An essential part of living a holy life to God is living a holy sexual ethic congruent with the creation order and set apart from the surrounding nations. The Bible makes clear in the Old Testament and the New Testament (as we will see) that the sexual ethic that promotes a good and just world from God’s perspective coheres with the creation ordinance of a one-flesh covenant union between a husband and wife. Anything outside of this act is breaking God’s commands and is sin against God.^[13] For this reason Robert Gagnon writes, “It [homosexual acts] is nothing short of a rebellion against the way God made humans to function as sexual beings…[there is solid] evidence for the enduring validity of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.”^[14]

Do Same-Sex Relationships Produce the Fruit of the Spirit?

Keen exhibits a consequentialist system of ethics when she justifies homosexuality by what she sees as the “fruit of the spirit” produced by most gay and lesbian people. Keen says “Virtues are about who a person is, whereas rules [or commands] address what a person does. Good character is the fountain from which ethical behavior flows.”^[15] In her logic, if same-sex relationships produce the fruit of the Spirit, then these actions must be virtuous. For example, she argues that loving, monogamous same-sex relationships exemplify the fruit of the Spirit because they are founded upon selfless love for the other. Keen says, “If Jesus says that all the law can be summed up in love, then don’t these relationships meet that requirement?. . . if we act out virtue by loving and caring for others, the outcome will always be the will of God (Luke 11:41).”^[16] Thus, using the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22–23 to define her virtue ethics, she concludes that sin is only what violates this list of integral qualities, specifically in how one treats and relates to others. But is this how the Bible defines sin?

The Bible does not, in fact. First, this understanding of sin does not follow the pattern of Jesus’ life. First John 2:4−6 says that we know we are in Christ if we walk in the same way he did. Part of what constitutes a legitimate reading for Keen is built upon knowing God and imitating the life of Jesus. However, based on Matthew 5:28−30 and 19:4−6, Jesus did not believe in, prescribe, or live out this sexual ethic. Jesus humbled himself and submitted to the Father’s will in fully obeying and teaching his commands, including those about sexual ethics. Therefore, indulging in same-sex relationships is not consistent with loving God and obeying his commands.

Second, it is also hard to see how Keen can interpret Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to say that God approves of Christian monogamous same-sex relationships when, at the same time, he calls these acts an “abomination” in both verses.^[17] Richard Davidson explains the significance of the word abomination: “The fact that among the list of specific prohibitions of sexual acts in Leviticus 18, the word toeba is mentioned only regarding homosexual intercourse indicates the degree of revulsion associated with homosexual activity. Indeed, in the entire Pentateuch, the only forbidden sexual act to which the word toeba is specifically attached is homosexual intercourse.”^[18] Also, contrary to scholars who argue that abomination is used only because it is connected with ritual and cultic practices, by observing the use of the word in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible, “this revulsion for homosexual activity goes far beyond its association with the cultic practices of surrounding nations.”^[19] Therefore, practicing homosexual acts would not be loving God supremely and loving what he loves; it is, rather, loving what he hates (Rom 12:10).

Third, Keen seems to neglect the literary context of important passages in Romans and Galatians. She argues from Romans 13:8–10 that “the whole purpose of the law is to teach us to love one another.” Thus if a person loves their same-sex partner, they are fulfilling the law. However, right after verse 10, Paul says in verses 12–14 that Christians must no longer walk in the night but must cast off the works of darkness. One of the works of darkness he lists is sexual immorality, which undoubtedly includes homosexuality. Thus, Keen’s definition of love and fulfilling the law from this passage neglects the immediate context in which Paul condemns homosexuality (also see Romans 1 and the argument below). In Galatians 5:22–25, she says loving, monogamous same-sex relationships fulfill the fruit of the Spirit because they are “fully capable of fulfilling the fruit of the Spirit.” However, right before listing these virtues, Paul describes the deeds of the flesh that are contrary to the Spirit. One of the vices Paul mentions is sexual immorality (porneia). In a first-century Jewish mind, porneia would directly refer to homosexual practices that the Old Testament law condemned and, as stated above, were considered an abomination to the Lord (Lev 18:22; 20:13).^[20] Therefore, one of the deeds of the flesh that gays and lesbians practice is in contradiction with the “fruit” that their lives are producing. Paul makes clear in Galatians 5:17−19 that the deeds of the flesh are contrary to the fruit of the Spirit, and one cannot walk in the fruit of the Spirit if they are living out the desires of the flesh. Therefore, based on the testimony of Scripture and a proper interpretation of Galatians 5:22−23 in its literary and historical context, same-sex relationships do not produce the fruit of the Spirit, nor does God approve them as virtuous acts.

Is the Condemnation of Same-Sex Relationships Continued in the New Testament?

I have established that the testimony of the Old Testament strongly condemns same-sex relationships regardless of the situation or context. These acts are an abomination to God, do not emulate his holy and moral character, and contradict the sexual ethic he has prescribed to promote a good and just world. Is there any change in this negative tone against same-sex relationships in the New Testament? By observing Jesus and the apostles’ teaching on same-sex relationships, the tone does not change from negative to positive but seems to become harsher against all forms of sexual immorality, including same-sex relationships.^[21] We can discern this truth by hearing what Paul says in Romans 1:24–27 and examining the phrase “contrary to nature.”

First, Keen claims that when Paul condemns homosexual acts and deems them “unnatural” (para physin), he was influenced by the Stoicism of his day as well as the Greco-Roman culture, which had a strong male hierarchy. She concludes that Paul’s thinking must have been affected by the culture to say homosexual acts were unnatural. There is no evidence, however, that Paul’s thinking aligned with the Greco-Roman culture of his day. In fact, there are numerous examples in Paul’s letters where he wrote and commanded the church to do things contrary to what was normally accepted in his culture.^[22]

Second, by simply examining how Paul uses the Greek phrase para physin, we can see that Keen’s interpretation of the phrase para physin is unsustainable. Keen says this phrase is used to describe conventional opinions that were created in Paul’s world due to the strong patriarchy and male dominance in the Greco-Roman world.^[23] As a result, Paul condemns homosexual practice because it capsizes the hierarchy of male dominance over females since the male assumes a female role in homosexual acts.

Yet, contrary to Keen, Robert Gagnon has demonstrated that every time Paul uses this phrase in his other letters, it does not refer to personal preferences, prejudices, or culturally conditioned customs but instead describes what something is by divine design.^[24] Therefore, “nature” refers to the original creation order that God established in Genesis 1–2 and the natural sexual acts that God has blessed, which are those between a husband and wife in covenant marriage. Also, Paul uses the exact Greek words in Romans 1:27 found in Genesis 1:27, Leviticus 18:22, and 20:13 in the Septuagint. About this McLaughlin states, “The fact that Paul uses these same words in Romans underlines the connection with both Leviticus and Genesis —  and helps us to understand what he means when he says that same-sex sexual relationships are ‘contrary to nature.’”^[25]

In response, Keen denies that Paul was referring to Genesis but was instead referring to the Wisdom of Solomon, where there is language similar to Romans 1. Since Wisdom describes those who participate in homosexual acts as pagans and idolaters, Paul is not referring to Christians who participate in same-sex monogamous relationships but only to how the practice is a result of people who have turned away from God and worshipped idols.^[26] However, even if Paul is referring to Wisdom and not Genesis 1−2, Keen forgets that both Paul and the author of Wisdom were writing with a Judeo-Christian worldview of sex and marriage that makes clear from the Pentateuch that God condemns same-sex relationships because they are not compatible with the creation order that he has established from the beginning.^[27] In light of the context of the biblical narrative, the references to Genesis merit greater validity.^[28]

One last critique of Keen’s interpretation of Romans 1 is in order. According to Keen, Paul condemned homosexual practice because the only forms of homosexual acts he was aware of involved exploitation, prostitution, and pederasty. There are three reasons why this conclusion is invalid. First, if Paul were only referring to pederasty, why did he not use the Greek word paiderastia?^[29] Instead, Paul uses words that generally describe homosexual acts of men committing shameless acts with one another. Second, if Paul was only condemning homosexual acts that were exploitative, why would he condemn both parties who participated in the act? If the homosexual practice was only condemned based on exploitation, then we would expect only the one who penetrated and took advantage of the other should be held liable. Yet, 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemns both the penetrator and the one penetrated as guilty.^[30] Third, the claim that Paul was not aware of loving, monogamous, same-sex relationships in his day is unfounded by looking at the historical record. History tells us that the three centuries preceding Paul’s time are filled with examples of same-sex relationships that are filled with mutual love and compassion,^[31]  so it is a mere assumption to claim that Paul was not aware of same-sex relationships that were healthy, loving, and even life-long during his lifetime.^[32]  Louis Crompton, who is a gay man himself and one of the pioneers of queer studies, gets it right by saying, “Nowhere does Paul or any other Jewish writer of this period imply the least acceptance of same-sex relations under any circumstances. The idea that homosexuals might be redeemed by mutual devotion would have been wholly foreign to Paul or any other Jew or early Christian.”^[33] Thus, Keen’s argument that Paul condemned homosexual practice because the only forms of homosexual acts he was aware of involved exploitation, prostitution, and pederasty is untenable based upon the biblical and historical record.

Conclusion

Karen Keen seeks to implement a sound hermeneutical method to arrive at her conclusion that the Bible allows for same-sex relationships. However, her process is flawed because it relies on defective views of inspiration and her own interpretation of the Bible’s sexual ethic.

Regarding hermeneutics, experiences, and personal feelings are important. Still, the Bible makes clear that our hearts are wicked and deceitful and should not be trusted (Jer 17:9). When practicing a proper hermeneutical method, we must not conform Scripture to our experiences but instead allow our experiences and desires to be transformed by the living and abiding Word of God so that we can offer our bodies as living sacrifices to the Lord, which is our true spiritual worship.

[1] Keen is the founder of The Redwood Center for Spiritual Care and Education and holds a Th.M. in Biblical Studies from Duke Divinity School. She is a self-professed Christian and lesbian who loves God, loves his word, and loves helping others understand and live out the truths of Scripture. Keen’s hermeneutical method can be seen specifically in two of her recent books: The Word of a Humble God, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2022) referred to as TWHG, and Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships, (United Kingdom: Eerdmans, 2018), referred to as “Sexual Ethics.”

[2] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 50.

[3] Keen only defines righteousness and justice in terms of our relationships with other humans and loving them. Although practicing righteousness and justice involve how we treat and love others, the Bible grounds righteousness, justice, and love in the character of God. “The commands of Scripture are meant to be obeyed precisely because our obedience demonstrates our love for God and because our obedience is the best path to bring a just alignment of all things to God’s eternal plan. His standard of justice and love must be the standard by which we determine and evaluate what actions and behaviors we believe to be just and loving.” Mark Liederbach and Evan Lenow, Ethics as Worship: The Pursuit of Moral Discipleship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing Company, 2021), 296.

[4] Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 148.

[5] James M. Hamilton Jr, “How to Condone What the Bible Condemns: Matthew Vines Takes On The Old Testament,” in God and The Gay Christian: A Response To Matthew Vines, ed. R. Albert Mohler (Louisville, KY: SBTS Press, 2014), 28−29.

[6] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, God’s Kingdom through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 70–85.

[7] Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 43−48.

[8] Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 50.

[9] Although one of the purposes of sexual differentiation is procreation, it does have meaning apart from the procreative purpose. Human procreative ability is removed from God’s image and shifted to a special word of blessing. Marriage between a man and a woman was not created solely for procreation but also for the different ways God made their bodies to be fitted together in a one flesh union. M. Richard Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 49. Liederbach and Lenow link being made in God’s image and likeness with the command to subdue and rule over the earth; and being made male and female with the command to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. Therefore, this dispels the misunderstanding that a person must be married to live out the image of God. Ethics as Worship, 50−51.

[10] Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 588.

[11] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 19−20.

[12] William Loader, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, And the Church, ed. Preston Sprinkle (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 22−23.

[13] Also, if same-sex relationships do promote a good and just world and this is the main intent of the law, would it not make sense for God to give a clear command that same-sex relationships are permissible? Yet the only testimony we find in the Old and New Testaments is negative, not positive.

[14] Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2010), 156−157.

[15] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 56.

[16] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 56.

[17] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 20.

[18] Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 151.

[19] Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 152.

[20] Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 634.

[21] Rebecca McLaughlin, Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships? (United Kingdom: The Good Book Co.), 2024, 79.

[22] Paul spoke against the Greco-Roman household codes of slavery by considering slaves as human beings with equal rights and by calling masters to treat their servants with love and respect as their brothers (Philemon; 1 Cor 7:20−23; Eph 6:5−9). He also taught on the equality of husbands and wives in a culture that said men were greater than women in every way except sexuality (Eph 5:15−33; Col 3:18).

[23] R. Karen Keen, “Cultural Influences On Hermeneutical Frameworks in the Debate on Same-Sex Relationships,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 74.3 (2020), 256.

[24] Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 373; also see Gal 2:14−16; 4:7−9; Rom 2:14−15, 27; 11:21, 324.

[25] McLaughlin, Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships?, 48.

[26] Keen, Sexual Ethics, 37−38.

[27] Liederbach and Lenow note, “To put it another way, we read the Bible from left to right. God set the standard in Genesis 1−2 at the beginning of the Pentateuch. Thus, all Jewish readers would have understood that any other picture of sexuality or marriage differing from Genesis 1−2 would be wrong by default. God does not need to say that it is wrong every time it occurs because that idea was implicit. This [marriage between one man and one woman] union is exclusive and is the only biblically sanctioned context for sexual activity.” Liederbach and Lenow, Ethics as Worship, 579−580.

[28] For a thorough defense, see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 289−297.

[29] Tremper Longman III, Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2019), 240.

[30] Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 349; Leviticus 20:13 condemns both parties with the death penalty also.

[31] Plato’s Symposium-5 examples (416 BC), Pseudo-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart (300 CE) Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 370.

[32] The Warren Cup (5-15 AD) depicted same-sex acts between two consensual adult males.

[33] Louis Crompton, Homosexuality and Civilization (Germany: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003, 114.