This is an excellent documentary if you are looking for an objective socio-cultural study of the American culture war in contemporary society. Hence, probably the high ratings. But look somewhere else if you are interested in a complete study of the Bible's interpretation of homosexuality.
In light of the latter, these types of television documentaries are probably the second least-trustworthy source of information, right after online journalism. They rely on only a handful of scholars, and since they're looking for a scholar who's able to devote a lot of time to them they're usually getting people on the edges of the scholarly community who are invested in pushing some agenda. And because the documentary is run by film-makers rather than actual scholars the editing room tends to turn the scholars' message into something other than what it actually is.
My judgment is based on the movie as a whole, as well as other polemical websites. It views just like anything you can find on a Google search of "what the bible really means" (especially if that's followed with something about conspiracies and church suppression.) But with respect to this particular film, only one real scholar was used at all. All other references were extremely random or biased, meaning that the film makers strung together sources in order to make it look like there was a convergence that supported its own thesis that the text doesn't really mean anything.
There were definitely some very accurate things that these people said. But the things that they didn't say, coupled with the context in which they said the things that they did say, render the show useless to viewers looking for an objective study of grammatical-historical exegesis and/or biblical theology in the covenantal/redemptive-historical context.
As the documentary said, scripture has been misinterpreted (by certain people,) true enough but (a) they didn't say what the Bible actually says about it ("the things that they didn't say," from above) and (b) they said this in a context in which "not clear" means either "nature" or "nurture" ("context," from above) because operating in social terms is much more clearer to deal with and helpful in this kind of issue rather than using biological-gayness, or in nature/nurture terms which IMO is based on a false dichotomy in this case, as a primary parameter for this kind of discussion. Michel Foucault, himself a homosexual (and so far as I know the premier theorist of the development of homosexuality), traced our idea of "the homosexual" to an 1870 article (see his bombshell The History of Sexuality, Vol I). He argues that homosexuality is not something inherent but instead a socially constructed kind of status or even celebrity. I think some of the queer theorists engaging Foucault have said about this same thing -- about it being a social construction. They unaminously agree very much that (1) gay-gene and gay-lib stuff is really outdated and (2) Queer theory has grown up within the space Foucault structured.
The "science" is inconclusive. E.g., if it were all and only some genetic sequence that "made" one gay then twins would overwhelmingly have the same "sexual orientation," but they don't. Of course, the "science" also has strong suspicions that there are meaningful biological factors. So this means that it's inconclusive whether it's "nature" or "nurture." (Notice that I did not say that this means it is "nurture.") Speculation on "nature vs. nurture" is unhelpful, then.
But it's also irrelevant. Of course biology plays a significant role in how any person acts. Similarly, of course we can't expect relationships to be asexual. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start approving of rape, even though so many (myself included) are biologically inclined toward it. So not only is the "science" category unhelpful, it's irrelevant.
The film is also saying, "Looking at the social evidence, it says that being gay is all nurture/nature." Instead of using the term 'gay' as a social designator, what it is saying engages issues of whether "being gay is in your genes," or "you are taught/forced to be gay," and I think those answers are very muddled if not incoherent. That alone proves the documentary's material is dubious, poorly researched, and unreliable. The author's clearly manipulating data to contrive arguments and evidence. So there's no actual exegetical knowledge to be obtained from this film's approach.
A point of clarification: Greek went through plenty of changes and Classical Greek is different from (earlier than) the Greek used in the NT or Septuagint. E.g., Liddell-Scott-Jones and Liddell-Scott are the Classical counterparts to Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich and Kittel. However, some of the scholars' fields span Homer through the Hellenistic period, which would include (but not be focused on) NT Greek ("Koine," sometimes called Hellenistic Greek).
Also, I mentioned Hebrew because the crucial Leviticus passage is written in Hebrew and therefore their place as reverends are fairly irrelevant to it.
As.to.lexicography: Again, they're.nowhere near.any major.lexical scholar. Based.on both.their fringe-ish publications.and other.work, it looks.like they're.more like.individuals with.an agenda than.a representation of.scholarly consensus. Again, I'd.point at.the Kittel and B-A-G lexicons as.the universally recognized starting points. (Run a.web search.on "Greek".and try.to find.a lexicon or.NT word-study that is.even.once viewed.as superior.to either of.the two. You.won't, I promise.) As.to NT/Septuagint studies: Lexicography goes hand-in-hand with.other textual studies.for exegesis. For.this.reason, professional exegetes are.trained.in lexicography but.do.not specialize.in lexicography. It.takes.more than.a mastery of.lexicon and.grammar to understand language. Context is.key, and professional exegetes learn how to.understand the relationship between one particular word in one particular text.with.the phrase.or sentence.it appears.in, the.section of the text that phrase or sentence appears in, the broader influences and surroundings of.the.text, and.so.on. So, for.instance, NT.exegetes have.to bear.in mind.that Paul.and John.use the.same words differently because they.are different authors. They.also have.to recognize.the foundational place of.the Old.Testament in.the NT's linguistic usage, which.makes.for serious differences with.Greek.usage among those.with Greek or.Roman or.Egyptian backgrounds. So.lexicography has.a place.in this.kind.of exegesis, but.it's.not.the.only.factor. You've.got.to connect.it.with.other disciplines
In light of the latter, these types of television documentaries are probably the second least-trustworthy source of information, right after online journalism. They rely on only a handful of scholars, and since they're looking for a scholar who's able to devote a lot of time to them they're usually getting people on the edges of the scholarly community who are invested in pushing some agenda. And because the documentary is run by film-makers rather than actual scholars the editing room tends to turn the scholars' message into something other than what it actually is.
My judgment is based on the movie as a whole, as well as other polemical websites. It views just like anything you can find on a Google search of "what the bible really means" (especially if that's followed with something about conspiracies and church suppression.) But with respect to this particular film, only one real scholar was used at all. All other references were extremely random or biased, meaning that the film makers strung together sources in order to make it look like there was a convergence that supported its own thesis that the text doesn't really mean anything.
There were definitely some very accurate things that these people said. But the things that they didn't say, coupled with the context in which they said the things that they did say, render the show useless to viewers looking for an objective study of grammatical-historical exegesis and/or biblical theology in the covenantal/redemptive-historical context.
As the documentary said, scripture has been misinterpreted (by certain people,) true enough but (a) they didn't say what the Bible actually says about it ("the things that they didn't say," from above) and (b) they said this in a context in which "not clear" means either "nature" or "nurture" ("context," from above) because operating in social terms is much more clearer to deal with and helpful in this kind of issue rather than using biological-gayness, or in nature/nurture terms which IMO is based on a false dichotomy in this case, as a primary parameter for this kind of discussion. Michel Foucault, himself a homosexual (and so far as I know the premier theorist of the development of homosexuality), traced our idea of "the homosexual" to an 1870 article (see his bombshell The History of Sexuality, Vol I). He argues that homosexuality is not something inherent but instead a socially constructed kind of status or even celebrity. I think some of the queer theorists engaging Foucault have said about this same thing -- about it being a social construction. They unaminously agree very much that (1) gay-gene and gay-lib stuff is really outdated and (2) Queer theory has grown up within the space Foucault structured.
The "science" is inconclusive. E.g., if it were all and only some genetic sequence that "made" one gay then twins would overwhelmingly have the same "sexual orientation," but they don't. Of course, the "science" also has strong suspicions that there are meaningful biological factors. So this means that it's inconclusive whether it's "nature" or "nurture." (Notice that I did not say that this means it is "nurture.") Speculation on "nature vs. nurture" is unhelpful, then.
But it's also irrelevant. Of course biology plays a significant role in how any person acts. Similarly, of course we can't expect relationships to be asexual. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start approving of rape, even though so many (myself included) are biologically inclined toward it. So not only is the "science" category unhelpful, it's irrelevant.
The film is also saying, "Looking at the social evidence, it says that being gay is all nurture/nature." Instead of using the term 'gay' as a social designator, what it is saying engages issues of whether "being gay is in your genes," or "you are taught/forced to be gay," and I think those answers are very muddled if not incoherent. That alone proves the documentary's material is dubious, poorly researched, and unreliable. The author's clearly manipulating data to contrive arguments and evidence. So there's no actual exegetical knowledge to be obtained from this film's approach.
A point of clarification: Greek went through plenty of changes and Classical Greek is different from (earlier than) the Greek used in the NT or Septuagint. E.g., Liddell-Scott-Jones and Liddell-Scott are the Classical counterparts to Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich and Kittel. However, some of the scholars' fields span Homer through the Hellenistic period, which would include (but not be focused on) NT Greek ("Koine," sometimes called Hellenistic Greek).
Also, I mentioned Hebrew because the crucial Leviticus passage is written in Hebrew and therefore their place as reverends are fairly irrelevant to it.
As.to.lexicography: Again, they're.nowhere near.any major.lexical scholar. Based.on both.their fringe-ish publications.and other.work, it looks.like they're.more like.individuals with.an agenda than.a representation of.scholarly consensus. Again, I'd.point at.the Kittel and B-A-G lexicons as.the universally recognized starting points. (Run a.web search.on "Greek".and try.to find.a lexicon or.NT word-study that is.even.once viewed.as superior.to either of.the two. You.won't, I promise.) As.to NT/Septuagint studies: Lexicography goes hand-in-hand with.other textual studies.for exegesis. For.this.reason, professional exegetes are.trained.in lexicography but.do.not specialize.in lexicography. It.takes.more than.a mastery of.lexicon and.grammar to understand language. Context is.key, and professional exegetes learn how to.understand the relationship between one particular word in one particular text.with.the phrase.or sentence.it appears.in, the.section of the text that phrase or sentence appears in, the broader influences and surroundings of.the.text, and.so.on. So, for.instance, NT.exegetes have.to bear.in mind.that Paul.and John.use the.same words differently because they.are different authors. They.also have.to recognize.the foundational place of.the Old.Testament in.the NT's linguistic usage, which.makes.for serious differences with.Greek.usage among those.with Greek or.Roman or.Egyptian backgrounds. So.lexicography has.a place.in this.kind.of exegesis, but.it's.not.the.only.factor. You've.got.to connect.it.with.other disciplines