by Dr. Art Jongsma
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
Dr. Jongsma gives the main focus of his video in the opening statement, “Does a traditional interpretation of Romans 1 stand up to Reformed Hermeneutics and God’s character?”
“These passages must be brought into line with the redemptive nature of God’s Word.” In keeping with this main emphasis Jongsma states at 6:10-6:40 of the video that our God is a god of love and justice. Jongsma bases his understanding of Romans 1 quite significantly on this.
The second main point from Jongsma’s video is as follows (starting at 2:19):
Other notable Reformed theologians have concluded that the folks in Paul’s culture to whom he was referring were choosing to practice homosexual acts for exploitative hedonistic pleasure. Often with young boys or for idolatrous ritualistic purposes. These scholars have concluded that this Romans passage applies to sordid unnatural homosexual acts that were performed by godless, evil people of power. And often in temples dedicated to idolatrous sexual passion and in shrine prostitution. These were the obscene days of Tiberius, Caligula and Nero after all.
The third main point Jongsma presents (starting at 7:20) is, “Furthermore, most traditionalists and all inclusionists would agree that same-sex attracted people do not choose their orientation any more than opposite attracted people do. But are created and they are shaped into their orientation by God’s choosing. Even the 1973 report on homosexuality agreed to this.” This is quite a claim to say that the 1973 report agreed same-sex attraction was created by God.
.
Response
There is an issue with Jongsma’s first main point on love and justice, however. Dr. James Brownson is quite likely the most significant voice for same-sex marriage in the RCA and CRC. The following is Brownson’s statement on the argument of God is love and justice:
If there are no principles, values, or norms beyond the very broad criteria of justice and love, with which we may construct a sexual ethic, we may find it difficult indeed to build a sexual ethic that protects us from our own tendencies to self-deception. In the minds of many, the absence of more specific and focused norms regarding sexuality posited by some revisionist readings of the Bible renders Christian ethics vulnerable to such forms of manipulation and self-deception.
Brownson emphatically rejects love and justice as an argument for same-sex marriage. If Brownson rejects this argument, what credence are we to attribute to it? For Jongsma to take this position he would need to present a good, solid case showing how Brownson is incorrect.
.Concerning Jongsma’s second point that Romans 1 only prohibits exploitative acts, that Romans 1 prohibits all same-sex erotic acts is confirmed by Paul’s reference in Romans 1:27 to men who have sex with other men who “were consumed with passion for one another.” The following statement is from the Human Sexuality Report:
.
The phrase “for one another” indicates that the apostle is referring to consensual sex and that he finds fault with both persons involved in the same-sex act (note also the use of the plurals in the rest of the verse: “receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error”). This makes it impossible to believe, as revisionists claim, that Paul is referring narrowly in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 to the abusive aspect of pederasty in which an older man sexually exploits a younger man. As William Loader observes: “The reference to lesbian relations which does not fit pederasty, and Paul’s depiction in [Rom.] 1:27 of mutual desire (eis allêlous ‘for one another’) suggest that what he [Paul] has in mind is not primarily exploitative pederasty and certainly not limited to it.” (HSR page 104)
Jongsma simply states other scholars claim Romans 1 only prohibits exploitative acts. Why doesn’t he deal with this aspect of exegesis found in the HSR concerning Romans 1? In doing this, Jongsma is simply stating an opinion, he is not dealing with the actual biblical content God has provided us.
Jongsma’s third point needs to be examined. The 1973 report was searched and the closest thing dealing with Jongsma’s claim that this report declares God creates people with same-sex attraction is the following:
“It is important to understand that homosexuality is not the result of any conscious choice or decision on the part of the person to be homosexual, just as the heterosexual person does not become heterosexual because at a certain age he determines to be so. Whether a person becomes homosexual because of some innate condition or because of his early environment and his response to this environment, or because of a combination of these, the fact is he is not responsible insofar for his resulting homosexuality.” (page 613, of the 1973 report)
The problem here is that the 1973 report in fact, does not say that God created the orientation toward same-sex attraction. The most that can be said of this is that the report states those who are same-sex attracted are not necessarily that way because of a conscious choice. That is not the same as saying God created the person that way. In order for Jongsma to have a case of any credibility he will have to demonstrate that God did in fact create these people that way. Simply stating it to be true does not establish it as fact. Does Jongsma succeed in establishing his position that the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 does not stand up to reformed hermeneutics and God’s character? No less than Brownson rejects the argument that God’s character, namely love and justice, require the acceptance of same-sex marriage. Concerning Jongsma’s claim that the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 does not stand up to reformed hermeneutics, Jongsma doesn’t address the exegetical work of the HSR in its claim that the passage cannot be restricted to exploitative acts only. Jongsma’s third point is a claim that appears to have no basis in the 1973 report. With these things in mind, can it be claimed that Jongsma establishes his position?
.