by Mr. Nicholas Hopkins
Statements Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
Nick Hopkins has four objections to the Human Sexuality Report in this video:
First: The report oversimplifies the creation story. This emphasis on procreation causes problems for heterosexuals who want to marry and can’t have kids. The over simplification can be seen in other areas such as did creation take place during a literal six day time period? Were Adam and Eve historical. This over simplification casts doubts on the integrity of the report over all.
Second: Sodom – “The Human Sexuality Report on page 96 reports that almost all interpreters agree that the focus of the Sodom episode is not the sinfulness of gay sex, but the violation of hospitality or the display of human depravity.”
Third: the HSR says the Song of Solomon teaches that marriage is to be equitable, mutual and exclusive. Solomon had 1,000 wives and concubines. That was not exclusive.
Final: Romans 1. On this passage the HSR demonstrates most clearly its abuse of context. Romans 1 prohibits excessive desires. Natural orientation doesn’t violate Romans 1. The HSR abuses the context of Romans 1 when it ignores Romans 2 where Paul says his readers are guilty just as those covered in Romans 1.
.
Response
On the first point, has the report made an error with respect to Genesis? To say a report oversimplifies Genesis, is that reason to reject it? Wouldn’t it be far more productive to say it oversimplifies Genesis and in so doing it ignores ______, which supports same-sex marriage and therefore the report should be rejected? Is it necessary to totally resolve whether Adam and Eve were actually historical people and things like whether the six days of creation were six literal days before something can be asserted with respect to Genesis and before we can learn anything from that book?
On the second point, Nick correctly quotes the HSR from page 96 above. The HSR also states in further developing its coverage of this passage, “But although Genesis 19:1-29 is not first-and-foremost a statement against homosexual activity, it is legitimately read as illustrating the overall biblical association of homosexual conduct with human perversity.” The HSR also quotes Rev. Kevin DeYoung as saying, “Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of a great many sins; we don’t have to prove that homosexual practice was the only sin to show that it was one of them.” When Nick gives the first quote but not the others, is he presenting a balanced view of the HSR? Or, is he perhaps taking that quote from the HSR out of context?
On the third point, Nick is correct on this point, that Solomon’s many wives and concubines do not allow him to teach exclusivity in the Song of Songs. Perhaps it would have been better had the word exclusivity been removed from that sentence of the report, or another sentence added in which it could be stated that the New Testament then adds monogamy, exclusivity to marriage. One must ask, does this point demonstrate that the report as a whole should be rejected?
The fourth point, Nick states Romans 1 only prohibits excessive acts. On page 104 of the report it points out that when Rom. 1:27 says the men were consumed with passion for one another, it indicates that this was a mutual passion. It was not a matter of one person excessively forcing himself on another. This refutes the position that Romans 1 only prohibits excessive acts. The point is then made that the HSR seriously overlooks Rom. 2 as part of the greater context. However, it isn’t stated how that affects Paul’s reference to same-sex erotic acts in Rom. 1. This is a critical omission. Many commentators have noted that Paul “springs a trap” on his readers in the second chapter when he says they were just as guilty as those mentioned in Rom. 1. Does that, then, somehow teach that same-sex erotic acts are in fact acceptable to God? What impact does Rom. 2 have on the matter of same-sex marriage?
In brief overview the four points are:
- The report supposedly oversimplifies the creation narrative.
- Gen. 19 is not primarily about same-sex erotic acts.
- In the Song of Songs Solomon is not able to teach exclusivity.
- It is claimed the report errs in its handling of the context of Rom. 1.
Are these viable objections to the report? Are they of sufficient magnitude so as to merit the rejection of the report? Are they sufficient so as to cast doubt on other assertions made by the report? Whether Adam and Eve were historical figures, if Solomon in his culture of polygamy could teach exclusivity, the insight Rom. 2 brings to bear on Rom. 1, unless something has been missed here these seem to be rather secondary in significance. This video also does not deal with the context of Lev. 18 and I Cor. 6, which are and long have been considered important texts for this topic.