Level 4
STATEMENT FOR THE BIBLE IS NOT OUR ONLY STANDARD
STATEMENT
“The Classis of New Brunswick believes that the Bible alone is insufficient for providing the rules for a modern sexual ethic.”
Page 17 of the document Affirmed & Celebrated.
.
Response
The document goes on to discuss some of the passages that have figured prominently in the discussions of this topic. With respect to Romans 1 we read, “Paul’s prohibition does not speak about the nurturing, loving, and consenting same-sex relationships to which God has called many men and women.” (Ibid. 37-38.)
As is covered on another page, this passage does speak about loving, consenting same-sex relationships: “Verse 27 says they burned or were consumed with “passion for one another.” This is reflexive – they mutually enjoyed it. That message is also contained in verse 24 where it says that they dishonored their bodies “among themselves.” This is the same thing (ref. Gagnon, page 234). Dr. Gagnon also points to verse 27, the en heautois, and he states that this could very well be intended in the reflexive sense. So it is very possible that in three places in this passage there are references to the men being in love with each other, mutually enjoying the acts.”
The matter of same-sex relationships have been discussed extensively over the last 50 years. Interpretations like the above are not hard to find, they are found in a number of books and documents. Therefore, there are two options in front of Classis New Brunswick and those who adhere to their position: 1) produce a solid interpretation which shows the claim that Romans 1 prohibits loving, consensual relationships is in error, or 2) embrace the position that Romans 1 prohibits all same-sex relationships. Until the first option is accomplished, in order to hold to Classis New Brunswick’s position one would have to hold not only that the Bible is insufficient for forming a sound modern sexual ethic, but also that the Bible contradicts the modern sexual ethic.
This New Brunswick statement also addresses I Corinthians 6 and I Timothy 1 (page 38). It states, “There is great debate about the meaning of the Greek words used here (malakoi and arsenokoitai).” With little more comment, the statement dismisses these two passages. In every theological debate words and interpretations are debated. That is par for the course. It is not sufficient, however, to be the basis of simply dismissing a passage. It is the responsibility of pastors and professors to take the various pros and cons into consideration and determine what the teaching of the Bible is. The stakes here are too high to just say this is not clear. It does not work to say the interpretations are not clear so we are going to advocate same-sex marriage. In order for the church to support same-sex marriage there need to be good biblical reasons for doing so. This also leads to the conclusion that the New Brunswick statement is not very robust.
In its section entitled “Our timeless definition of marriage” (page 17) this New Brunswick statement says, “However, as people of faith, we celebrate holy relationships that are defined by qualities that do not change over time.” The statement needs to show why heterosexuality is a quality that should change over time. It does not accomplish that.
Concerning the crux of the above statement that the Bible is insufficient, this paper does not give reasons it should be considered insufficient. Simply stating something to be true is not sufficient to establish it as valid. It needs to be proven. Therefore, given the questionable interpretations pointed out above, along with the absence of reasons to consider the Bible insufficient, this statement needs to be rejected.