by Rev. Keith Mannes
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
Statement
This video includes an interesting visual as Rev. Mannes describes his belief that the current church does not work. His position is that the church needs to completely include those who are same-sex attracted in order to be fully functional.
With the Bible as our only standard for faith and practice, he refers to question and answer 60 in the Heidelberg Catechism. This is his key point which he uses to ground his position in the Word of God through the eyes of the Catechism. That Q&A reads:
Q. How are you right with God?
A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.
Even though my conscience accuses me
__of having grievously sinned against all God’s commandments
__and of never having kept any of them,
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil
nevertheless,
__without my deserving it at all,
__out of sheer grace,
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,
__as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner,
__as if I had been as perfectly obedient
____as Christ was obedient for me.
All I need to do
is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart.
.
Response
The Reformed faith has held for hundreds of years that we do not deserve salvation, but attain it only by sheer grace. This is not the issue currently at stake. Rev. Mannes’ reference to the Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 60 undergirds this position. However, salvation by grace alone is not the issue currently at stake. He claims the old church (the current one) doesn’t work but that we need to build a new one, that includes full acceptance of anyone in any kind of a same-sex relationship. To support that position, he would need to show that living in a same-sex relationship is not a matter of sin. Q&A 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism does not address this.
The need right now is to hear the pros and cons for same-sex marriage. Is it biblical and acceptable to God under any circumstances? The only thing we can learn from this video is how he would vote if he were a delegate to synod. This video does not add anything that sheds light on the pros and cons of the issue.
If you disagree with this assessment, please provide your reasons for that in the blog below so that we can all benefit from it.
2 replies on “The Church of Nevertheless”
I do believe you misrepresent Rev. Mannes’ position. While he is not using much technical language in this video (he’s more preaching than debating), it sounds to me like he is saying same-sex sexual relationships ARE sinful and that NEVERTHELESS, these people should be included in the church. I believe there is weight to this position. It takes sin quite seriously, because Rev. Mannes’ position (and Q&A 60’s) would hint at the fact that all of us are habitual sinners, with some/many of us continually falling at exactly the same point repeatedly and chronically (a different thread of the Christian tradition would say that each of us have our own besetting sin that we wrestle with habitually). In this respect, those engaging in same-sex sexual relationships are no different than the average population of the church (those that are greedy, for instance, to pull another of the sins that this one finds itself in company with in the 1 Corinthian list). Salvation by grace alone is at stake in this conversation (is someone in a committed same-sex sexual relationship an inheritor of the Kingdom of God or are they not?). Must someone behave before they are permitted to believe? Or believing, may they enter the company of sinner-saints before the end of their sinning has come? (Q&A 42). If the former, we’re all doomed and there is no salvation by grace alone. If the latter, then our faith remains intact. Following this thread of reasoning moves us into the direction and language of “accommodation” which would say: “yes, they are sinning: nevertheless, because they believe, they are a part of the church of Christ anyway, whether we figure out a place for them in our particular denomination or not.” I think there’s a fair case to be made for it, and I think this is essentially what Rev. Mannes is saying.
Another note: I do not think a narrow dichotomy of a pro and con list is a process that will get us out of this morass. This issue is more than a simple up/down, for/against vote. No church as of yet has yet solved this issue Christianly, i.e. without loosing ground in some other, significant area of life and practice, such as in fracturing apart that which Christ has joined together (his Church–a profound mystery). This is a complex problem that admits of more options than 2. Creative thinking and problem solving will be needed, and angles such as Rev. Mannes’ may need to be entertained to draw the needed breadth into the conversation. Narrowing the focus to the exclusion of other concerns has not served us or any other church denomination well to this point. Even should we get the issue “right” in the abstract of the legal code, if we are left with 1-2 more denominations, thousands more hardened hearts, and generational grudges and bitterness on the other side (as has been the case for most denominations who’ve tried to “solve” this issue up to this point), it seems that we have still been outwitted (2 Corinthians 2:11). Let us not make the same mistakes of the CRC/URC debacle. It is not a zero-sum game. Pro/Con lists and yes/no votes are not the means that will get us Christianly to a Christian end in this conversation.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, Anthony. You clearly have been thinking about this topic a good amount.
I agree with you that this is a very complex topic. Complex topics are very difficult to bring to two options to choose from. Unity, for one, must be given considerable attention. However, I also think it is important to try to say as much as possible that is in fact true.
Yes, many of us do repeatedly fall into sin. I know of a conservative church that has made a point of encouraging two in a same-sex relationship to attend their church. I would agree with that. I believe that church would not allow them to become members, due to their relationship. I would also agree with that.
If same-sex relationships are in fact sin, can a minister marry two people of the same sex? Mannes says that he now would. Isn’t that participating in sin?
As far as people in a same-sex relationship being no different than anyone else in the pew is concerned, it seems there is a difference between same-sex relationships and some other matters such as greed. If a person is very openly engaging in greed, shouldn’t the elders address that person? Can an openly greedy person be a member of a church in good standing? It is also the case that many of us are guilty of sins that are not so openly obvious. A person can appear to be very upright, but yet conduct business in a very greedy manner. Those are difficult situations to deal with. A same-sex relationship is very open quite often. Don’t we need to address sin that is open and obvious?
As far as that damage to unity etc., we need to work hard to do things the way they should be done. We need to be patient in dealing with people, God is extremely patient in dealing with us. Life is often less than ideal. If we do everything possible to handle a matter while keeping unity in proper focus and ultimately unity is damaged, if it is damaged in spite of what we have done rather than as caused by us, is that our fault? Or should we avoid taking any action because unity will suffer? If that is the case, would we ever do anything? Any action we take can be responded to by others in such a way as produces bad results. Aren’t we responsible for our actions and only our actions?