On October 13, 2016, Dr. Wolterstorff, a world-renown Christian philosopher, gave a talk at Neland Ave. Christian Reformed Church. In this talk Wolterstorff described how he came to believe that the church should accept same-sex marriages.
Dr. Matthew Tuininga published a paper in response to that talk. Wolterstorff in turn replied to Tuininga, and Wolterstorff also wrote a response to the Human Sexuality Report. Interestingly, Tuininga, who is well acquainted with Wolterstorff, was also a member of the committee appointed by the Christian Reformed synod in 2016 to produce the report on human sexuality.
The following material consists of highlights of their papers and some comments on what are considered important relevant points. Included are links to the papers themselves.
.
Dr. Wolterstorff’s Talk At Neland Ave. CRC October 13, 2016
Dr. Wolterstorff’s talk is available at the above link on YouTube. In his response to Dr. Tuininga he also briefly summarizes the points in his talk.
.
Sexuality and the Gospel: My Response to Nicholas Wolterstorff – Reformed Journal Dec. 4, 2016
Tuininga takes the position that we need to be careful not to fall into proof texting, we must take the whole of the biblical context into account. He emphasizes Gen. 1-2, Matt. 19, I Cor. 6 and Eph. 5 in this regard. He claims Wolterstorff didn’t deal fully with the context of the Bible with respect to these passages. Tuininga claims Wolterstorff doesn’t take into account the context which indicates that those who engage in homosexuality are also guilty of idolatry.
“He then argued that since we know that not all people who experience these passions are evil, Paul must not have been talking about the sort of people who are committed to monogamous homosexual relationships.”
“He has told me that he doesn’t doubt that Paul believed all homosexual relationships are sinful. However, he thinks that Paul didn’t anticipate the issues that arise when homosexually oriented people seek to come together, as Christians, for a healthy monogamous relationship. And so he thinks we are faced with something new, something which Paul hadn’t considered, and hence to which Paul didn’t intend to speak.”
.
Response to Matthew Tuininga on Sexuality and Scripture – Reformed Journal Dec. 4, 2016
Wolterstorff’s experience of talking to those who are same-sex oriented and his belief there is a broad spectrum which is not of one’s choosing have shaped his conclusion. In Tuininga’s paper he said Wolterstorff holds that same-sex attraction is a creational variant.
Wolterstorff believes that Lev. 18 is part of the holiness code. It is in the context of don’t eat pork, don’t wear clothes of mixed fabric etc.
“Absent some additional considerations, to universalize the proscription on homosexual conduct and not the other proscriptions would be to engage in cherry-picking.”
He writes extensively on one flesh. Wolterstorff: one flesh doesn’t define marriage, rather, it defines the nature of the church.
“Among these depraved people are those who, possessed by “degrading passions,” engage in homosexual activity. The question is whether we can infer from this that all homosexual conduct is depraved, even within a loving covenantal relationship, and thus similar to the other evil activities Paul mentions: envy, murder, slander, etc. I said I thought we could not draw that inference. Though that inference is compatible with what the passage says, it is not compelled by it.”
“Is Paul nonetheless implicitly condemning them? Is he not only condemning degraded homosexual conduct but homosexual conduct as such? So far as I can see, the passage is ambiguous on the matter.”
.
Wolterstorff – 2020 Response to HS Report to Synod 2020 – Dec., 2020
Wolterstorff maintains the report contains the following flaws:
- How to pastorally deal with those who disagree with the report. Obtuse or perverse.
- The report’s use of Scripture. “The Bible tells us so.” “For example, Paul, in the first chapter of Romans, clearly has in mind homosexual acts as part and parcel of the orgiastic, licentious lifestyle of idol-worshipping pagans.” Paul could only have condemned “as he knew it.”
- Psychology ignored by report – only biology counts.
- Creation mandate
- “In concluding this response to the report, let me note that when the report offers moral counsel to those who find that their gender identity does not match their biological sex, it employs the same reductionist, purely biological, perspective that it employs when it gives moral counsel to those of same-sex orientation.”
.
Additional Comments
Leviticus 18
Wolterstorff holds that, because Lev. 19:19 contains a prohibition of wearing a cloth that includes two different kinds of fabrics, he concludes that Lev. 18 is also restricted to the Old Testament. There are two issues with this. First, Lev. 18:6-18 prohibits incest; vs. 20 prohibits adultery; and vs 23 does not permit bestiality. In order for Wolterstorff to be consistent, then he would have to also say that incest and bestiality are no longer prohibited. The second matter is the fact that the two kinds of fabric and tattoos are not repeated in the New Testament. The prohibition of homosexuality is. The test for determining if a law is relevant in the New Testament is to see if that law is repeated in the New Testament. This guideline is very helpful for determining if something is true only in the Old Testament or if it is relevant in the New Testament, too.
.
Romans 1
Wolterstorff concludes that Romans 1 only prohibits orgiastic type activities. The Human Sexuality Report contains an insight into Romans 1 which shows the above to not be biblical. The following is a quote from the 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)
Specifically concerning Wolterstorff’s claim that Romans 1 only prohibits orgiastic activities – Paul doesn’t say these people engage in sex with multiple people. Paul says men engage in sex with men, and women with women. It doesn’t prohibit orgiastic or excessive acts, it prohibits homosexual acts and lesbian acts.
.
Obtuse or Perverse
Wolterstorff responds to the report’s claim that heterosexuality is the clear teaching of Scripture by saying that anyone who does not agree with that conclusion must either be obtuse or perverse. It is difficult when others disagree with us. Especially at this point in time where in this country people are often so diametrically opposed to one another. The grace of God is needed so very much to help us heal our differences. Based on the opening comments made by both Wolterstorff and Tuininga in these papers, it is highly doubtful that either of them would make the claim that the other is obtuse. And Tuininga was a key member of the committee that produced the HSR. We need to be diligent in looking to God to lead us in these matters and also diligent in communicating with each other so that we can overcome our differences as we deal with this topic. Tuininga and Wolterstorff are clear examples of the fact that one can believe a certain teaching is clear, and not consider those who do not agree to be obtuse or perverse.
.
Creational Variant
This concept needs to be developed. It is not defined anywhere. In order for one to hold to a certain position, that position must be explained, worked out, somewhere. What is needed is Biblical justification for such a “creational variant.”
.
Paul Could Only Have Prohibited Something As He Understood It
There is a major weakness to this position. What does this do to the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture? Is there any room left for believing in the Bible as God’s inspired Word if one holds that teachings in the Bible are limited to the human authors’ understanding?
.
Only Biology Counts
Is it accurate to say the HSR is written such that only biology counts? Doesn’t it also contain good insights into Romans 1, Leviticus 18, I Corinthians 6 etc.? Don’t scriptural insights qualify as a considerable value added above and beyond only biology?
.
Conclusion
When one considers the specifics of what is contained in the Human Sexuality Report, as the concerns expressed by Wolterstorff currently stand, it would not appear that there is a valid objection to the report here. If something has been missed in the above comments, you are kindly requested to inform us so that they may be corrected.
13 replies on “Dr. Nicholas Wolterstorff”
I agree with Wolterstorf on the idea of a creational variant. Every human being should be able to say “I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful. I know that full well.” I have a severely handicapped daughter. For years I considered that this was the result of something evil. It changed my life when I realized that she too was made by God fearfully and wonderfully. There is a broad spectrum of sexuality in a world which is continually evolving. Why do we try to hold to some artificial moral high ground on this issue when we ignore the bigger issues of justice and mercy. Niether the 10 commandments or any of Jesus teachings condemn homosexuality.
What I find very interesting, John, is that nowhere have I been able to find a definition of a “creational variant.” It sounds good, on the surface. Something that came into being before sin entered the world. However, as soon as one begins to look further into this there are inconsistencies and difficulties that come up. If it predates sin, then why does I Cor. 6:9-10 condemn it as sinful? No one to date has been able to provide a solid interpretation of that passage which allows for same-sex marriage.
Thanks for your comments here.
One issue seldom mentioned is homphobia. How does this fear influence our interpretation of Scripture?
It’s very disappointing that Dr. Wolterstorff has allowed himself to be influenced by the secular and post Christian world view prevailing in the US and other western countries. Forty five years ago I enjoyed taking philosophy courses taught by Dr. Wolterstorff. It seems these days that he has lost confidence in God’s Word.
The idea of a creational variant is wrong if it attributes to God variations which are part of a fallen creation. For example we have a son with a serious hearing loss. It has caused much suffering in his life. God has allowed this in our son who is in deed wonderfully made. His hearing loss however is not part of his wonderful creation. It is part of the fallen creation which eagerly awaits its full liberation from bondage. The hearing loss is from birth and it is not a sin to have the condition. Neither is it a part of God’s good and perfect pe-fall creation. The idea of creational variant seems to suggest such damage was God’s creative intention. This is a big problem.
We can expect to have excellent sight and hearing in the liberation of heaven as Scripture gives us a glimpse of its amazing sights and sounds. Are we going to be fully and actively heterosexual in heaven? I don’t think there is any scriptural evidence that this will be so. If anything sexual identity is of little importance in the new heaven and earth In this regard your comparison is not accurate or helpful.
How do we know God’s “last” Word is found in the Bible? What if God is still talking? How if we are not listening? I have confidence the Lord still speaks. Every person conceived starts out as God’s child. If he or she goes a direction we, as God’s people/creation, do not like, does that mean we are right and God is wrong? Once upon a time people used scripture to justify Black folks as appropriately slaves to White Christians. That changed. Are not today’s “slaves”, those of dif-ferent sexual orientation, also eligible for “change” ? As far as referring tp someone who is authoritative, e.g. Paul, since when is he more authoritative than Jesus and God? Maybe Paul is wrong, or short-sighted, or just not up-to-date on present day thinking. Or perhaps the Bible is not the only authoritative place to find out where and what God is thinking, not just in the millennia before Jesus, or the centuries thereafter, but also in the 21st century A.D./C.E. Often the implication is that homosexual persons have sex with those of the same gender. Is it not possible one can be “homosexual”, but also chaste? Have we not seen that with allegedly “straight” folks? Why are we so upset over an issue like this, when innocent people get capital punishment in our prisons? When some criminals get let out because there is no bail to keep them in jail? They go out and commit more crimes. When one bully nation is destroying a smaller David-like nation in Europe? When politicians get off from molesting women? Why? I ask only questions too keep the debate going. Christians need to see both sides. Judge not lest ye be judged. Love your neighbor. Believe God is the best authority, not Luther or Calvin or St. Augustine or St. Paul or scripture.
Believe and practice what you believe. In the end, God gets young matter what.
—Lew Kain/Reformed Church in America
Hello Herb—
It’s been quite a while since we’ve been in touch. I wanted to reflect on some words of yours found toward the end of your Wolterstorf rebuttal. Namely: “does holding this position allow any room for the inspiration of Scripture? ”
The phrase “any room” seems to point to all-or-nothing thinking on your part. Of course Dr. Wolterstorf does not totally deny the Spirit’s inspiration of Scripture. To insinuate that Wolterstorf does is a dis-service. You are inferring that his sincere attempt to bring a 21st-century scientific perspective to Romans 1 constitutes his wholesale rejection of divine inspiration. God created us with good minds, and the use of those minds can include alternative interpretations of a given text. The Word of God did not freeze itself into a block of ice twenty centuries ago.
The whole topic of whether and how the Spirit inspired the Biblical writers in ways that went beyond their personal degree of knowledge is indeed an interesting one, and there should surely be room for more such discussion. But such an exploration cannot be effectively furthered in an environment that is too quick to write off someone as being totally apostate. That’s not “dialogos”.
Hello, Rand. It is good to hear from you again. Pretty soon it will be time to break out the golf clubs again, right?
You are correct to say that Dr. Wolterstorff does not totally deny the inspiration of Scripture. Please allow me to clarify my comment. When I wrote “does holding this position allow any room for the inspiration of Scripture?” the intent was “does holding this position allow any room for the inspiration of Scripture with respect to this matter presently being discussed?” Shy of writing volumes on every post or webpage etc., it is not possible to cover every consideration all the time. Thanks for letting me speak to that.
You have written, “The whole topic of whether and how the Spirit inspired the Biblical writers in ways that went beyond their personal degree of knowledge is indeed an interesting one, and there should surely be room for more such discussion.” When you state whether and how the Spirit inspired the Biblical writers in ways that went beyond their personal knowledge, that wording allows at least for the possibility that the Spirit might have done so. In his summary report on the Human Sexuality Report Wolterstorff says, “In
condemning homosexual activity as sinful, Paul would have had in mind homosexual activity as he knew it and understood it. What else could he have had in mind? Nobody can leap outside the contours of their knowledge and understanding.” With this wording Wolterstorff only allows room for Paul as the author of Rom. 1. There is no room there for the Spirit to have inspired insights that are relevant for a 21st century understanding of things.
I believe pastors often spend their entire ministry, often decades, working to resolve disagreements between church members. In many ways it is not good when one church member strongly disagrees with another. You and I have considered this on a number of occasions, that the Bible in many places calls us to be careful to embrace what is true biblical teaching. And part of that includes striving to encourage other Christians to follow biblical teaching as well. It is not easy or enjoyable to do, but it must be done. And it must be done in a Christ-like manner.
If I have been too quick to “write him off,” do Wolterstorff’s comments allow room for the inspiration of the Spirit? If so, how can we see that?
Your concluding question, Herb, leads me to this sort of inquiry: What is the Holy Spirit’s inspiration with regard, for example, to the creation account found in Genesis One? That text asserts that the universe is not a random happenstance, but rather the product of a divine creating force (“elohim”). What Genesis One thus portrays is the common origin and ongoing interdependence of everything in the universe, including all life. The Bible’s initial chapter moves on to describe a unique spiritual endowment for us human beings, namely that we are created “in the image” of God (Genesis 1: 26). And it goes on to emphasize the stewardly responsibility that accrues to that endowment.
But safe to say, Genesis One is not a treatise on bio-chemistry, or modern cosmological physics, or depth psychology. It makes no mention of DNA and RNA, or of quantum mechanics, or of neurology. And surely that is not because the Spirit of God that inspired the great insights of the Bible’s Creation story did not know all about such things. Rather, such understandings could not fit at the time into the container of human knowledge or understanding. The “three-story” universe was what was in cosmological vogue at that time— the earth centered in the middle, with the “firmament” above it and the “waters” below. The Spirit back then did not speak in “string theory”! But neither do we assume that God would have, or should have. We simply accept the Spirit’s inspired and inspiring intention to assert that we are living in a divinely appointed structure of being, without clinging to the literal description of what that structuring is.
Indeed, this is not to diminish either God or humanity in any way. For it is perhaps the greatest manifestation of our human creation “imago dei” that we are equipped by our Creator with the ability to enlarge the container of our knowledge. Of course, we see that process of enlargement happening all through human history, and perhaps never more than in the past hundred-twenty-five years. For instance, Covid-19 arises as viruses and plagues always have, and always will. But NOW we have the ability to crack a virus’s genetic code and then to tailor medical interventions that will more or less thwart its functioning. Or to offer a different example, we are now able to launch great telescopes into space that can peer back ALMOST to the moment when the “tohuwabohu”— the unformed void— Big-Banged itself into suns and moons and planets some thirteen-point-eight billion years ago. And on one of the most crucial fronts of all, we humans keep devising never-before-seen approaches to the healing arts, including medicines and surgeries that were unheard of even a few decades ago.
So it is an integral part of the divine plan for humanity that we have been created with the brain power to develop, and at times exponentially so, our knowledge of the various orders of God’s creation. God has equipped us, in other words, with the ability to delve into what King Lear called “the mystery of things”. So who can doubt that God must indeed see it as part of our ongoing human stewardship to plunge evermore deeply into such depths as David marvelled at in Psalm 139: 14:
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
As we work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2: 12), we must take pains, to be sure, not to insinuate our purely personalized perspectives into the will and word of God. However, to argue that God revealed everything once and for all to people whose knowledge was contained within the tight confines of ancient times seems to me to short-circuit the divinely wrought endowment of the imago dei itself.
Please note that I am not arguing herein for any specific interpretation of any given scripture. Rather, I am saying that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit in ways that could fit within the degree of human knowledge at the time of writing— and that now, twenty centuries later, we humans simply know MORE. Hence, the possibility of a further interpretation of various Biblical writings based on such an increase in knowledge should not be seen as denying the original inspiration.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, Dr. Peabody. You refer to my question of whether (this is now with respect to Romans 1, only, not Dr. Wolterstorff’s beliefs across the board) Wolterstorff’s position allows room for the inspiration of the Spirit. You then ask the question of what the Holy Spirit’s inspiration is with respect to creation in Genesis 1. That is a fair question.
We need to exercise caution with each of these questions. It is too easy to simply jump to a conclusion. There is a lot that science has taught us about the physical universe around us. We can now observe things that centuries ago could not have been observed.
I do not believe it is the purpose of Scripture to provide a full understanding of creation. The primary message of the Bible is God’s grace. It points out that humans became separated from God and need to be restored to fellowship with Him.
So, when it comes to a matter that might or might not separate us from God, there I fully expect the Spirit to have inspired enough information so that we can know which way a given act goes. I expect the Bible to inform us if, as Wolterstorff claims, only orgiastic, violent sexual acts separate us from God, or if all same-sex acts are sinful in His sight.
At this point the Human Sexuality Report has put forward an exegetical claim that Romans 1 does in fact prohibit consensual acts between two men (see specifics above). Wolterstorff’s position is that Paul could only have prohibited what he understood. Doesn’t the teaching of the inspiration of Scripture teach us, though, that the Spirit could have inspired wording in Romans 1 that actually might have gone beyond what Paul understood? That is how I have always understood the inspiration of the Word.
Unfortunately, many who advocate same-sex marriage do not discuss these matters much at all. I think that many who oppose same-sex marriage see passages such as this one as the heart of the matter, the place where the answers we need are to be found.
Thank you.
A significant danger of our present time is that all-or-nothing thinking, especially when exacerbated by a range of polarizing cultural adamancies, seems to be undermining a spiritually embracing sense of what it is to be people of faith gathered together in denominations like the RCA and the CRC.
Writ large, issues arise when anyone with ecclesiastical authority claims:
That they have understood inspired Scripture in unequivocal, once-and-for-all terms; and also, that any interpretation that is in any way counter to theirs, no matter how well founded, MUST, in the style of the zero-sum game, be ABSOLUTELY wrong. (And hence never to be fellowshipped with again.)
To engage in such black-and-white constructing typically serves the ends of those who seek to wall in power by walling out everything else. Unfortunately, that is the operating structure of any and every theologically based cult, built on the oft-unspoken claim: “We are the only island of salvation in a sea of death.” Thankfully, however, God’s grace is not trapped within such confining boundaries. And neither, therefore, should be the grace that we proclaim, for ourselves and for others, in the spirit of Jesus Christ.
In that light, I feel secure in saying: a willingness to allow others the ecclesiastical dignity of their own studied exegetical conclusions— for example, that Romans 1 is terribly thin fabric from which to weave a shroud of eternal guilt— should have stayed the hand of those who perpetrated the recent schism represented by the self-labeled “Alliance of Reformed Churches”.
Reference is made here to opposing interpretations of Scripture that some reject, “no matter how well founded.” On what basis are these new interpretations well founded? Which interpretation in favor of same-sex marriages can withstand scrutiny? Arguments in favor of same-sex marriage include the position that the Bible is not a book of commands. Yet Christ is quoted in Matt. 19:17 as saying “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” Some say same-sex attraction is a creation variant. Yet, there is no definition of creation variant that is offered. Some say the parables require us to accept same-sex marriage. Brownson claims Rom. 1 only prohibits violent acts of homosexuality. Yet the Human Sexuality Report provides exegesis indicating both the active and the passive person involved in homosexuality are guilty. One thing that has not been found yet is anyone favoring same-sex marriage responding to that interpretation. It is basically ignored.
It seems the implication here is that a group such as the Alliance of Reformed Churches is a “theologically based cult.” Merriam-Webster defines a cult as, “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.” Very good friends of ours were members of a local RCA congregation. That congregation voted unanimously to join the Alliance of Reformed Churches. Their statement is that they have not left the RCA; the RCA has left them. If a group does not accept present-day changes but desires to hold to theology that has been considered orthodox for 400, 500 years, if that group is a cult, then isn’t it a necessary conclusion that the 400 year history of the RCA in this country was also a “cult”? The entire history of the Christian church regarded homosexuality as unorthodox. Doesn’t that then indicate that those now accepting same-sex marriage, aren’t they unorthodox, aren’t they the cult?
The statement “to allow others the theological dignity of their own studied exegetical conclusions” sounds very much like if someone makes an effort to theologically justify same-sex marriage, that is good enough. That effort doesn’t have to withstand examination. Isn’t this very close to “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” (Judges 17:6). If a pastor or a professor next makes a studied effort to defend adultery, are we then to accept that, too? If we should accept same-sex marriage, but not adultery, what is the difference between the two? Wouldn’t King David, in retrospect denounce adultery?
“Romans 1 is terribly thin fabric from which to weave a shroud of eternal guilt” – as commented above, the Human Sexuality Report provides exegesis indicating everyone who engages in homosexuality is guilty. Yet, those advocating acceptance of same-sex marriage do not respond to that. Where is their studied exegetical conclusions in this regard? It is not only Rom.1 but also I Cor. 6:9-10 and Leviticus 18:22 and others. It is not a matter of one isolated text. There are multiple passages in Scripture that teach the same message. I Cor. 6 even explicitly states that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. That is quite clear.
As it involves not only the definition of marriage, but also is a salvation issue, the stakes are very high with respect to this topic.