Same-Sex marriage: do we follow the Bible, or strive to console, or . . .
The Reformed faith has long held that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. We certainly listen to science, but the Bible is the final authority.
How do the spokespeople for All One Body deal with the Bible? Romans 1 has since the beginning of Christianity been a key passage on the topic of homosexuality. The Human Sexuality Report (HSR) contains what appears to be important comments, ones that should be considered. Yet, not one author of these videos in the Biblical-Theological Concerns section comments on that. In connection with that comment the HSR presents four reasons Romans 1 does not prohibit only excessive, or violent acts. This claim of the Bible only prohibiting violent acts is often heard from those who favor same-sex marriages. All One Body authors do not deal with those four reasons countering that claim. Nor do these authors comment on I Cor. 6:9-10, I Tim. 1:10, Lev. 18:22 or Lev. 20:13.
In contrast to the above, the LGBTQ+ Concerns section deals quite extensively with the pain and suffering LGBTQ+ people experience. The Pastoral Concerns section also emphasizes the need to listen carefully to these people. Dr. Timmermans claims the church should include these people in communion, discipling and other activities.
So as a group, these videos contain very little content on how best to interpret the relevant biblical passages and they contain a good deal promoting the view that the church needs to strive to console LGBTQ+ people.
Would it be accurate to say then that the All One Body videos in a pragmatic sense do not side with the Bible as our only rule for faith and practice, but rather align with the position that the church must strive to console LGBTQ+ people?
In the Scientific Concerns section, one of the four authors misquotes the HSR. Two others subscribe to the concept of creational variant. Two books are said to support this concept. Neither book, however, mentions this concept of creational variant. Can these videos be good, solid scientific support for same-sex marriage?
The Confessional Concerns grouping contains arguments that have been covered with many pastors. As the arguments currently stand, they have been countered.
What is the best approach, taking the Bible as our only standard for faith and practice, or striving to console LGBTQ+ people in their experiences? Wouldn’t the best approach be to do both? In order to do both best, wouldn’t we have to first deal with the question of whether or not same-sex erotic acts are sinful? If such acts are not sinful, same-sex marriages can be completely accepted in the church. If they are sinful, these marriages cannot be accepted, and the best way to assist LGBTQ+ people would be to respond accordingly.
The above review is our assessment of these videos after each has been examined. Visitors are encouraged to view the videos and see if any error here can be detected. Please submit insights into such errors. Good insights will be added to these web pages so that others can gain from them as well.
Thank you.
8 replies on “CONCLUSION: THE ALL ONE BODY VIDEOS”
— CORRECTED [PARAGRAPH RETURNS LOST FIRST SUBMISSION] —
Hey Herb, just a couple comments:
Romans 1 seems very important to you. But you ignore (or leave out) the Hellenistic cultural-contextual conceptualization of first-century conceptions of masculinity and sexuality, and import 19th-20th scientific/medicalized conception “homosexuality” into your reading. Second, you appear to avoid the context of chapter 1 as a critique of idolatry. If same-sex behaviors where conceived by Paul in the first century as being a consequence of idolatry, is this a universal etiology? Can’t same-sex behaviors have other motivations (Humiliation of opponents in war; inhospitality toward strangers (Lot); deprivation of female companionship in carceral settings; etc.)? In other words, is Paul making an exhaustive claim (all same-sex acts are a consequence of God’s “giving over”; or can there be other etiologies for same-sex behavior? If the former, can we always identify the connect, and must idolatry be actual (carved images created and worshipped), or can we read Paul metaphorically and argue backwards, from effect to (implied metaphorical) cause: if we see some same-sex activity there must be some idolatry somewhere?
Additionally, isn’t it important to take the rhetorical genre into account, and the structure of Paul’s argument? Paul’s use of diatribe in Romans 1 serves as the opening move by which he addresses one of his chief concerns: Jew/Gentile antagonism in Rome. Paul appears to borrow a Jewish critique of a not uncommon Greek practice (pederasty) in this passage. The critique of homosexuality (modern term) is not the point of the passage; rather, Paul concludes the chapter with a “vice list” that includes great crimes (murder), but a lot of low-level sinfulness that it would be hard for any Jew or Greek to claim to be free of: gossip, arrogance, boastfulness, disobeying parents, etc. — The argument is everybody sins (chapter 3); Jews aren’t that special. 2:1 — “You therefore are without excuse, whenever you judge another.” If Paul is (as the rhetorical flow suggests) borrowing a stock cultural critique of Gentile idolatry to flip it on its head, and turn it into an argument that undermines the very premise of judgmentalism, then isn’t it a distortion of Paul’s teaching itself to latch onto a supporting premise borrowed from opponents’ playbook to apply it to what we take to be a closely analogous cultural manifestation in our own time (LGBTQ+ relationships)?
If so, can the CRC really claim that all LGBTQ+ relationships today are the result of the worship of idols, even when they grow out of love, commitment and mutual fidelity, sustained by a shared faith in Christ? We often read our hermeneutical assumptions into the text (eisegesis — for all have sinned). It is dangerous to the gospel to over rely on prooftexts about “homosexuality.”
Thank you for your comments, Steve. It is good to look at these things from a number of different angles in order to be sure we are not missing something.
The Human Sexuality Report turns to the specific words Paul used in Romans 1 when it says, “. . . Paul’s reference in Romans 1:27 to men who have sex with other men who ‘were consumed with passion for one another.’ 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’).” (Page 104.) If this is biblically accurate, then consensual acts as well as violent or excessive acts are prohibited. In other words, all acts are prohibited. On that same page the report provides three other reasons Paul is not only prohibiting violent acts like pederasty.
If all acts are prohibited, called out here as sin, does it matter what the origin of a particular act is? It is declared to be sinful, regardless of the origin, right?
Above is mentioned, “the Hellenistic cultural-contextual conceptualization of first-century conceptions of masculinity and sexuality . . .” That is quite a general concept. Are there specific reasons that background can shed light on the understanding of Rom. 1? Does that background somehow indicate that some same-sex acts in the 21st century are acceptable to God? If so, how is that?
The same question is relevant for the matter of idolatry. Does Paul’s reference to it here somehow help us to understand God’s will concerning homosexuality better? If it does, what are those specifics?
Back in the 60″ when I was in seminary, we acknowledged that everything we knew about the universe came from two sources which our confessions came from the universe (general revelation) and special revelation, (the Bible). Our knowledge of the universe was extremely limited. The sun around the world; no Asia, North and South America, not a perfect world and an edenic beginning but an explosive, horrendous inferno. We have photos of that beginning some 15 billion years ago,. It took billions of years before energy released began to be formed into matter, beings animated by the energy of the universe, There is absolutely no support, not in the scriptures created by “God” as humans without sin It is theology that has brought this to us, Remember, that when the Heidelberg Catechism says that we believe is from the Scriptures . it is actually the theology formulated in Thae Apostle’s Creed and ohers. Until the Apostles Creed Arianism was the faith of the church and it was Docetic. We believe that the Bible is the source of our beliefs, and we rejected the theology of the Roman Catholic Church that the pope , and hence the church, speaks from the chair of Peter. Jesus himself challenged the idea that the laws of the OT were from God when he said it has been said, but I say unto you. The OT is extremely harsh an The Ten Commandment have a male superiority underlay addressed to males. There is no biblical view of marriage; only different practices; Solomon with his thousands of concubines. The Bible makes God responsible for extensive cruelty. He said to a group of people, “Why do you call me God; you too are gods! Eve comes to life both by the breath breathed into her (the breath of life) and in a different story is made from the rib of Adam thus making he making her subservient to the man. God terminated the pregnancy of Bathsheba because Solomon sinned in murdering her husband. And in light of what I believe regarding scripture it is most likely that the prohibition in Leviticus against the man not lying with a man is underneath a man only a woman can lie because she is subservient to man by nature . The underneath man has taken the place of a woman. and in so doing commits the sin of a man demeaning both himself and the man on top.
Herb, your quote of do we “follow the Bible, or….” is very misleading as if the position you hold is by definition biblical. Such a position, of course, results in an unbiblical nature of any other position. That is not a positive way to begin or conclude a meaningful dialogue. At best, all I can say that my position on any subject is one which makes most sense from a biblical perspective. When I read the Human Sexuality Report and many of the discussions around this subject on your web site, I am always remind of Paul’s comment, “Now I see through a glass darkly [only] then I will see face to face.” The Synodical Report takes the position that we are not only required to see more clearly than we can and we must submit for the report has already concluded that this Synodical Report has the weight of being “confessional in nature.” And I have mentioned the arrogance of such a position earlier.
Please, when you discuss subject matter, don’t say at the outset, “Do we follow the Bible, or….”
Thanks for your comments, John. Believe it or not, about half an hour was spent on trying to work out the best wording for the subject of that email. You have a good point here to consider. Perhaps it would have been better to have phrased it, “Do we strive to follow the Bible or do we strive to console, or . . .” Unfortunately, there is only so much space in the subject line of emails, too. It seems necessary to begin the subject with “Same-Sex Marriage” otherwise many would not know what the topic is at all.
It is good to consider the matter of seeing through a glass darkly and the report requiring us to see more clearly than we can. Has the Bible left us in a place where we see all topics through a glass darkly and are limited in how clearly we can see? Can we know with confidence that Christ is the only way to God the Father (John 14:6)? If we can know some things clearly, how can we tell what we can know clearly and what matters our knowledge is limited on? Doesn’t that discernment come from the Word? Are there biblical reasons to question whether same-sex erotic acts are pleasing to God or not? Listening to all two dozen All One Body videos, I haven’t found any biblical reason to doubt that the Word of God is clear. Have I missed one or some? If so, please point them out. Thanks.
I have not watched the All One Body videos. Given Herb’s observations, it would be consistent with a rising point of view that “the Bible was written in a particular context no longer relevant today” that these videos do not engage with Scripture. I’m guessing such a point of view would be quickly denounced by people on the All One Body board, but let us look at what the “Our Values” page says.
It begins with a quote from Rachel Held Evans about the real scandal/offense of the Gospel being not “who it keeps out, but who it lets in.” That, I suppose, is meant to make you think, but I think it does little more than declare “RHE is with us.” Whether it steers you to think about those actively pursuing a same-sex relationship really comes down to whether you already condoned this in the context of Christian faith. For the rest of us, are we going to think differently than we would about anyone who is daily lying/obscuring the Truth? Sure, God is judge, and should we find ourselves in Eternity with those who lied so often as to become Liars, we can rejoice with them in God’s great mercy visited on them as it is with ourselves. That does not affect my reaction to lies and those who tell them while here in our present bodies.
The next line is equally vacuous: “Regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation, all Christians belong, heart and mind, body and soul, to our faithful savior, Jesus Christ, who dearly treasures and extravagantly loves each one of us.” The sentence conveys content only when truncating the first 7 words, though I presume the words “dearly treasures and extravagantly loves” are meant to convey that this is no ordinary love they are talking about. (Shouldn’t that be obvious, as it is God’s love we are discussing?) The first 7 words only muddy the statement. Gender identity is not a Biblical concept, not a scientific one, either, so far as I am aware. I know, there has been a steady single-direction movement over the last 50 years in psychology from considering homosexuality a mental disorder to our current status where school psychologists actively encourage the gender-disphoric to explore. But psychologists engage in stories and self-fulfillment, and if it appears that some are helped through this sort of encouragement, you will naturally want to leave open that door. (Even if you do not wish that, you may have to choose between your core beliefs and recognition/certification in an otherwise-closed community.) In an acknowledged “therapeutic” culture, no other “destination” was even thinkable. Such a “march of history” saga in psychology is nothing like scientific confirmation of its validity, no more than introducing the term “birthing person” in place of “mother” is confirmed by science.
Skipping a few sentences (which can be agreed-to by all parties, even if the words are impregnated with different meaning depending on which side of the argument you stand on), there is the wording “Hearts that are welcoming, open and kind make the love of God luminous in the world.” I see these sorts of statements all the time, and know they come from people who think they know exactly what love looks like, and why you aren’t doing it right. But God’s love is a complete enigma, is it not? There are episodes in the OT (which, I take for granted, is relevant) that led the Monty Python troup to write, in its holy hand grenade scene, “O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.” C.S. Lewis said of Aslan/Jesus that he is good, but not safe, perhaps prompting Catholic author Ulrich L. Lehner to author a book called “God Is Not Nice.” Tolerance, being nice to everyone: these are values from a secular culture that we are to remain “in”, but not be “of”. The Reformed Creeds do not mince words that there is a group, the Reprobate, which will see destruction. I think those who constantly lie, and have thus become Liars, are as likely to be in the Reprobate as anyone.
The next clause warns against pronouncements of judgment. This happens to be a place where the All One Body embrace passages of Scripture. One wonders, however, whether “judging” isn’t being used on their webpage in a non-Biblical, secular-culture-motivated sort of way. Surely, I have “judged” in a socially unacceptable manner if I advertise a pastoral position and then refuse to hire a seminary-trained atheist. I doubt very much that All One Body sees this scenario as violating Scripture; that they think otherwise when the seminarian is actively gay simply means they have, using as-yet-not-revealed logic, decided this person is not a Liar. No doubt, should I refuse to associate with someone because of his behavior, we come into territory deserving a look at Bible passages, though I Cor. 5:9 may well win out in the end.
The next statement of values says “love, commitment, and sexual expression are naturally linked.” I’m not sure what this really says. I’m quite sure it doesn’t mean we are supposed to have sex with everyone we are committed to loving. I do wonder what message All One Body would want to convey to me if I were unsure of my sexual identity, and wanted to follow in the long historical tradition of single/celebate Christians committed to the Body of Christ. Arthur Goldberg, a Jew who, though not known to speak an ill word of same-sex-attracted people, organized a non-profit to help fellow Jewish men who sought to find support and relief from same-sex attraction, was targeted by “activists” who used the courts to shut it down. Does this statement by All One Body show some degree of solidarity with Goldberg’s antagonists?
Finally, there are these words: “By the message of Scripture, we must test even our most cherished traditions and practices, working together for the ongoing renewal of God’s people so that the redeeming power of God’s Word can address every human situation.” The word “Reformed”, I hope, still does not mean the same thing as “Revolutionary”. It was revolution that brought about the Fall, and we mustn’t forget it. I have no particularly faith that any one single person has unfailingly grasped the Truth, separating it from all imitations. But Jesus spoke of marriage in Matt. 19 as being between a man and a woman. This is the Son of God, and a great moment to set things straight if marriage is something broader. Don’t think that way? OK, then there is 2000 years of church history, with the Holy Spirit at the helm. What a cynical view to think the view of marriage espoused during that time is merely a “cherished tradition”! Were I to accept that it took the “wisdom” of the therapeutic 21st Century to help us finally understand Scripture, I would simply give up that Christianity was anything more than a human invention and give it up. That, indeed, is where a number of hanging-on “Christians” are, at this moment in history, some saying the Bible doesn’t even make sense without the insights of sociology and/or modern science. That is a far cry from II Tim. 3:14-17, and it is possibly this frontier line, more than any other, which separates Christians on issues such as this.
Herb, it took me a while to think through your comments and now have some time to respond. When you talk of what we can and cannot know from Scripture, I am always reminded of my geometry class way back in high school. The very first day in class, the teacher put a dot on the board and stated that all of Geometry is based on this assumption, that lines are composed of a series of dots and geometry studies the relationship between groups of dots and the lines those dots form. That was assumption number one–all of geometry is based on that assumption, or as I know it now an “a priori.” When it comes to our faith, the assumption we make or our “a priori” if you will, is that God has revealed himself as the Trinity, the ontological Trinity, to be more exact, as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. That is assumed. That is the basis of our faith for reason alone will never get us to that point. Your comment whether we can know that passages such as John 14:6 are true, I can with conviction say yes. Why? Because for me that is an “a priori” and just explains one of the revealed relationships between the Father and the Son. It seems to me that once we have the ontological Trinity as our “a priori” we then get in the position of seeing through the glass darkly. The contents of our nuances on the Trinity will not all be the same for us. Being a confessional church, we agree in principle that the three confessions, imperfect though they are, do guide us in broad strokes as we try to more fully understand Scripture. We will have different understandings within those broad guidelines. That is what makes our discussions interesting.
That is also why I have real trouble with the Human Sexuality Report. You know my feelings on this supposed confessional nature of the contents of the Report. To me that is purely political and not biblically based at all. Far more problematic, though, is the lack of a theological description of same sex marriage by theologically trained same-sex married couples. This does not mean that we automatically agree with their understanding, but at least we will know. The disservice is that those in non-heterosexual relationship come across as stick figures, not as real, breathing, loving, and caring human beings. That is why the theological contents of the report is filled of poison darts. The authors of the Report are not successful in fleshing same-sex married folks out, if you will. Thus, it is easy to condemn any who disagree with the findings of the report. My suggestion is that the Report not be accepted as written until all bases are covered and every human being about which the Report writes comes across as fully human. Will that be done. I don’t hold out any hope for that. The Report will be passed convincingly as written and we will end up with first class and second class Christians within our congregations. Sad, really.
Speaking as someone who came to the Reformed/Calvinist tradition from another Christian background, I’d say the Three Forms of Unity were always intended to draw a fence around like-minded folks and treat outsiders (Anabaptists, Arminians) as stick figures of a kind. Is it wrong that the Canons of Dordt do not include an Arminian’s piece of writing? Surely you aren’t claiming that same-sex-marriage advocators haven’t had a chance to voice their opinions prior to this Report, nor that a decision on the Report will be reached without further opportunity to voice those opinions?
I do hope this claim that the Report is all political and not at all Biblical is raised in a town square-type environment. I have a feeling that, in the repartee that ensues, it may become obvious that divides exist between 1) how strongly people believe all Scripture is scriptural, and 2) how strongly people believe the Holy Spirit, instead of men, has been guiding the Church through the ages. Related to that, perhaps, is how strongly people feel that current cultural trends reflect the will of the Spirit, not that of the Enemy. Inevitably, I think, such differences in the extreme simply do not allow people to worship together. When people do find a way, it seems to require a mindset that such questions aren’t all that important.
That same-sex marriage and the CRC has become the “story of the day” is, to me, a great harm to the church. This is most certainly a “21st Century in the West” issue, which raises all kinds of questions we can’t go into here. There should be one and only one story that rings loudly at church: the message of the Gospel, of freedom and forgiveness, true healing. Do we believe ourselves to be the healers? Can we even trust ourselves or others to accurately identify where the healing must begin?