Level 4
Statement for Unity As Being Primary
Thoughts on Same-Gender Marriage in Today’s Church
By
The Rev. Dr. A. Rand Peabody
Specialized Minister, retired
Classis Rockland-Westchester, Regional Synod of New York
Reformed Church in America
One particular New Testament passage that appears most relevant to a discussion about the interfacing of issues involving Christian unity and morality concerns The Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15. In the interest of making the Christian message accessible to the Gentiles, this apostolic Council, convened circa AD 50, a mere twenty years after Jesus’ resurrection, determined that Old-Covenant circumcision would not be required for new believers in Christ. The aim was essentially to free Gentile Christians from the dictates of the Jewish Law– with the exception of four very specific areas, each of which touched in one way or another on the twin goals of keeping Jewish Christians contentedly on board, and also on preventing Gentile believers from falling into spiritual and physical defilement via their involvement in pagan religious practices such as ritual banquets, temple prostitution and related sexual excesses. (This sharp limiting of the power of the Law was very likely prompted by Paul’s fervid emphasis, expressed throughout Galatians, about Christians henceforth living in the freedom and fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit, rather than under the harsh “schoolmaster[y]” of the Law. Since the Council of Jerusalem was virtually contemporaneous with the writing of Galatians, Gentile assimilation into what had been purely a Jewish church was clearly the most pressing concern of the day.)
In that light, it is hardly surprising that each of the four (and ONLY four!) stipulations of the Jewish Law that were left intact by the Council focused directly on practices prevalent within those cultures into which Paul, in particular, would be instrumental in expanding the church. And how so? Those four stipulations were: not eating food that had been sacrificed to idols; not eating that which had been strangled; not eating blood; and not indulging in sexual immorality (the Greek word for which is porneias). The most obvious reference regarding these four select prohibitions is to pagan festivities, an everyday occurrence (and hence an everyday temptation) in places like Greece, Rome, and Asia Minor, the very cradles of the infant faith. Such events would often begin with the ritual sacrificing of animals, typically involving strangling instead of butchering, so as to not drain the blood. And why such strangling? Because the sacrifice itself would typically be followed by the eating of the bloody meat and the actual drinking of the animal’s blood, bringing the devotee into a sense of communion with the god or goddess to whom the sacrifice was dedicated. And then, following such a ritual meal, the activities would routinely culminate with some manner of sexually immoral behavior. Some such sexual activities involved temple prostitutes (the arsenokoitai malakoi type of relations, with the malakoi, or male prostitutes, acting like the “dogs” of Deuteronomy 23:17 and Revelation 22:15). In other situations, porneias took the form of outright dual-gender, anything-goes, orgies, such as those so roundly decried by Paul in Romans 1:26-27. For a detailed exegetical discussion of Romans 1:22-27, and particularly the sorts of sexual immorality that Paul there proscribes, please refer to my paper, “Further Reflections on Unity and Division in the RCA”, posted on the Dialogos-Studies site (click here).
Of course, any historical context aside, the question looms as an urgent one for us: how we are to interpret these injunctions today? A spiritual understanding of the Council’s four hold-overs from the Jewish Law might, for example, point us to refraining from anything that would create within us an idolatrous sort of religious/spiritual pollution (Mammon, anyone?). The idea of refraining from drinking blood or eating poorly butchered meat could open us up to an avoidance of food or drink that pollutes us physically (alcohol, anyone? or caffeine? or greasy burgers?) Which also leaves us, of course, with the question about the ways in which the fourth injunction regarding sexual immorality should be applied, beyond the sphere of pagan-temple practices that are no longer prevalent. Here we must grapple with our familiar Greek term, “porneia(s)”. And we must do so in the spirit of examining those things that have root in our own lives that may fall under the definition of a word that the King James Version translates simply as “fornication”. Writ large, porneias is any form of sexual expression that pollutes the mind, the heart, the body, or the soul.
In the Old Testament, interestingly, absolutely no mention of female same-gender sexual relations exists anywhere. Sexual expressions that WERE condemned for being polluting and/or nonproductive covered activities as diverse as coitus interruptus, the sin of Onan in Genesis 38; engaging in coital sex while menstruating (Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18); perpetrating various forms of incest (Leviticus 20); female prostitution (Leviticus 19:29); fornication (Deuteronomy 22:21 and numerous places in Ezekiel); committing adultery (the Seventh Commandment, Exodus 20: 14); going to or, even worse, BEING a temple prostitute (Deuteronomy 23:18); indulging in beastiality (Leviticus 18:23); and participating in MALE same-sex activities in pederastic ways (based on an exegesis of the Hebrew, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 almost definitely describe man-to-young-male pederasty, and not adult man-to-man sexual relations.)
On the topic of pederasty, I would refer interested readers to an online web-site that exegetes the Hebrew wording of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in a way that substantiates the interpretation that the texts are actually condemning man-to-boy abuse : see “Redefining Leviticus 20:13”, by June Kozak Kane. And if Leviticus is actually focusing on pederasty, then it is interesting to note that Leviticus 18:21-23 would be prohibiting in one fell swoop the Israelites’ participation in the child sacrificing cult of Molech, and the practice of man-to-boy pederasty, and bestiality. Both children and beasts were sacrificed alive to the devouring god, Molech, in a hollow iron idol heated red-hot, and the two sexual practices forbidden in Leviticus 18:22-23 could well be speaking directly about the two sorts of “abominable” practices that preceded such rites.
This, then, is the Scriptural milieu out of which the Council of Jerusalem would have defined “sexual immorality”, the Greek Septuagint word in Acts 15:29 being, again, “porneias”. And what with the fourth injunction of the Council being so clearly stated, suffice it to say that there is no exegetical way that acts of actual “porneia(s)” can be blithely dismissed as not being banned for Christians.
SO– the entire discussion of sexual morality and immorality (though not necessarily church unity) comes down to this: what IS, and what is NOT, “porneia(s)” in the Old Testament, and how is it then interpreted and applied by Paul and other apostolic writers in the earliest Christian milieu? Indeed, to our point of immediate concern, did Paul write anything that labels same-gender marriage “porneia”?
The answer is “NO”.
Succinctly put, the entire Bible is SILENT in that regard. For such an aspect of the institution of marriage simply did not exist in Biblical Israel, or in the Mediterranean world of Paul’s day.
Which leads me to an intensely pastoral question: are we acting AS IF we have incontrovertible Biblical and/or Holy-Spirit(ual) grounds for classifying all would-be same-gender marriage partners as falling inherently into the category of “porneia(s)”? In other words, is the desire of persons of the same gender to live with one another under the covenant of marriage vows despised by God?—meaning the “I DO’s” of loving, honoring, comforting, and caring for one another, in sickness and in health, and keeping to that person only, so long as they both shall live?
Furthermore, when the church solemnizes a marriage, it is not stipulating any particular form of sexual expression. Indeed, it is not requiring sexual expression to be a part of the marriage at all. There ARE marriages, after all, in which, for one reason or another, the partners choose not to, or may not be able to, participate in sexual relations. The proper role of the church is not to police the marital bedroom.
So then, since we actually do say that having a same-gender sexual orientation is not wrong, per se, in the eyes either of God or of the church, then why is that not sufficient when two persons of the same gender come to us with love in their hearts for one another, desiring simply to solemnize their relationship in the sight of God and humanity?
Of course, if a Classis determines in its diligent exegesis of the Biblical Word and its prayerful submission to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that a faith-based solemnization of the marriage intentions of a same-gender couple is indeed tantamount to sanctioning Biblically condemnable acts of porneia(s), so be it. That Classis should not be expected to act against such a conscience. But if a Classis discerns that same-gender individuals can indeed live together in monogamous wedlock because there are no Biblical or Holy-Spirit(ual) prohibitions that have anything directly to do with what THEY are doing, then so be that, as well. At the very worst, the resulting solemnization of the marital covenant would allow for the respectful inclusion of those who would constitute their lives in a way that is monogamously chaste, Christ-centered in faith and works, and evangelical in spirit. In my own opinion, based on my rigorous exegesis of the Biblical Word and my sense of the abiding love and grace of the Holy Spirit, we should indeed be encouraging all Christ-confessing persons, regardless of sexual orientation, to commit themselves, if they truly do love one another, to monogamous life-long marriages. And believe me, I would not say this if I personally believed that the Bible incontrovertibly classified this sort of union as “porneia(s)“!
Regardless, on both sides of the current consideration, let us whole-heatedly affirm that we are not —in this instance— playing a zero-sum game. We need to avoid acting as if one position can ONLY exist at the expense of the other. As a long-time Interim Minister, I have seen repeatedly that that kind of thinking is destructive to the unity of any organized body of religion. Rather, In all matters except those that are expressly prohibited by carefully exegeted Scripture, may our aim be “. . . love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith. “ (I Timothy 1: 5, NRSV)
Response
These last several emails began as an examination of the question of whether Christ’s impassioned plea for unity in John 17 requires Christians today who disagree over same-sex marriage to nevertheless remain united. Even when we disagree, do we need to agree to disagree? Dr. Peabody here takes a look at the Jerusalem Council as recorded in Acts 15. The question at hand in Acts 15 was whether or not Gentile believers should be required to be circumcised. John Calvin considered circumcision to be part of the ceremonial law. A very helpful guide for understanding the significance of a given matter distinguishes between confessional, moral, wisdom and adiaphora. A brief description of these four categories can be found here. If it is correct that circumcision was an aspect of ceremonial law, it is probably accurate to consider that Calvin would also have considered circumcision to be a matter of adiaphora. When it comes to such matters of indifference Christian unity should certainly rule the day.
Throughout the Bible the do’s and don’ts of sexuality are consistently labeled as matters of morality. If, on the one hand, as the church has believed for thousands of years that same-sex erotic acts are immoral, then we cannot simply agree to disagree. However, on the other hand, if the church has been wrong to consider all same-sex erotic acts as immoral, if loving, monogamous, committed unions are not wrong in God’s sight, then it would be immoral for the church to deny that for those who would qualify. The stakes here are very high. This matter is of great significance for many people. The church cannot settle for agreeing to disagree; it simply must get this one right.
This brings us to a key quote from Dr. Peabody’s material above:
“Which leads me to an intensely pastoral question: are we acting AS IF we have incontrovertible Biblical and/or Holy-Spirit(ual) grounds for classifying all would-be same-gender marriage partners as falling inherently into the category of ‘porneia(s)’?”
It is the belief of many Christians that we do in fact have incontrovertible Biblical grounds for considering all same gender marriage partners as immoral. And it is a deeply held commitment to that belief that is causing the response of many Christians to this matter to be so strong. Do the Scriptures forbid same-sex marriage? Inasmuch as they prohibit same-sex erotic acts they do.
The Dialogos website has an open invitation to anyone to present a biblical argument for same-sex marriage. All arguments submitted will be added to the website and each one will be critiqued in the light of Scripture. The pro and con arguments concerning same-sex marriage are being presented here. The above referenced material on Leviticus only prohibiting pederasty will be added to those pages in the coming days.
Conclusion
The Statement refers to Acts 15 as an example of how differences should be handled in the church. The Response claims the topic of concern in Acts 15 falls in the category of adiaphora, matters of indifference, while same-sex marriage is a moral matter, and is therefore non-negotiable in nature. The status of the discussion at this point is that until something happens such as same-sex marriage is shown to be a negotiable matter, until then the status stands at the point where unity is not the umbrella principle which is required of Christians, regardless of what each one thinks about same-sex marriage.
Be sure to contribute your thoughts to this exchange and the development of this material by visiting the following blog and commenting. Thank you!
The Blog On Acts 15 And Unity
Index Level 4
Introductory Page: Does Unity Require Us To Agree To Disagree?