Level 4
Statement for Unity As Being Primary
REFLECTIONS ON ISSUES OF UNITY AND DIVISION IN THE RCA
by
The Rev. Dr. A. Rand Peabody
Specialized Minister, retired
Classis Rockland-Westchester, Regional Synod of New York
Reformed Church in America
In the current debate riling the Reformed Church in America as to whether same-sex marriage is to be treated in our churches as being either lovingly moral or grossly immoral, there is an over-arching point to consider:
Perfectly plausible interpretations of the three New Testament passages that in any way touch on the topic of same-sex relations differ significantly among conscientious Christians. So, should any SINGLE interpretation be considered adequate grounds for us to over-ride the mainstream desire of Christ and the apostles for Christian unity? I am speaking right now to both the “liberal” and the “conservative” sides in the current march toward RCA schism.
Pastor Stephen Struikmans says, “. . . the Lord of the church is concerned not only for unity, but a unity that demonstrates both His truths and His grace. Yes, we are a church that calls itself Reformed and continues to reform . . . but according to the Word of God, not because of the pressures of a secular society. It bothers me to think that we think we can manipulate the clear teaching of God’s Word to justify an immoral lifestyle!”
Indeed, to avoid diluting our witness into something indistinguishable from secularism, we must surely beware, lest the polarities of our current American “culture wars” be allowed to dominate or to undermine that witness on either side of the same-sex marriage question. Rather, as people of Reformed faith, we must strive ever and always to be BOTH sincerely exegetical with regard to the Word of God, AND to be borne along through faith by the ever-blowing wind of the Spirit of God (John 3:8)! It is on that basis that I offer these reflections.
The Rev. Wendell Karsen writes, “The primary principle in Scripture is TRUTH. Unity is also a high value, but it must be unity around the TRUTH. People can, of course, unite around falsehood or error, but that kind of unity is condemned in Scripture.”
I could not agree more!
With similar concern, Pastor Struikmans refers to the “clear teaching of God’s Word” regarding what he characterizes as an “immoral lifestyle”. But, I would ask, is New Testament teaching unequivocally “clear” with regard to the morality of the institution of loving and monogamous same-sex marriage?
Let me look with you at the three New Testament passages that can possibly be understood to portray ALL same-sex activity as blatant vice. Certainly, many of us do read them that way. But, as I illustrate below, that is not their ONLY conceivable interpretation. And what if those texts do indeed yield to a Scripturally conscientious, exegetical interpretation that does NOT conclude that they are directly prohibitive of loving, monogamous, same-sex marriages? Would our denominational tent then not be large enough to contain such diverse interpretations? And if not, why not? To my mind, that is a far-reaching spiritual question that must be addressed by anyone who, from ANY theological standpoint, would counsel schism.
*
One key passage to consider is Romans 1:22-27 (NRSV): 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Paul in verses 22-23 is very probably referring to the processions and accompanying sexual activities related to the cult of the goddess Isis. The article on “Isis” in the on-line Ancient History Encyclopedia says:
Unlike the other gods of Egypt, Isis transcended national borders and was worshiped by the Greeks and the Romans who believed in her as the supreme deity who created the world. Her cult in Rome was the greatest rival to the young religion of Christianity.
After describing in detail the various animal-headed idols representing deities that would have been paraded through the streets of Rome in the Isis processions, Robert K. Gnuse says of the Roman public’s awareness:
I must ask myself what Paul’s Roman audience would have heard in their imagination as this letter was read publicly to them. As Romans, the animal references would have made them think of the Isis cult, and the following language by Paul would continue to be connected to the Isis cult in their minds. I will not ask what Paul thought of homosexuality; I will ask what his audience heard when he wrote what he did, and I am sure that Paul intended for them to think of the Isis cult. (Biblical Theology Bulletin Volume 45, #2, Page 82, 2015)
So a reading of the entire passage would seem to show that Romans 1:26-27 is just a part of Paul’s apostolic diatribe against the prevalent cultic practices of the Imperial City of his day, and especially the ecstatic sexual immorality engaged in by the followers of the cultus of Isis/Osiris with its animal-headed idols marched in garish procession through the city’s streets as a prelude to “God knows what”. In that light, it is entirely plausible that the “immorality” described and decried in this passage had to do, in Paul’s mind, with such orgiastic idolatry, and not with any sort of specific sexual behavior in isolation from such practices.
*
Two other passages typically cited by those who see all same-sex activity as immoral are I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10. Addressed in particular to a Grecian and Asia-Minor context (Timothy served in Ephesus, whose patron goddess was Artemis or Diana), they each abjure rapacious (and in that sense Sodom-like) sexuality. Some such practices, documented even in Plato, featured men who regularly forced themselves on immature or adolescent boys. In other situations, such as the dominance characterized by master-slave exploitation, or most especially in polytheistic temple rituals such as those of the Cybele/Ishtar cult, eunuch priests (perhaps self-castrated!) served as (Greek: malakoi, meaning the “soft” ones, or the “passive ones”, sometimes translated as “male prostitutes”). Such malakoi were to assume the posture of a dog, and in that way to receive penetration from the (Greek: arsenokoitai, or “sodomites”). OF COURSE Paul detested such cultic practices in which sexual license was coupled with pagan idolatry, and vice versa! But do either of these passages have anything directly to do with condemning a loving marriage between committed same-sex partners of either gender who want to live under the vows of wedlock, and who see Christ as central to their lives and their life together? Perhaps. But those who would say, ‘Yes, they certainly do!’, are in danger of judging and treating as sinners those who may be innocent in God’s eyes. And those who would be judgmental of other understandings should be aware of the teaching of Jesus at Luke 6:37-38.
To be sure, though, there can be a Spirit-rankling judgmental attitude on the part of those on the “liberal” side of the spectrum, too, those who decry their Christian brothers and sisters because they do indeed see these particular passages as commanding a blanket condemnation of same-sex relations.
So why not leave it like this: for the many who do interpret these New Testament passages as condemning all same-sex activity, OF COURSE they would not allow such marriages to be solemnized in their churches! Nor should anyone think negatively of them for that reason. On the other hand, since there does not appear to be enough certainty for anyone to judge those Christians as being spiritually errant who do NOT discern in these several passages a universal condemnation of same-sex marriage, neither should such brothers and sisters be dismissed because they are willing to conduct wedding services for same-sex persons who meet all pastoral criteria for marriage.
All through Christian history people have had differing interpretations of the same Scriptures, conscientiously derived, and whole-heartedly adhered to. In Luther’s circumstances, it did result, justifiably, in the Protestant Reformation, sola fides, sola gratia. But breaking up the RCA as it approaches its 400th Anniversary over interpretative differences about passages like these?
Some may say, “Ah, but Paul says at I Corinthians 5:6 (KJV), Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” But this is an image that those might seize upon, from EITHER side of the issue of same-sex marriage, who are in favor of parting ways. Yet how much MORE critical is it in God’s purview— namely, the desire for unity revealed by Christ in the High Priestly Prayer recorded at John 17:21—indeed, how much MORE does it matter to God when our leaven is the leaven of schism? In such a case, we had best be right!
I am praying in these days that God’s grace-filled Spirit will inspire enough people in the RCA to affirm that final decisions about pursuing irreparable division must be taken in “semper-reformanda” style by relying on unequivocal Scriptural authority, and the guidance of God’s Spirit. And especially so in the present case, when the impetus for such a schism is predicated on the basis of such a small number of texts that may, or may not, be understood to apply to same-sex marriage.
Galatians 3:28. Galatians 5: 6. John 17:21. I Corinthians 12: 25, the Body of Christ. The Spirit of Christ-inspired unity flowing through such texts is clear. So then, let us be very, very wary of sanctioning actions that run decidedly counter to that spiritual and Scriptural “mainstream”!
Or as Richard Bierwas reminds us, referring to the “ministry of reconciliation” with which we are gifted according to II Corinthians 5:18ff. “The world in which I live out my faith is a cynical, church-less generation. The world is watching us. [And] if those to whom God gave the ministry of reconciliation can’t be reconciled among their very selves. . . Unity is [a] far more important matter than simply finding a way to stay together.”
Amen to that!
***
Response
There are four statements in Dr. Peabody’s paper that will be particularly beneficial for us to consider in considering the question of whether there are plausible interpretations and should unity ultimately prevail. The first of these is:
Perfectly plausible interpretations of the three New Testament passages that in any way touch on the topic of same-sex relations differ significantly among conscientious Christians.
In considering Romans 1 Dr. Peabody then proceeds to describe the ecstatic sexual immorality practiced by the followers of the cult of Isis/Osiris with its animal-headed idols and garish processions. From this he concludes, “So the ‘immorality’ described and decried in this passage might very well, in Paul’s mind, have had to do with such orgiastic idolatry, and not with specific sexual behavior in isolation from such practices.”
In my opinion, this gets at the very heart of this whole concern for unity at this point in time because the interpretation of Romans 1 that is offered is not plausible. The concern I have here is the fact that Paul’s words in verses 26 and 27, do not in fact prohibit such orgiastic idolatry. Rom. 1:26b-27 read, “For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men . . .” Even if the recipients of this letter in Rome had ecstatic sexual cult worship in mind when they read this, in order to understand Paul’s message correctly we must pay close attention to what he wrote. Paul refers explicitly to women who went contrary to nature (heterosexuality) and exchanged sexual relationships with men and turned to other women. In these verses Paul does not prohibit orgiastic idolatry, nor, contrary to Brownson and others, does he prohibit only excessive or violent sexual acts. It doesn’t matter if Paul was thinking about those cultic practices when he wrote Romans 1. The actual wording of his prohibition in verses 26-27 is a general, across-the-board prohibition of all same-sex erotic activity. It is critical that we pay attention to what the Bible does say, not what it might say.
If it had been Paul’s intent in Romans 1 to prohibit orgies he would have worded those verses similarly to Romans 13:13, “Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality . . .”
The actual words of the passage contradict the suggestion that the above is a plausible interpretation. When it comes to matters of morality, in order for the church to be faithful to our Savior and also be a genuine light to those around us, it is essential we get this right. There is much at stake in the question of same-sex marriage – there is no room for the church to both endorse it and oppose it. We must correctly understand the message of God’s Word on this.
Dr. Peabody also refers to I Corinthians 6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:10. He treats those passages by referring to men who forced themselves on adolescent boys etc. Once again, we need to deal with what the passages do say, not what the might say. They do not contain any qualifier, they simply prohibit both passive and active same-sex acts. It therefore cannot be said that they only prohibit pederasty or abusive acts. They prohibit all same-sex erotic acts.
The second quote from Dr. Peabody is,
But do either of these passages have anything directly to do with condemning a loving marriage between committed same-sex partners of either gender who want to live under the vows of wedlock, and who see Christ as central to their lives and their life together?
When the words of Romans 1:26-27 explicitly prohibit women from engaging in sexual acts with other women, and prohibit men from such acts with other men, loving marriages of same-sex partners are, in fact, forbidden.
The third quote is,
On the other hand, since there does not appear to be enough certainty for anyone to judge those Christians as being spiritually errant who do NOT discern in these several passages a universal condemnation of same-sex marriage, neither should such brothers and sisters be dismissed because they are willing to conduct wedding services for same-sex persons who meet all pastoral criteria for marriage.
Many read sufficient certainty in the understanding of these Scriptures which prohibit all same-sex marriages. James Brownson devoted considerable effort to his book in which he came to the conclusion that the church needs to accept same-sex marriages. However, many find that book to fall far short in that regard. Brownson’s book contains 15 major errors and no one has come forward to disprove any of those 15 claims. If there is not enough certainty in these Scriptures, where have the cases been made that cast doubt on the historic reading of these passages?
The fourth quote is,
But breaking up the RCA as it approaches its 400th Anniversary over interpretative differences about passages like these?
I Corinthians 5 deals with the proper response of a congregation to an individual who commits sexual immorality. I believe many Christians today see the main principle at stake here is the proper handling of immorality within the church.
Our Belgic Confession (Article 29) teaches us that the keys of the kingdom are the preaching of God’s Word, proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. It is true that some differences of biblical interpretation are not major in significance. However, matters of morality are always highly regarded in the Bible. Christ’s church must be faithful to Him in declaring the significance of morality and properly exercising the guidance of discipline with respect to those matters.
Conclusion
As this discussion currently stands, Dr. Peabody has claimed the three passages are all subject to plausible interpretations which would mean they would not necessarily prohibit same-sex marriage. The Response claims the specific wording of the three passages does explicitly prohibit all same-sex erotic acts. The ball is in the court of the Statement to show the specific words used in the passages do not necessarily prohibit all same-sex erotic acts. Therefore, this position that there are plausible interpretations does not rise to being included in Level 3.
To post comments at the blog, click here.
To go to the main page on same-sex marriage and unity, click here.