Level 4
Statement for Unity As Being Primary
FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON 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
I fully understand that for many people in the RCA, same-sex marriage is a non-starter because it is perceived as Biblically immoral. And much of that sense of moral certainty is based on the first chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
In offering these reflections, I do not assume that my arguments will convince everyone. I know that that will not be the case. Rather, my goal is to show how people like myself, a rigorous student of Scripture and a careerlong Pastor, can arrive in full conscience at a different interpretation. Are we going to act, from either side of the concern, like the Roman Catholic church, insisting on only one “correct” interpretation of complex moral issues? If so, we will surely end up tearing apart our cherished RCA church family.
I myself can find no solid indication in the text of Romans 1:22-27 that Paul is interested in offering a universal moral teaching regarding sexuality. If that were his intention, why would he not have stated it clearly as such? Some say that this sort of interpretation is implausible. But the actual burden of plausibility would seem, rather, to fall on those who would find in these few verses a generalized apostolic injunction against all forms of same-gender activity, monogamous or no. (Taking such an approach, one might actually condemn all heterosexual activity, too, on the basis of the Bible’s repeated imprecations against male-female adultery, male-female divorce in the absence of unfaithfulness, male-female incest (per I Corinthians 5), male female fornication, sex during menstruation (per Leviticus 15:19-24) and other examples of sexual uncleanness (Greek: porneia).) As for the situation he was addressing in Rome, Paul is echoed in his concern by I Peter 4:3 (NRSV):. . . you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. This would be another Scriptural example of the sorts of lapses that the Apostle to the Gentiles is inveighing against in Romans 1. And interestingly, there is not even any mention in I Peter of same-gender acts.
Self-assurance about one’s moral standing is one thing, but there is something truly consequential going on when texts that do not rise to the level of unambiguous universal teaching are employed against those who will suffer greatly as a result. That suffering may even include Christ-loving souls being separated from the church in ways that could undermine their relationship to Jesus Himself. I personally would not want to meet the Lord on the Day of Judgment after degrading men and women of Christ-confessing faith on the shaky basis of a passage that appears to be aimed, not at condemning monogamous sexuality, but at countermanding the polytheistic idolatry prevalent in Roman culture circa 50 to 60 AD.
For yes, Paul’s PRIMARY concern in the Romans 1 passage is that people were adopting the “falsehood” (Greek: pesudi , vs. 25) of worshipping created things (Greek: ktisei) rather than their Creator (Greek: ktisanta). “For this reason” (Greek: dia touto), vs. 26 continues, God (Greek: Theos) gave them up (Greek: paredoken autous) to (Greek “pathe atimias”) “dishonorable passions”. Females adopted sexual expressions that Paul called “unnatural” (Greek: para physin), which would not necessarily imply only lesbianism per se, but a broad range of non-procreative acts. And in vs. 27, the males are depicted as having been “inflamed” toward one another (Greek: exekauthesan) and hence as acting in (KJV) “ways that are unseemly” (Greek: aschemosynen.) Again I ask: is the idea that Paul is laying down a universal teaching about monogamous same-gender sexuality the ONLY plausible interpretation of these verses? Or is he mainly concerned with addressing the issue of pagan idolatry, and in that particular context decrying the devotee’s accompanying sexual excesses? And if it IS indeed the former, then why would he not have been clearer that that was what he was intending to do?
These are not idle or purely academic questions. They have great pastoral implications.
I have been studying, teaching, and preaching from Scripture for 50 years. My good brother in Christian faith, Herb Kraker, received information from me last week about the existence of the Isis cult in Rome, a cult that had been normalized in Rome under the Emperors Caligula and Claudius, and that in Pauline times was flourishing under the rapacious Emperor Nero (54-68 AD). Because of the connection of Isis with Osiris, devotion to Isis was the biggest religious competitor with Pauline Christianity and its emphasis on resurrection. So it is no wonder that Paul would be referring specifically to the excesses of this cult in Romans 1: 22-23 (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. I focus particularly on the Isis cult in this regard because its devotees would parade animal-headed deities though the streets, figures derived from Egyptian gods and goddesses like the canine Anubis and the crocodile Sobek. And once at the Isis temple following such processions, the “inflamed” cultists were known to indulge in what can only be called orgiastic sexual practices. We get a strong hint of the character of those orgies from Romans 1:26-27. Paul would have regarded them as “unnatural” in several ways. Quite likely, they would have featured a groping mass of humanity indulging, for instance, in mutual oral and anal intercourse in every sort of gender configuration. Almost certainly, too, there would have been coitus interruptis (the sin of Onan in Genesis 38:9-10), punishable in Old Testament times by death). Perhaps menstruation was no barrier, either, to a woman’s sexual participation on such occasions, another strict Biblical taboo. And the evident upshot of such activities, per Romans 1:27b, was the appearance of a physically visible sexually transmitted disease. So I must ask: along with the worship of Emperor Claudius, whose image would have been carried in all Roman processions (the probable “eikonos phthartou anthropu” of vs. 23), what, other than the cult of Isis, would Paul have likely been referring to in this early part of his letter to a small congregation of Jews and Gentiles who were trying to differentiate themselves as Christians in a licentious pagan culture under Nero, one of the cruelest Emperors of all time? Yet in spite of such a historically verified context, my friend Herb declares my interpretation implausible. How is it implausible to link Paul’s descriptions of sexual excesses with the idolatrous orgies of which they were a direct expression? And exegetically, how better to interpret the linking phrase, v. 26, Greek: dia touto, meaning, “For this reason”, “Because of this”?
Indeed, my interpretation that there is no universal teaching about monogamous sexuality of any type in Romans 1 is not only plausible, but utterly in synch with the Epistle to the Romans as a whole. For a full-on reading of the entire letter moves us FAR beyond any legalistic approbation on Paul’s part. In his cardinal desire to create a church with spiritual room for Gentile converts, the Apostle’s letter rises first to its great insistence on our being justified by faith alone (Romans 3:28, NRSV): For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law, and then moves onward to the blockbuster statement of Romans 8:1 (NRSV:) There is therefore NOW no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
And at fuller length, the Epistle leads to Paul’s cope-stone exhortation at Romans 14: 10-14 (NRSV): Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” 12 So then, each of us will be accountable to God. 13 Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.
In other words, we are made Christ-clean through faith, through the Christ-acclaiming orientation of our souls, hearts, minds, and spirits. And that is purely a gift of God’s grace. It is Jesus Himself, the very Son of God, who has fulfilled the Law in His own person, and it is our faith in Him that thus sets us free to live in love. For that reason, thank God, we are no longer forced to live under the (KJV) “schoolmaster[y]” of the Law (Galatians 3: 24-25, NRSV).
Ah, but “morality is morality”, some will insist. And there can be “no room” in OUR church for faith-defying expressions of immorality. Yet God alone is able to judge the true substance of one’s faith. In the meantime, as Jim Bakker once put it, “God says, ‘You love ’em. I’ll judge ’em.’”
There is surely a spiritual risk to being judgmental. And might we not be compounding such a risk should we then opt to divide our very unique part of the Body of Christ in ways that run clearly counter to the great New Testament theme of Christian unity (as expressed most directly in John 17:21, the High Priestly Prayer of Jesus) ? I do not expect to see all of our churches supporting same-gender marriage, any more than I expect to see all of our churches forbidding it. But whichever side of the present divide we may find ourselves on, let’s do the hard thing, affirm our sisterhood and brotherhood in the Grace and Love of Jesus Christ, and prayerfully seek a way forward together.