Level 4
Statement Against Heterosexual Marriages Only
The Grand Rapids East Report
Statement: Only Conscious Choices Are Prohibited
“Affirming scholars challenge traditional readings of this passage on various grounds. They maintain that Paul considers the exchange of desires not as occurring earlier at the Fall and expressing itself later as an involuntary condition, but as a conscious choice made by individuals, implicating desires and actions equally.” According to this view, the prohibition of the passage only applies to people who willingly exchange their personal sexual orientation in order to have sex with a person whose gender they are not naturally drawn to (for example, see Loader and Nissinen).”
Response
Over time, theologians have produced various rules and guidelines for interpreting Scripture. These help us to more clearly understand how we are to navigate the interpretation of passages like Romans 1 in light of recent scholarship. One such rule is the following:
Build all doctrine on necessary rather than possible inferences. A necessary inference is something that is definitely taught by the text. The conclusion is unavoidable. It is necessary. A possible inference is something that could or might be true, but not something actually stated by the text. (Reformation Theology website by Rev. John Samson.)
When a topic is as controversial as same-sex marriage, it is very important to have a good understanding of how we can be confident that we understand God’s Word correctly. Numerous books are being written on this topic today. How are we to know which one has the correct interpretation?
The above guideline is very helpful in this regard. When a particular passage actually states something, when something is definitely taught, by the wording of the passage, that statement must be given priority over an interpretation that consists of a possible inference. This is a distinction between what biblical passages do state and what they might state.
The question before us is whether there is something in Romans 1 which specifically states that the prohibition only applies to people who willingly exchange their personal, natural inclinations and have sex with a person whose gender they are not instinctively attracted to. If it could be shown, according to the above guideline on necessary versus possible inferences how the passage actually states the prohibition, then that actual statement would take priority over possible inferences as the view advanced by the affirming theologians referenced in the Grand Rapids East report appears at this point to be.