Every once in a while, when you least expect it, you hear someone say something that so resonates with you that you tell yourself,
That is exactly how I feel about what he/she is saying, and until I come up with something better, that is how I am going to answer every time someone asks me about that.
Such was my feeling and immediate response last week when my wife and I were hanging out together and listening to a podcast while she was painting her nails.
The podcast was called “Desert Island Discs,” and asks well-known people the question “What music, book, and single luxury item would you want to have with you if you were stranded on a desert island?”
As often happens in interviews about one thing, there is always a question about another thing that has nothing at all to do with the primary topic at hand. It is usually about a topic of controversy, and the interviewer typically knows in advance something of what the guest might say (or might not say, because they know that their answer will generate some greater level of controversy or discomfort).
Journalists are “great” at this tactic.
They ask you for an interview about apples, so you show up to talk about apples. But they begin the apple interview with a question about oranges since they have you there in the hot seat. This is exactly what happened to Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his interview (about music he’d want with him on a desert island) with program host Kirsty Young.
As Young was talking with Rev. Welby about his life, ministry, travels, and musical preferences she asked him this question at the 7:12 minute mark:
“Let’s talk for a minute about same-sex marriage. You yourself have spoken against same-sex marriage. What do you think it is about homosexual relationships that should make them, in the Church’s eyes, inferior, less equal, not open to the same opportunities that you afford all the other brethren?”
I have to admit that I expected the typical stuttering attempt at a political answer soaked in the soup of erudition from someone in Welby’s position. Some might say that his answer actually was political. I completely disagree.
Welby answered calmly, fluidly, and naturally (which tells me that it is something he has been thinking about for a long time. Typically when you can answer something so comfortably, it usually means you are comfortable with your answer — and comfortable giving it).
Rev. Welby said —
“Um, I’m really not going to answer the question very well because we’re now in to conversations within the church, both globally and locally. And I think if I sort of weigh in at this stage it’s inappropriate. It’s something that, as you go round the communion (having visited all the provinces, I am very aware of this), that is seen by many as an absolutely central understanding of obedience to Christ in both directions — either in favor of, or against (emphasis mine).
Young went on for a moment after this to ask Rev. Welby if he thought the issue would tear the Church of England apart. His response was that he sometimes felt that way, but he was convinced that the Holy Spirit was working through loving dialogue as the church sorted through the complexities of the issue.
But I want to go back to his answer. What Rev. Welby said (if I may paraphrase and interpret a bit) was…
I have spoken on this already.
And to say more than I have already said is inappropriate because we have come to the place where there are only two sides now.
And each side essentially says, “And our perspective is the only possible perspective that a devoted follower of Jesus could have.”
Think about that and let it sink in! From my perspective Rev. Welby is exactly right. There are really only two answers now. We have achieved what I might call “full polarity” on the issue – each side saying with passion and full conviction that, “Being a Christian means…”
A. That we cannot ever affirm same-sex marriage and still call ourselves Christians, or
B. That we cannot really call ourselves true Christians until we all affirm same-sex marriage.
When I heard Rev. Welby’s short response, I asked my wife to pause the program and I said,
From now on, that is my answer. Welby is right. There is no true ‘third-way’ of looking at this issue.
One group is saying that to affirm a marriage covenant between two humans with the same gender is a violation of God’s created order and the Biblical image of marriage, which is the crowning event in the original creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-28), and the crowning metaphor of the New Creation (cf. Rev. 19:7).
Another group is saying that for the Church to withhold marriage to the marginalized gay community is actually anti-Christ. Jesus himself, they say, would tell us to affirm and extend to them the right to be married, and to treat them as married in the fellowship of the Church. Jesus loved everyone, and thus, we should help them to be married and accept them as married.
There is no longer (if there ever was) any middle ground or 3rd option for talking about this. If there is, I have never heard it (though some have tried, and they end up being “open and affirming” at the end of the day).
True, there are less extreme answers on both sides, but the gravitational pull on either side tends toward the two polarities. From my perspective there is no way around it. We are (for now) stuck with these to opposite perspectives.
My suspicion is that you, if you’re reading this post, are either basically agreeing with either the “We cannot affirm gay marriage and be Christians” idea, or you are equally and passionately asking, “How can we call ourselves Christians in the truest sense until we affirm this?” And, when you hear the opposite of your view you think something like, “How in the world could you ever think that if you really understood the Bible and Jesus?”
Like Rev. Welby, I have spoken a great deal about this both as a pastor and as a blogger; in private counseling and in public discourse. When I was pastoring, by conviction and by ordination I refused to participate in solemnizing any marriage of two fellow humans who were of the same gender. And I have written here on this blog and elsewhere that to assume that Jesus would affirm same-gendered marriage and/or same-gendered sexual practice (which is not to be confused with either same-gender sexual attraction or even feelings of same-gender orientation) is not something that anyone could ever get from reading the Bible. In seminary, the strongest paper I ever wrote had to do with affirming male-female marriage as the crowning metaphor of the consummation of the entire Biblical story. What more can I say? So, to use Rev. Welby’s words (and a few of my own)…
“To say more now would be inappropriate. There are only two answers, and they both claim to be the one Jesus would agree with.”
Am I wrong?
Is Rev. Welby wrong?
Do you think my perspective differs from his?
Is it appropriate to say more than we have already said when we are at this place of idealogical and theological dissonance?
Aren’t we just making the same arguments over and over and over again in favor of our conclusions (all of which now end with, “because being true Christians requires us to make these conclusions as Jesus would have it”)?
I’d love to hear back from you about this (unless you have already spoken, and feel that it is inappropriate to say more).
I like that you point out that the lines are drawn and to further discuss the issue cheapens the solidarity the believers should have on this topic (whatever side they choose) I think many will have more of an issue with the division of the Church that the two sides highlight. Without saying where I stand, I will say that without right and wrong, good and evil there can be no justice, no redemption, no God, no need for a Savior…and what kind of Believer wants that?
Isn’t it really just a non-answer? If someone asked you what you believe, aren’t they asking you which of the two camps you personally subscribe to?
What if neither suit you?
Able, I think many believers feel “unsuited” to the two options in the post. If I have presented them correctly, they are either “traditional marriage” or “open and affirming.” And from what I can tell, there is no workable “third way” either proposed or possible. So we are left at a theological and dialogical impasse as to which way to go except to say that both ways are living out their convictions by finding churches that embrace those convictions. The rift grows wider along the two fault lines. Have you seen or heard a “third way?”
You asked us to chime in, and sometimes I just love chiming in! To start, I see where both you and Wembley are coming from in saying that it does no good to keep saying the same thing over and over again. And I have thought for a while now about how incredibly difficult it is for the church to reconcile these two sides. Because to each, the other is theologically wrong/misunderstood. At times it seems like we are both hearing different things from the same God. (Which doesn’t make sense nor is it theologically correct.) But how else do we explain this juxtaposition? The answer is: I have no clue.
On the other hand, I don’t think it is as “uncomplicated” as you laid it out to be. There are many Christians who do not want to affirm same-sex relationships, but want to affirm their fellow followers of Jesus and their fellow humans in love. So they do end up sitting somewhere in between these two ideologies. Then there is the issues of, “How do we treat our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters of the church?” and “How do we let that young boy in our congregation who is struggling with same sex attraction know he is loved, should not feel ashamed, and has no reason to assume he will receive anything but love from his fellow Christians?” And of course there is the issue of church law and convictions vs governmental law. Are we permitted to prohibit any and all same sex couples to marry in this country when many do not share our religious convictions?
My point being that, yes…we are basically at a point where we may have done too much talking about our own views. But we also have not talked nearly enough. Because I only gave 3 of many different examples of how this issue is immensely complicated and intricate and delicate.
I never thought there was a “third way” … in my opinion, I saw a “right way” and a “wrong way” … then, within the “right way”, there is a “right way to live it out” and a “wrong way to live it out”. Many professing Christians, in a reaction to the “right way but wrong way of living it out” sought a third way but in doing so, not only didn’t find it (although they’ve fooled themselves into believing they have), but really now live in the “wrong way”. Schade.
JP in context with the original question “you have already spoken about this” I would say it is more like “see my previous answer and I have nothing else to add. We are at an impasse with both sides claiming to speak for Jesus.”
This is my new answer instead of going back over the arguments that got me to my conclusion because now, everyone knows all the arguments and neither side believes that the other side has worked it out properly. So. We stay divided on the issue until there is more clarity. If there never is, then the division grows and becomes more pronounced over time. In other words. Neither side moves. In chess it’s called a stale mate. In travel it is an impasse. In church it is called division and separation. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks Rick. What I think you are saying (correct me if I am wrong) is – (1) You hold the historic and traditional view, (2) but some who hold that view are also destructive in their behavior toward those who hold (and live) the open-and-affirming view, and thus (3) the temptation (in order to avoid this) is to transition to the open-and-affirming view so as not to make the mistakes of those in the traditional view. What would you add, or how would you respond to my summary?
Dylan, So glad you’re joining in here. Some of the questions in your paragraph 2 are excellent and worth dialogue.
1. How does one “affirm” a fellow human in love without affirming their same-sex relationships?
2. How do we treat those who self-identify as gay/lesbian in the church?
3. How do we let a young person in the church who is sorting through these questions about this/her own sexuality know that he/she is loved?
To these questions, I would add (in order to amplify them) —
1. What do we mean by “affirmation?” Because there are voices on the open-affirming side of the discussion who see disagreement with that position as hatred. I don’t see any way to move the discussion forward in those cases.
2. What do we mean by how we “treat” others? Because, again, there are voices in the open-affirming side of the discussion who see disagreement with that position, and the desire by traditionalist Christians to help those who have SSA move away from that (and who see it as brokenness) as hatefulness and bigotry. Again, I see no way forward if this is the conclusion and have to go back to Welby’s answer that “more dialogue is now inappropriate.”
3. What do we mean by “letting people know that they are loved?” Because (now I sound like a broken record) – voices on the OAA side see no way to conclude that they are loved unless their conclusions, relationships, actions, and choices are affirmed — and if this is not done, traditionalists are accused of being hateful and bigoted. Again, I see no way forward if this is the case.
What would you add to this? How would you moderate my conclusions from your perspective?
Orlando – I think you’re on to something here. Your insight about solidarity makes sense. At this point, that seems to be the only question people want answered… “Are you in agreement with us, or with them? Whose side are you on? Which view do you hold?” That discussion is no longer fruitful, from my perspective. It is simply a sorting mechanism used to determine who is right, who is wrong, and who I will let into my circle of friends. Thus, as long as it is about solidarity with a theological and practical conclusion, I see no way forward. I’m not discouraged. I’m just at what looks like (from my perspective) an impasse beyond saying “I hold view ‘A'” and then letting the person asking the question sort me onto their list.
I guess I have a third way but it is not really accepted by conservative s. 1. Not all glbto are the same. 2. The local church should have the autonomy to handle this case by case. 3. We should avoid myopic position papers that are theologically dehumanizing the issue regarding praxis. 4. We should not allow the world to set our agenda i.e. Chick Fil A etc.
How do you determine which cases are different when dealing with LGBTQ issues?
And how is this “third way” different than Open and Affirming as is found in many of the mainline denoms (this explanation is similar to what I have found or heard from within)?
And who also decided how a position or praxis becomes dehumanizing? What makes it so?
Would love more of your thoughts on that… even though I am a “traditionalist” who likes food at chick-filet. 🙂 haha
This hard because “conservatives” want to make this a two sided only issue. While the other side is very nuanced.
Open and affirming looks much different from a bottom up local church direction as opposed to a top down denominational direction.
This issue can be institutionalized theologically when the glbtq etc community is on the outside looking in. Logically handling the Biblical data with validity is really irrelevant unless it connects with the reality that not all lgtbq’s are lgtbq’s in the same way and for the same reasons. I think we should counsel the sin problems involved in Diabetes 1&2 for example the same way we should sins manifestation in our sexuality with less theologically institutional beurocracy and more relational theology.
Who decides how or when praxis becomes dehumanizing? Keep its who’s in and who’s out awkwardness in the local covenant communities and out of the theological praxis labs.
Such an interesting topic. I know one blog that I’ve found helpful in navigating this issue is called Crumbs from the Communion Table. I personally find it a difficult topic to handle, but pray for grace and understanding from both sides whenever it comes up.
No this is a false dichotomy. I refuse to draw a line, especially on an issue so irrelevant to salvation. The third way is to refuse to play this game and instead dive headlong into the Messiness of life with people trusting that God is bigger that our preconceptions and actually still knows what He is doing.
Frank do you mean that my presentation is a false dichotomy, or that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s conclusions (and what the C.O.E. is dealing with) would be resolved if they all (on both sides of the false dichotomy) realized that it is a false dichotomy having nothing to do with salvation? Finally, I want to understand so what do you mean by “messy?” What is messy? Not things that have no bearing on salvation, and which truly are not antithetical — so what then is left to be messy if we all accept your premise that these are not real issues?
Kenny, I agree with your statement on the Gulph that is opening between the two sides. I see this as simply the first step in a steady decline on the view of scripture’s value by O and A folks. I have personally experienced this as a church I attended for 19 years became open and affirming (though they claimed to be a ‘third way’) I saw as the leadership started to question other clear biblical stances on abortion as birth control, Jesus as the only way to reconciliation with God. Really, it became difficult to discern between what they started to believe and what the larger culture believed.
Despite the fact that most biblical scholars would disagree with the leadership’s ‘new’ theology, the very suggestion that they might no longer hold scripture in high view would be very offensive to them. It’s like they became blinded by their own reinterpretations, which denied clear historical evidence.
So this was a long way to basically say, I believe in shaking the dust off my feet and walking away from such congregations, let the gulph grow. I understand that this is not necessarily a salvation issue per se, but if we cannot agree on major biblical issues such as the male and female biological order God has created and they choose to continue to ignore clear biblical teaching, I don’t see how much else we can agree on as time goes on because as mentioned before, it is a slippery slope and I am increasingly convinced that eventually, the very salvation plan will come into question.
Joao. I agree. At this point I cannot see anything like a “3rd way” that is not actually OAA (or that does not lead there). However if there is such a thing, and both the historic/traditional and OAA are both wrong, I am eager to hear it and see it. I disagree respectfully with Frank who says that the third way is to not engage the question since it is not about salvation.
The idea that there are really only two positions is the false dichotomy, there are actually a number of proposed ways to navigate this real issue. I’m saying keep it messy by refusing to polarize the situation. I agreed with one point from Welby, people genuinely believe that they are being faithful with a lot of solutions to this situation. The fact that people are making this the hill they die on is the real problem. Your sexual orientation, even what you do with it, does not determine your salvation. That is something worked out by the individual, even with fear and trembling.
Nope, there are more than two possible answers. I know of at least one more. The few times that I have explained this view to someone who wanted to listen, the responses have generally ranged from “Um. Well, hmm…” to “Wow. I think that view would make *everyone* upset.” This is exactly the range of responses one would expect from people encountering a view that doesn’t fit into their existing categories, so I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who has concluded that it is a third possibility.
Jon – Great to engage here! I have a few comments, observations, and questions related to your input, but before I share them I want to clarify that this post is about the question, “Why not offer marriage to homosexuals BY and IN the Church of Jesus?” and it is not about whether or not some fellow humans self-identify as either LGBT or at least SSA (same sex attracted). That is a different discussion (this one is about marriage and the church), but at the end of the day, the original question still applies. Having said that –
1. Is your 3rd way about the first question (marriage), or about other things?
2. Do you think Welby is being dishonest, or is he actually ignorant about the possibility that there are more than two answers to the first question (for instance, do you think he has heard your 3rd way and is dismissing it)?
3. Isn’t the only other possible answer “sometimes we should, and sometimes we shouldn’t – it all depends on whether or not the SSA or LGBT person was actually born that way – and in those cases we should affirm their marriages and their openly-lived homosexuality, but in cases where they are not really LGBT (I’d be interested to hear how you would find this out), we should not affirm their same-sex marriages”? – In other words (more simply), is your 3rd way the “sometimes” view (known by the LGBT/SSA community as the arbitrary view)? If so, then it would make sense that this view would make both sides mad. If not, then you are breaking new ground.
4. However, since your 3rd way (which I may not have even gotten close to since you didn’t share it) would still make both of the sides of Welby’s fractured church of England mad, then it is of no more use to him than the two views he is already attempting to mediate because he is concerned about the slow splitting of the Church of England. If you’re right, your 3rd way would finish the job, no?
Frank, are you talking about same-sex marriage or something else? It seems that you may have shifted to a discussion of same-sex attraction and same-sex orientation.
“3. Isn’t the only other possible answer “sometimes we should, and sometimes we shouldn’t – it all depends on whether or not the SSA or LGBT person was actually born that way – and in those cases we should affirm their marriages and their openly-lived homosexuality, but in cases where they are not really LGBT (I’d be interested to hear how you would find this out), we should not affirm their same-sex marriages”? – In other words (more simply), is your 3rd way the “sometimes” view (known by the LGBT/SSA community as the arbitrary view)? If so, then it would make sense that this view would make both sides mad. If not, then you are breaking new ground.”
Reveals to me where you are stuck on this issue Kenny. I’m a sometimes we should and sometimes we shouldn’t person, but the reason has nothing to do with a person being born that way. The only criteria that matters is acting in good conscience towards what God is doing with people in a particular situation. This is a pastoral solution, not an exegetical solution (which I don’t believe we can ever get to if we are honest). When I work with a couple who want to be married, no matter who they are hoping to marry, I go through the same process. I listen to their stories, listen for God in those stories, evaluate their maturity and commitment – usually by introducing a few issues that the might face and walking them out in loving conversation, and agree/disagree to marry them based on if I believe God will bless their marriage. I’ve done this with straight and gay couples, and all of those couples are still together. It means I’m very picky about who I marry. It means I’m willing to say no, not based on someones supposed right to have “blessed” sex with whom they are attracted to, but based on the only real criteria that matters – what would God do. But this determination has to be able to challenge our exegetical and ecclesial presuppositions, that’s the hard part for people who have polarized the issue, seeing it as only one way or the other.
Frank – to be fair (having read and thought about how you employ the “sometimes” approach), it could also mean that your approach to processing truth is ultimately your own capacity to discern things that “God is doing” on a case-by-case basis, no? It is an attractive idea, and it would be easier to agree with you if I could find even one time in all of Scripture where God’s people (or any person) worked so hard to help a homosexual couple process whether or not they should marry on the basis of what his will was for them in particular — and not on the basis of what, for instance, things looked like in the original creation (and what the Apostles wrote to the churches about concerning their own marriages). Finally, to be fair, it could also be that you are using the words “exegetical and ecclesial presuppositions” to dismiss the exegetical work and convictions of those who don’t land where you land – who think that it’s impossible to get homosexual marriage into God’s created intent for humanity no matter how hard we wring out the biblical text.
The problem is we are not consistent – in terms of bringing things into creational intent. I think that is a red herring anyway. The world is far from God’s creational intent, what we have are a beautiful collection of stories about people navigating this fallen world – with God’s help – and sometimes coming up with creative solutions. The creational intent is not the eschatological direction of Christian theology anyway – it is something new, something of new possibilities that we have a foretaste of in Christ. Part of that is the break down of difference, the levelling of the playing field if you would. So it isn’t just me discerning, it is actually something that happens with me and the couple and the community we are part of, a community that is pointed Godward I should add. I’m not trying to dismiss anything, but I am asking us all to hold our presuppositions a little less firmly and let God be God. BTW I take my lead for dealing with people individually from Jesus who seemed to have no pat answers, but dove into the messiness of life with messy, fallen people.
It is all related, but I’m equally troubled by the language of SSA and orientation the only orientation that matters in the marriage situation is an orientation towards God.
Accurate restatement. With that I’d add, a “3b” along the lines of “and also creating a stumbling block to the truth, freedom, etc. found in the historic/traditional view”.
Maybe the problem is the lack of ambiguity and an over-reaching desire for righteousness. Maybe further discussions aren’t appropriate, but maybe neither are the voices of the straight man.
I speak boldly only to shed light on the false dichotomy, and I hope not to offend but to add new light to the discussion. If we are to seek out a means within our scriptures to determine our stance on this are we not following the pharisees. Our stones have hit half of teens who commit suicide, yet Christ told only those without sin to throw. Maybe our actions have led to the death of teenage boys and girls and for some reasons in our intense shame we have clung to a God that is too busy comforting those who have been lost. When did Jesus say convert the 1 sheep who ran? When did the father lecture the son who returned from a life of partying or determine his lifestyle was a sin. When did we feed, clothe, or shelter those in the LGBTQ community? Are we sheep or goats? This isn’t a matter of citing words, but believing in one’s actions. I made the mistake of believing in Christ’s actions before I came out, and it led me to a life without possession, family, or friends (which one of us is more christ-like, as a result?) and taught me both to be taken care of to take care of my brothers and my sons whose real fathers have abandoned them.
We are supposed to be a peaceful people, yet continue to allow our words to convince others to die at their own hands.
Now to refer to Rev Welby. The anglican church is discussing this issue right now. If they follow similar events where the anglican was asked to make decisions many would believe to be unrighteous, they will allow clergy in the LGBTQ population. Has Welby not committed to the sin of Saul who was too impatient to wait for Solomon. Maybe to add further discourse to this subject is only a detriment to those who believe LGBTQ people as living in sin. But to those who are hurting and killing themselves, is halting discourse only aiding their death.
Now what does the Lord require of pastors, bloggers, and brothers? It can’t be to bastardize a tense and tumultuous discussion such as gay rights, yet Christians have done so in the name of “Love for Christ.” With what I know about Christ if he were on earth today, I would have met him at the gay bar, or an extravagant gay dinner party. Yet, there are few churches I have stepped in where I believed him to be present.
Lastly, the debate isn’t about whether or not we agree. If it is maybe that is from the hands of your straight brothers and sisters. Maybe we should be prophetic in our ministerial calling and speak out for those who are dying and not for those who demand blood. The debate is about a commitment to love, but in spite of Paul’s warning love is not the most important commitment in the Christian church.
I would love to continue further discourse and as time goes on I will speak less boldly I’m sure.
Just to add to the discussion. I think what you mistake is that persons within the LGBTQ community (by the way this is the appropriate syntax when speaking of this population; SSA is degrading and offensive) don’t compartmentalize marriage and love. If we can experience what we have been told and preached to is the beauty of marriage we cannot experience what we have been told is love. None-the-less sex and children.
Research and understanding of the other whom you oppose determine whether it is dehumanizing. if you want to know why it might be there is a good book, Velvet Rage, that describes the Gay Experience. You might need to do some interpretation and imagine how a gay man’s experience within the church might be similar or different to what the author describes as the typical gay man’s experience. Though, it sheds great light on how culture today can have an affect on someone in the minority.
Great point
People within the LGBTQ community do not compartmentalize the various forms of going to hell for being gay. One’s sexuality is one’s whole being, including one’s right to something as beautiful as marriage.
So you are opposed to exclusionary practices across the board or just certain cases or what? I ask because I just don’t quite understand what you are saying here… maybe I’m dumb?
Are you currently pastoring people who identify in this way? What are you learning? Experiencing? I’d be curious about that (if you can share)…
Hi Frank.
As always, I remain unconvinced. But I like you anyway. 🙂
ha ha
I’m opposed to century gun like tactics that help churches to never have to deal with the person because they have already dealt with the doctrine.
I am not sure all traditionalists would disagree. And by “not sure” I mean they wouldn’t. At least I wouldnt. And many of the people I interact with don’t.
And that is part of the problem. The constant pigeon holing.
I would chime in on this, but maybe to open the door to an unique position I find myself in. You see, I’m a ‘traditionalist’ and believe that homosexuality is a sin….as great and as difficult as any sin I myself, as a heterosexual, face and commit and am forgiven of daily by God’s grace. I am also a older college student (undergrad) who is in an internship…..in a ‘reconciling’ church who supports homosexual marriage, human sexuality self-defined, and the host of other LGBTQ agendas. Definitely the minority there. How do I successfully accomplish my internship; being involved in leadership of the church, shaping and growing ministries, and being in fellowship with this community as a bible-believing, bible-affirming Christian? You see, I’ve been on the front lines with this issue, my children are in a liberal school system and they have several friends who are homosexual, transgendered, cross-dressing and so on and I have friends who are homosexual and claim Christianity as a identity as well. We too often sit on the sidelines, alienating ourselves from the difficult questions, rather than dialoguing and understanding the other side. I’m walking in their shoes, this community’s, for a season. I am in no way affirming a homosexual agenda, but we are definitely called to love those separated from God’s grace. Everything I have read has affirmed my position on homosexuality as a biblical truth, not my own—I’d rather it was simply a self-choice and easily integrated into the community of believers–but I do want to understand and engage this community for the benefit of the Gospel and God’s kingdom . I was given this internship because of my maturity in faith, my experiences, and my circumstances (I have a family, single parent, unable to move out of area for internship etc….). So, what say you?
Would you say that Evangelism as seen in the vineyard USA as a whole is handling this issue well or poorly? Why or why not?
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “evangelism as seen in the Vineyard USA.” Do you mean Evangelicalism or the way that the Vineyard movement has, by and large, continued being a missional movement that is focused on planting churches and loving people from all communities, including those who self-identify as LBGTQ?
I’m very happy with our position paper and largely happy with the way that many (and I do mean many) churches are engaging with and/or pastoring and/or in community with LGBTQ people. We are a people of the tensions of the kingdom, so we are pretty used a “radical middle.” But I don’t think that’s necessarily unique to just the Vineyard. I think there are many groups that are “traditional” that do that… which is why I reject how you have characterized the Traditionalists without a “some” or “many” 🙂
It’s like if I say “all open and affirming folks just do not value the authority of Scripture.” You and I both know that to be a questionable statement that needs to be nuanced quite a bit! So I would suggest that your post-evangelical non-conservative recovering-fundamentalist self should try and nuance those with traditional views a bit more. The praxis (and theology) doesn’t always flesh out the same…
Which is why I would say “yes” and “no” to Kenny’s suggestion here. On one hand, I think plenty of these “third way” advocates are just being deceptive and are actually “open and affirming” and on the other hand there are a variety of ways that people are living their theology out… it’s complex.
Which is what MY answer is: “Hey, that’s a complex question. If you have a day to set aside so we could talk, I’d love to answer any of the questions you may have. But if you are looking for a 30 second sound byte, you’ll have to just know I think this is complex.” (or something similar).
Hmm I guess It seems t me that you are not acknowledging that fact the Vineyard is pretty unique among evangelicals when it comes to this issue. You seem to be making a case that the minority among evangelical scholarship is in the middle which is what I would consider myself as well. I would consider my position to be reasonable and valid Biblically but not popular among most theologically conservative evangelicals such as myself.
HA! So you are suggesting that the guy who has questioned whether there even IS such a thing as “evangelicalism” anymore or how it could even be remotely close to being defined isn’t acknowledging the fact that the Vineyard is unique? Uh… okay! Ha ha!
I’m not making a case for anything other than saying you have made several statements that appear (correct me if I’m wrong) to suggest that conservative “evangelicals” are guilty of some things that seem rather questionable. And I’m still not sure if I count as one, since I hold to a “traditional” and “historic” understanding of human sexuality and marriage.
But your view is not accepted by conservatives (or so you say)… I’m just not sure exactly what your view is because it hasn’t been stated clearly enough for me to determine. I only know that you have previously said you wouldn’t pastor in a church that wasn’t open and affirming… unless I misunderstood you.
So I am… just confused. ha ha.
But I would suggest that there are numerous people who would identify as “conservative evangelicals” that take quite a different tone that the folks you find unreasonable or unconvincing. That’s all I’m saying. 🙂
So sometimes you open and affirming and sometimes you aren’t. I still, for the life of me, want to know how one makes those decisions of then the “sometimes” case is to be and how it is reasonable or discerning and what are the guiding principles and how the Bible fits into that decision making process.
No big deal, right? Haha.
Luke (and Frank) to re-engage here, I actually like your questions to Frank. If I might rephrase them a bit and sit along side you for Frank’s response:
1. Are you saying that you are open and affirming of homosexual marriage (and thus, homosexual practice) “sometimes” – but not always?
2. And that in order to work through whether or not you should participate in affirming both the same-sex marriage and practice, you engage in a relational process of discernment with the prospective couple?
3. And that while in the process of discernment you do not utilize scripture in terms of explicit texts (or the relative theology) of heterosexual marriage because they are not presently relevant?
4. And that what you do use scripture for is to (a) embrace the idea of a loving God, (b) embrace the idea of loving divine and human relationships, (c) embrace the idea that God can communicate with us, and (d) embrace the idea that the God revealed in scripture (and even communicating with us from within it) is not revealing anything about his original intent for human sexuality within the creation – nor is he revealing anything much in particular about his intent for human sexuality beyond love and faithfulness, and thus (e) the Bible really has nothing to say to present-day Jesus people about either homosexual or heterosexual relationships as categories, and so we are probably reading those into the text (f) which should lead us to be like Jesus who, within the text of scripture had no answers for larger categories (like the ones we’re discussing here), and thus handled every single question on a case-by-case basis?
In short, I suppose I am asking you about some of your hermeneutical lenses, and how, from scripture itself, you believe they are good ones.
Aaron, can you tell me what all of the letters stand for in the syntax above, and if all/any of them are appropriate as stand-alone terms to use in reference to a person in that community (insofar as the LGBTQ) community is concerned?
There is no question that there is such a thing as evangelicalism it is just multivocal… perhaps it’s most alluring trait to me. That fact that it is an observable phenomenon makes it a reality.
If it seems as if I am attacking you I am not. I want to make that clear. My comments concerning the Vinyard being a unique wing of evangelicalism was not a negative statement. It was actually inspired by this post that you wrote and that I enjoyed.
http://thinktheology.org/2012/11/16/playing-by-a-different-set-of-academic-standards-responding-to-mohlers-latest-comments-on-the-vineyard/
Perhaps let me know if I am wrong… it seems you have moved from this position? If one where to question whether or not there is such a thing as evangelicalism would that make the Vineyard no longer evangelical? I’m confused here.
You said…”I’m just not sure exactly what your view is because it hasn’t been stated clearly enough for me to determine.”
Luke if there is anyone that has clearly stated the concerns he has with their position on homosexuality it is me. Clearly, logically and succinctly. Let me make it very clear…
If a person is born gay in the way that person with juvenile diabetes is born diabetic (for example) we should adjust how we handle that person when compared to a person who is merely living a “lifestyle”. A church and denomination should in my opinion make room for the possibility that human sexuality is a heavily nuanced issue and treat people as individuals and not paint them all with the same brush.
Now that is NOT an attack on you. I actually don’t know what you believe concerning the issue because in your position of the radical middle you can at times run the risk of actually saying nothing on the issue that is of any practical value for me to understand. I have clearly stated my position several times.
The church that I am pastoring at right now actually needed to have me clarify my position for them and they ultimately felt comfortable with it. One conservative fellow in our congregation asked me outright if I would marry a homosexual. I asked him what he meant by homosexual? I said to him that if all homosexual people where the same that that would be an easy answer. But they are not so I have no black or white answer for you. I am open and affirming with the caveat that not all LGBTQ etc are the same. I believe the church and denomination I am apart of agrees with that after extensive conversations about the issue. They seem to understand me. I am confused as to why you don’t. Maybe you could be a bit more clear so I can answer you a bit better.
I appreciate your willingness to comment on this issue Frank. I agree that it is a red herring. There are more than two ways for sure as long as we acknowledge that words like homosexual and their dictionary like definitions do not give the identity to the person but rather the other-way around.
Permit me to work backwards here. Thanks for the responses guys. Your last statement makes no sense to me: “and how, from scripture itself, you believe they are good ones.” What do you mean from scripture itself? I’m not sacralizing my hermeneutics if that is what you are getting at. I only say this because that seems to be an evangelical game, to say something is biblical in order to shut down criticism. I think all hermeneutic approaches need to be subject to critical evaluation – even if we see it happening in scripture.
Back to Luke first. Luke this is not a sometimes I’m affirming position – meaning that sometimes I affirm same sex marriage and sometimes I don’t. No more than I affirm all mixed sex marriages. I affirm the institution of marriage as a societal good with Biblical roots. I affirm people and their felt desire to marry. But that doesn’t mean I believe anyone has the right to marry anyone they want (although marriage is a charter right here, I am concerned about the ways that making it a right has undermined it’s sanctity and efficacy as a social institution – but that is because I have a high view of marriage as covenant). Where you might be able to pin me down is that I don’t believe being gay is something outside of God’s blessing, but marriage is something different than my stance of affirming an individuals right to identify as gay, straight, questioning, etc. I think that we all need to work through who we are and I am comfortable with people being quite different than myself.
So that brings us around to what guides this process of discernment. The exact same things that guide the process of any other couple seeking to discern if God wants them to marry. No difference. I personally think we don’t do this well enough with heterosexual couples.
Also for both of you, because this is done in a community that loves and values scripture – of course the Bible is a big part of this process. In working through stuff with one same sex couple working towards marriage I was impressed with how she was concerned with the passages about divorce as she was a divorcee. We wrestled, prayed, and God met us.
Yeah of course. It’s Lesbian, Gay, bi-sexual, Transgender, and questioning. “LGBTQ” refers to the community of persons who find themselves aligned in this spectrum. For those who don’t identify as the first four might be questioning. However, it is a reference to the community’s of people who experience a wide array of emotions due to sexuality.
SSA is appropriate in academic contexts only in the church. Also, if it is referred to a specific incident. So someone my have SSA, but they are none-the-less a part of the LGBTQ community.
You may speak of gay men, and lesbian women, or trangergenders men and women, or bisexuals, or those who are questioning. But not gays, lesbians, etc.
Though, someone might be gay and not act on it, he still has many of the same myriad of emotions that other gay man experience (and many of his own that can only be interpreted by his attraction toward other men). To ignore said emotions by calling it an SSA can degrade the man into believing he is “straight” but attracted to other men. Which is only a part of a cycle of shame and hiding that closeted men go through. Though, if he is not going to act on his sexuality, but to accept he is a part of the LGBTQ community, he is better able to translate his emotions through his “gay” experience.
Hope that’s helpful!
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer (or Questioning sometimes, I’ve seen two Qs even) and sometimes an I is in there too for Intersexed.
Kenny, I wonder if, in such matters, that separation is necessary. Paul said that such divisions “show which of you have God’s approval”. I know that is provocative language, highly frowned on today but clearly Paul thought in such terms. Nobody seems to be willing to introduce that sort of idea into the conversation in our circles but it was clearly a part of apostolic thinking not just around the Lord’s supper but other matters, as well.
Frank, no doubt God is bigger than our preconceptions and actually still knows what He is doing but it seems to me that you are saying the “third way” is to simply ignore the messiness of making biblical distinctions, not “diving headlong into the Messiness of life”. Making biblical distinctions, which Jesus taught us about in Matthew 7:1-6, is diving headlong into the messiness of life. I’m not sure how you can dismiss the idea that sexual behavior is clearly relevant to salvation. We are a people who buy into the radical welcome of the kingdom (Blessed are the poor in spirit) and the radical call to Jesus’ Lordship (Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness). I can’t see “the third way”, aka, OAA, is in any meaningful way a serious attempt to live within the challenge of those two statements. And that’s the gospel, it seems to me.
I’m not following your argument via Matthew? I’m not seeing a violation of either a call to radical openness, like an open table, and radical discipleship. Maybe my categories are much more generous than yours? I’m not sure. When you say a third way is also known as OAA, you reveal a presupposition I don’t buy at all.
The problem seems to be both sides speaking for Jesus rather than listening to him. To label one side as “traditional” (a word this generation automatically distrusts) and the other “open and affirming” your political position is obvious already, so I guess you should be trying to support it – not avoiding the question – especially if you are a Pastor.
However, if the traditional position is the concept that,
all sexual activity between all individuals, outside of marriage between a man and woman, is sin – then I would ask…
– are there any of Jesus’ teachings where he mentioned he was invalidating this law?
I was always under the impression that Jesus teachings were the origin and foundation of the “traditional view” and that they were definitely not as open and affirming as unbridled human sexual appetite would prefer – a fact most everyone learns soon enough.
If I truly believed Jesus would support gay marriage, than so would I.
Which of Jesus teachings show his support of this open and affirming position on human sexual relations or same sex marriage? I’ve read through the gospels several times and I keep missing it.
There seems to be those who are underwhelmed concerning the brokenness of the human condition and those (like me) who are overwhelmed by it.
To the underwhelmed group all homosexuality is an act, merely a sin of volition or perhaps a sickness to be healed of.
To the other group (a legit third way) homosexuality (for some) is more than just an act or a mere sin of volition, it is the product of what some theologians would call natural evil. A person who gets lung cancer from smoking his whole life is dealing with a different set of problems than a non smoker who gets lung cancer. All people are broken but this is truly an issue of how and in what way? And it is there that I suggest we can apply the same Biblical themes of grace, love, compassion, that heterosexuals seem to enjoy. We don’t Biblically pigeonhole heterosexuals in the same way.
Able, I do understand what you’re saying and perhaps you’re not intending to steer the conversation to “Is homosexuality a sin?” (by putting it next to the marriage question) – but that actually isn’t the question at the center of the post. The original question is — “Why doesn’t the Church of England (and I would add, most of the rest of the Churches in the world) extend the benefit of church-sanctioned marriage to members of the church who want to marry their same-gendered partner. It is to THAT question that Rev. Welby answers, “I can’t say more than I have because there are only two positions now.” And I would agree with him — even though I also agree with you that there are at least three possible answers, but two of them end up in the same place.
1. The Traditional View: No we should not. Marriage cannot ever be defined as anything other than one man married to one woman insofar as Christians affirm the marriage.
2. The Open and Affirming View: Yes we should. Two homosexuals should be able to marry because it’s their choice to do so, and the church should get to decide that they can’t marry whomever they want to marry. It is a case of making them second-class Christians to NOT afford them this blessing.
3. The Sometimes view. Yes we should, but only sometimes. If it is God’s will for the two to be married, and that is discerned through a pastoral process of counsel, dialogue, and communication — hearing from God together just like a pastor would work with any other couple. If the church married ONLY the “sometimes” couples, it is encouraging them to live openly in homosexual practice, and is affirming that practice through providing the blessing of their marriage — and thus, #3 (the sometimes view) is open and affirming.
This is not, from my perspective, about whether or not “homosexuality is a sin.” I don’t think that’s even a good question because — “homosexuality” means what? Answers abound here. The only question I am trying to answer in this post, and the reason I put it up is because it is about church-blessed same-sex marriages and whether or not, by providing them, must develop and open and affirming position. Insofar as it relates to any church doing even one gay marriage, then answer will be yes.
What do you think? Does my engagement in this comment seem to be talking to what you wrote?
Frank, thanks for the reply. You wrote, “The third way is to refuse to play this game and instead dive headlong
into the Messiness of life with people trusting that God is bigger that (sic)
our preconceptions and actually still knows what He is doing.” I am not sure I can see that your position is, in any meaningful way, any different than OAA. Can you explain the difference?
As to my reference to Matthew, Jesus explains how to make moral distinctions responsibly. That seems to apply to how to challenge others in matters of moral import, not in disputable matters of conscience. I agree that your categories, with respect to same sex behavior, are more “generous” than mine, if I understand you correctly.
You wrote, “Your sexual orientation, even what you do with it, does not
determine
your salvation. That is something worked out by the individual, even
with fear and trembling.” I share your concern here, up to a point. So
help me, one pastor to another, to understand, in your view, where such
behavior(s) as Paul listed in 1 Corinthians 6:10, say like swindling
others, arise to such a level that they come under the threat of Paul’s
warning that those who behave in that manner are in danger of failing to
inherit the kingdom (now and later)? Or should trigger a move to some intervention, church discipline? (If you see that as legitimate in your communion.)
How do you work that out,
pastorally, with erring believers under your care? Honestly, I, too,
approach that with “fear and trembling” and don’t find it anything short
of “messy” but that’s what I get paid the big bucks for. 🙂
Jesus is not explaining how to do what you say he is there, you are extrapolating and I’m not agreeing with your analysis of that text.
Open and affirming is categorized as an all or nothing position, as if it is the opposite of the so-called traditional position. I’m opting for a situational position as a third way, there is no definite yes or no to same sex marriage only a let’s go to the Lord with this and be open to where God might lead. That is substantially different in that I’m as willing to not marry a gay couple as I am to marry them. In this scenario all the parties, including our faith community, need to undertake the discernment process together. And I’m proposing this for mixed sex marriages too.
Frank, thanks for the reply. I’m not saying that is all Jesus is talking about in that text but it seems to apply to anyone trying to apply some sort of moral distinction to a sister/brother. Bear with me, please. I am not trying to be difficult. It comes naturally. 🙂 I know you don’t see yourself as open and affirming in the “polarized” sense. But if you are willing to consider marrying same sex folks, how is that meaningfully different than being open and affirming? That seems to me to be Kenny’s point about this situation.
I’ll bite, Jon. Just start with just one more possible answer for now. What can I say so you’ll believe I’m “someone who wanted to listen”? 🙂
These are issues of consequence, what is clearly condemned are actions that dehumanize others, harm others, harm the community. A same sex marriage is not in that category. I’ve had to have tough talks with people under my pastoral care, not fun, but necessary. I’m thinking about first John which goes on about handling deliberate sin, the imperatives in the first three chapters are all about love and community, not about specific unrighteous actions except failing to love your brother, etc. The concern is the community not so much the individual. In our modern rereading we can miss this because we focus on the personal individual. This truncation makes it hard to get past the individual and see that the church is about community, God is making a people, a community that shows forth the gospel in word and deed, in power and grace.
Hi Kenny. I’ll do my best to answer all four of your questions.
1. This alternative view is about marriage in specific, yes.
2. Actually, I don’t think Archbishop Welby said quite what you have taken him to mean, Kenny. He said that he has encountered many people who take one of two views and do so insistently. He never said what he thinks nor even whether he agrees that there are only two views. So I really cannot comment on what Archbishop Welby thinks. I have no reason to doubt his honesty, and no information on what he does or doesn’t know because he doesn’t actually tell us.
3. No. There is a little bit of overlap with your guess, in that part of the outworking of the view would involve some casuistry in application. But neither the grounds for decision-making nor even the mode of reasoning map onto the ones you’ve described. For more detail, see below.
4. The utility of an idea doesn’t determine its validity, let alone its truth or falsehood. But it seems like the utility of this particular idea is a bit more varied than you seem to expect it to be. The person who actually said to me the bit about this view upsetting everyone did not himself find it upsetting so much as challenging and thought-provoking. There was another person present in the same conversation, however, who objected to it vocally (he did not show any anger, though). From what I can tell, some see in it a possible solution and others do not.
I apologize for not explaining this view while making comments about it. It isn’t really very fair of me. The trouble is, it would take a lot of words to explain it well. Whereas the two views you mentioned above have had lots and lots of discussion by a large number of people for many years now, this one is little known. Because those two are so well known, you can give little soundbite references to them and be pretty sure that people will understand the meaning lying behind them. In contrast, if I were to try to compress an articulation of this view down into a size appropriate for a blog comment, the result would range somewhere between unintelligible at worst and misleadingly inaccurate at best. I probably ought to write an article on it sometime—when I have time! 😉
Here, though, are some of the driving principles, categorized by main subject area:
Eschatology:
The creation is still on the way towards completion.
— God’s purposes and intentions have never yet be realized.
— All things are still in process of becoming and have not attained their true identity.
The eschaton is the telos of creation.
— Christian ontology, epistemology, and ethics must be teleologically (read: eschatologically) determined.
—— Ethical principle: what we ought to do in a given situation is that which will most contribute towards the abundant goodness of the eschatological reality.
—— Epistemological principle: we do not fully know the nature and qualities of this goal, which requires us to rely on the Spirit of God for insight and direction in, among other things, our ethical decisions.
Hamartiology:
Sinfulness and fallenness are not the same thing.
— Sinfulness describes the evil that estranges us from God.
— Fallenness describes the evil that results when we are estranged from God.
Christology:
Orthodox Christology demands the preceding hamartiological distinction, or else it will collapse
— Christ assumed humanity in its fallen condition (as defined above) in order to bring redemptive transformation to it. (“That which is not assumed is not healed.”)
— Christ did not thereby become sinful.
Soteriology:
The eschatological completion/salvation of creation requires the elimination of all that is sinful and the redemptive transformation of all that is fallen.
Prior to the eschaton, localized and anticipatory realizations of the ultimate redemptive transformation do occur, with real and ongoing consequences.
—These real but anticipatory acts of salvation always result in conditions in this world becoming more like the eschaton, but never fully attaining it before the end. Apparently, God is okay with making things better prior to the day when he will make everything perfect.
As you can see, unpacking all of this will take a lot of work. Just the bit about an eschatologically conditioned epistemology, for example, will have to deal with eschatology, pneumatology, doctrine of Scripture, theological method, epistemology, and hermeneutics (in the philosophical, metacognitive sense), and will probably require a project of its own. And that’s just the principles to set up the view.
Where all of this stuff kicks in regarding same-sex marriage is when we notice that Romans 1 does something rather unique in Scripture. Almost every passage touching on this topic (OT and NT) simply describes homosexual activity as a bad thing without further specification. This hearkens back to Leviticus’ classification of it as unclean, the third category of its holy-common-unclean system of purity ethics. This system distinguishes between conditions; it did not much distinguish between cause and effect. Romans 1 is remarkable in that it discusses the subject in terms of cause and effect—that is, sinfulness and fallenness. And when it does, it places attraction for those of one’s own sex on the side of fallenness, not sinfulness.
That realization, when pondered in light of the complex of theological principles I outlined above, seems to me to lead to conclusions that neither the “affirming” nor the “not affirming” would recognize or embrace as their own. Of course, I still haven’t actually given those conclusions to you. This comment is already huge and all I’ve managed to do is outline some principles and note where the Scriptural starting point is. There’s no way that I can try to present the argument itself here, so I’m stopping for now. But thanks for asking, Kenny; perhaps writing even this much out will help kickstart a fuller treatment of it soon. 🙂
If you are not willing to make a category for me then how am I to know you are not simply dismissing my view? The bottom line is I’m not going to let you put me in a big that I don’t fit in. What this conversation says to me is not that there is no third way, but that no way is worth considering if it is not your way. Evangelicals are polemical this way and it is not good.
No I am trying link a third way to the problem of natural evil and the ethics of preaching or applying abstinence to a person who is born a man in a woman’s body or vice versa. Does that make sense? This is what makes it a third way. Is it not okay to have a third way that borrows from both? Who makes this rule that it cannot? For example I am a compatibilist which is generally respected as a third way among philosophers regarding free will etc. But it shares aspects of both sides. From what you are saying regarding “the sometimes view” is that it is just a modified view of open and affirming. Would this be similar reasoning to a libertarian calling a compatibalist a modified determinist? That is not really fair.
I am basing a third way on the fact that a small portion of the population falls somewhere in the middle between sexual identity.In other-words for some people their private parts don’t line up with their experiences. I am basically trying to say that those folks in and of themselves represent a problem for both sides. The right side preaches one to “abstain” the left preaches to “free oneself from inhibitions” while the third way says says “give me context”.
Can you help me understand how this does not relate directly though to the topic of “Why doesn’t the Church of England (and I would add, most of the rest of the Churches in the world) extend the benefit of church-sanctioned marriage to members of the church who want to marry their same-gendered partner?” I guess in my mind it seems to have everything to do with it.
Totally on board with that view, Frank. I agree it is all about community. With respect to individual sexual behavior, keeping in mind our modern milieu of
“keep your laws off my body” sexual individualism, it is eye-catching that Jesus and the NT writers included sexual behavior of consenting
adults of every conceivable configuration (porneia, for starters) among the community-ravaging sin lists. They seemed to view sexual behavior as well within the neighbor love concerns that drove their writing. In contrast, modern arguments for recognizing same sex intimacy seem to stand more with this individualistic ethos that sexual intimacy between consenting adults is beyond the bounds of “right/wrong” thinking (unless it concerns human trafficking, rape or other sorts of exploitation) than they stand with the concern for the community thinking of the Jewish and early Christian writings. This is why many feel that the revisionist arguments regarding rethinking traditional understanding of sexual behavior are driven by the individualistic spirit of this age.
Frank, I’m not sure its my place to make a “category” for you. I am trying to engage you around a subject of significance. You are replying to posts. You are stating your view of others views. You don’t want to be put in a box. I’m not trying to, as far as I can see. In discussions like this I see “boxes” as convenient artifices to help us generalize towards understanding. I’ve tried to listen to your view of the very complicated subject of same sex behavior. You say you have a “third way”. You lay it out. I’m not convinced. Maybe that is me; maybe that is you. I read to learn. I listen to learn. I’ve tried to listen to what you are saying and it doesn’t add up to me. Maybe that’s because I’m unhelpfully “polemical”. If it is I am surely trying to be open to seeing that. By the way, your use of “evangelicals are polemical” is polemical, too.
The anti-homosexuality stance that states that Jesus would not affirm it is not the anti-homosexuality stance that I typically take with nonbelievers to begin with, so no, I don’t choose from these two positions. My argument has always been that of “natural order”, that physical science, nature, basic biology affirms one, while the other is only affirmed by emotion and passion, and emotion and passion are no more effective at identifying ethics or morality with respect to homosexuality than they are with murder or rape.
Kenny, it seems we are engaged in what NT Wright described as the task of followers of Jesus learning “to think within the biblical narrative, to see themselves as actors
within the ongoing scriptural drama; to allow their erstwhile pagan
thought-forms to be transformed by a biblically based renewal of the
mind.” Our pagan culture, like many others before, fails to recognize the human being is not malleable, subject to our individual will. We swim in this stream, feel the pull of its current but must witness to the inbreaking kingdom that frees us to become a new creation. I love the discussion on this site because it seems to take that seriously.
When my parents wed in the Netherlands, they had a church ceremony followed by the required civil wedding at City Hall. Both ceremonies had their individual purpose. One was legal before the state. The other involved the statement of vows before God and His people and the receiving of God’s blessing on their marriage. If the state deems it necessary to allow same-sex weddings, they may pass laws to accomplish this to achieve whatever civic benefits they believe will result. The Church is to stand apart from this and solemnize weddings between one man and one woman who the Church deems appropriate to marry (they’re not already married, living in unrepentant sin, etc.). This follows well with the Constitutional prohibition of the state establishing a religion or coercing certain religious practices and absolves the Church of collusion with an act that Scripture deems abominable. Do I stand on the side that says the Church cannot possibly solemnize same-sex marriages? Yes, undoubtedly. That does not make it impossible for the state to enact laws that flout the clearly revealed will of God. The early church lived under many extreme and abominable laws and continued to speak the truths of Scripture anyway, even under pain of death. We can do likewise for the sake of the Savior who has redeemed us from our slavery to sin.
Hi Holy Roller – I actually advocate exactly what you are sharing here. My preference would be…
1. All couples do their paperwork at their respective courthouses for civil wedding license, etc.Then,
2. Couples may then request the blessing and acknowledgement of their marriage, and the honor of sharing their Christian vows in the presence of friends and family in a Christian covenant ceremony.
This enables the church to keep from being an extension of the state by virtue of ordained clergy signing government documents. If this were the standard in all churches, than any church could say “We only host and/or hold marriage events under the terms of a Christian marriage covenant. We don’t do weddings wherein we sign government documents.” This would also allow ANYONE who wanted to perform a wedding to do so, since it is no longer a legal action, but rather a covenantal and relational one. The couple would walk away with (1) a signed marriage license by a government official for legal purposes, and (2) an affirmed certificate of Christian marriage from their family of faith.