« Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 1 | Home | Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 3 »
Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 2
By Mark D. Roberts | Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Part 10 of series: The End of the Presbyterian Church USA? Revisited
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
In my last post I suggested that the gap between Presbyterians who endorse gay ordination and Presbyterians who oppose it has much to do with their views on the authority and interpretation of Scripture. Opponents tend to affirm the inspiration and authority of the whole Bible, while proponents tend to limit biblical inspiration and authority to certain transcendent passages.
Consider, for example, two New Testament passages that address homosexual behavior. Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 both speak of homosexual behavior in a way that, at least on the surface, appears to censure it. Here are the passages in the NRSV translation:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth . . . . Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 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! ¶ For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 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. ¶ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. (Rom 1:18, 24-32)
Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes [malakoi], sodomites [arsenokoitai], thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)
I don’t want to get into the exegetical issues right now, but rather to make another observation. In my experience, those who oppose gay ordination would say about these passages, “If, after careful study, they can be shown to condemn all homosexual activity, then such activity is always sinful.” Those who favor gay ordination disagree. They tend to say, “If, after careful study, Romans 1:18-32 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 can be shown to condemn all homosexual activity, then these passages are incorrect.” For example, while teaching at San Francisco Theological Seminary, a Presbyterian seminary with an extension program in Southern California, I had a brilliant Christian student who was also a lesbian. She wrote an exegesis paper on Romans 1:18-32. She concluded that this passage cannot be used to support the cause of gay ordination because it condemns all homosexual behavior. Yet she did not believe that gay ordination was wrong because, in her view, Paul was wrong in his views.
For more than thirty years, I have been involved in discussions of homosexuality and ordination. In the early years of this conversation, there was lots of debate about the meaning of biblical texts that deal with homosexual behavior. There seemed to be a common assumption among the debaters that biblical teaching, if rightly understood, should be binding on the church. But, in the last decade, as folks who oppose gay ordination have kept talking about specific biblical texts, those on the other side have mostly stopped this conversation. I haven’t heard one proponent of gay ordination say: “If it can be shown that the Bible truly regards all homosexual behavior as sinful, then I will change my mind and oppose it.” Rather, I have heard many say, in effect, “Whatever the Bible might teach about homosexuality, I am convinced that homosexuality is not always wrong. So, given this conviction, the biblical call to love and justice means that I will support gay ordination, no matter what the Bible might actually say about homosexuality.” Notice that this position is still based, to an extent, on Scripture and its authority. But the individual interpreter assumes the freedom to decide which portions of the Bible are inspired and which are not.
This view of biblical authority is relatively new in the Presbyterian church, and is certainly inconsistent with our Reformed heritage. You can’t exactly imagine John Calvin saying, “Well, the Bible shows that homosexual activity is sinful, but I think it’s just fine.” What has led so many Presbyterians to endorse a view of biblical authority and interpretation that is far removed from our theological roots?
I can think of several factors, though surely there are more. For one thing, the view that the Bible is not fully inspired, but contains culture-bound errors, is held by many if not the majority of professors in PCUSA seminaries. For decades, pastors in training have been taught this view, which they in turn have passed on to their churches.
Second, there are many portions of the Bible that are troubling for Christians, passages in the Old Testament, for example, that call for the killing of Israel’s opponents, or Old Testament laws that contradict our sense of decency. Some people have dealt with this problem by concluding that these offensive passages are simply not inspired. Once they have rejected the authority of some passages, it’s easy for them to do the same with others, passages such as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6
Tomorrow I’ll suggest two more reasons why, in my opinion, many Presbyterians have begun to think of the Bible as authoritative in parts, but not in other parts.
Topics: PCUSA: End of? |
26 Responses to “Why, If We Share the Same Bible, Do Presbyterians Differ So Widely on the Issue of Gay Ordination? Section 2”
Comments
Thanks for your willingness to make a comment. Note: I do not moderate comments before they are posted, though they are automatically screened for profanities, spam, etc., and sometimes the screening program holds comments for moderation even though they're not offensive. I encourage open dialogue and serious disagreement, and am always willing to learn from my mistakes. I will not delete comments unless they are extraordinarily rude or irrelevant to the topic at hand. You do need to login in order to make a comment, because this cuts down on spam. You are free to use a nickname if you wish. Finally, I will eventually read all comments, but I don't have the time to respond to them on a consistent basis because I've got a few other demands on my time, like my "day job," my family, sleep, etc.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:24 am
“Yet she did not believe that gay ordination was wrong because, in her view, Paul was wrong in his views.”
That is because her bigger problem is not understanding the inspiration of scripture. She thinks the originals are flawed but that she is “inspired” to know the truth.
Sure, as if God couldn’t get it right the first time and is now sending his corrections to the world. And oddly enough He is only sending them to liberal theologians, and He is doing so just after the “world” has decided that homosexual behavior is morally neutral. What coincidences!
I refer to people like her as Dalmatian Theologians - those who think the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Neil—I love the Dalmation Theologians quip.
Mark—I just want to send a note of encouragement to you because I imagine you will be getting some notes of a different sort as you continue this series. Thank you for what you have written—continue on and be bold as you follow God.
And one more thing—will you be putting the entire series together in some form that we can handout or should we just organize the posts ourselves for distribution?
July 29th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Mark,
Thanks for stating that we liberals do appreciate the Bible. But still, you make the difference here about a theology of the Bible rather than the issue at hand. The fact is that people who share your theology of the Bible disagree with you on the issue of gay ordination.
As a liberal, I need to challenge your view of my my position on the Bible. It is simply this:
Regarding gay ordination, same-sex blessings, or sexuality in general, you need to go to the right place for truth. This is the same for any issue.
If I want to learn about biological evolution, I don’t go to the Bible. I go to scientists. If I want to know more about the oil leak in my 2002 Corolla, I go to a mechanic not Ezekiel.
If you want to know about gay people, talk to gay people, not Paul. If I want to know about you, I will talk to you rather than read I Timothy to try to figure out some clue about you.
The Bible is a call to be in relationship with God and others. It is a totally human product. And it is by the Holy Spirit.
July 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
I wonder if the issue is not one of opposing viewpoints, but degree. I’ve never met a Christian who opposes the idea of women cutting their hair. I’ve never met a Christian who thinks that slavery is okay in some circumstances. It’s been a long time since I met a Christian who thought that divorced people remarrying was the equivalent of adultery. And yet all three of these are clearly taught in the New Testament.
So why, the homosexual Christian might ask, do we quibble, argue, and label them as less protective of the authority of scripture when they do the same thing that we do?
July 29th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
John, if I’m putting words in your mouth, stop me, but did you not once write that even if Jesus appeared in front of you and told you that homosexual behavior was a sin, it would make no difference in your position on the issue?
That, as far as I can tell, is exactly Mark’s point.
July 29th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
John,
Some might claim to hold the same theology of the Bible as Mark has discribed and disagree with the view he is putting forth on the ordination of homosexuals—but their claims of holding the same theology of the Bible would be false.
Claims don’t make something true and to claim a particular view of the Bible but then hold a view counter to what that view of the Bible would lead one to hold is contradictory. Thus, they claim something they do not hold.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
John,
Your argument is defines sin by what people think is and is not sin rather than what Scripture states is sin. Your argument is a diversion from understanding sin to understanding people. The source for Truth is the Bible, not conventional wisdom.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Mark:
Your division of cavalier liberals and faithful, thoughtful conservatives is just a bit too convenient. You concede in Part 1, discussing 1 Cor 11, that neither conservatives nor liberals follow the plain teaching of the text by insisting that women wear veils in church, but then suggest that only conservatives believe that the text “reflects timeless truth that is authoritative for us today, and that needs to be unpacked so we can implement it.” But on what basis do you decide that the plain meaning is no longer authoritative? I have no problem following this hermenuetic for either of the two passages you cite related to homosexuality. I am fully capable of pointing to the larger point that Paul is trying to make in these two passages and the “timeless truth” that contain, while still insisting that they do not speak to our contemporary debate about loving, monogamous same-sex couples. So, does that make me a liberal or a conservative? Or am I only being faithful if I agree with you on what those “timeless truths” should be?
To suggest that you not only do that with passages such as Romans 1, but indeed with every text in the Bible, strikes me as intellectually dishonest. Let’s take just one text, Psalm 149, which is one of the lectionary texts for September 7. It includes these words:
“149:5 Let the faithful exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their couches. 6 Let the high praises of God be in their throats and two-edged swords in their hands, 7 to execute vengeance on the nations and punishment on the peoples, 8 to bind their kings with fetters and their nobles with chains of iron, 9 to execute on them the judgment decreed. This is glory for all his faithful ones. Praise the LORD!”
Tell me exactly how we are to interpret this text to draw out its timeless truths? The idea that God calls us to carry out divine vengeance is offensive, something I believe based on the teaching of Jesus. I can speak meaningfully about what might have prompted the psalmist to make such an assertion, and note that God calls us to resist evil wherever we find it, but I’m not going to preach that God wants us to take vengeance on those we perceive to be God’s enemies. Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?
July 29th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Andy and others,
Thanks for your response. Yes, I did say that, Andy. Here is the link.
I was making a point.
If Jesus appeared to you and told you to rape your daughter, and slit her throat with a knife would you do it?
July 29th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Not all scientists believe in “evolution,” the idea that this universe, and the life it contains arose strictly from random, chance events and natural selection. Lee Strobel in “The Case for a Creator” points out that scientists have identified some 30 parameters that if they had been off by the minutest of fractions (trillionths of trillionths, etc.), the universe would not have been able to support life.
Each one of is is a unique individual, built from the information contained in some 300 billion bits of information contained in our DNA.
IF we believe that there is a God, and that God is the divine being who created the universe and the life it contains, including us, then it seems arrogant to the point of silliness to believe that the God who could do this is too impotent or ignorant to keep His word straight, and simple enough to understand.
July 29th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Mark
I wonder if part of the problem is that people hear different central narratives in the Bible. You say those who think that homosex behavior is not always wrong say, “I am convinced that homosexuality is not always wrong. So, given this conviction, the biblical call to love and justice means that I will support gay ordination, no matter what the Bible might actually say about homosexuality.”
Notice the hearing of the narrative: this suggests that those who say this hear the central narrative of the Bible to be a call to love and justice. You probably, on the other hand, hear the central narrative as creation, fall and redemption. Thus sin for you, (and for me) is a more important part of the narrative. For those who disagree with you, if the central narrative is the call to love and justice they hear the burden of the oppressed, (in this case homosexuals), as an important part, if not the most important part of the narrative. Thus they dismiss Biblical passages that sound like the are from the mouths of those in power and thus the oppressors.
You and I, on the other hand, don’t dismiss any passage that sounds to us to be a passage about sin because sin is so central to the narrative.
I would suggest that the call to love and justice is part of the core narrative but cannot be heard outside of the message of creation/fall/redemption. Love and justice are defined by the creation/fall/redemption narrative. How can one know what justice and love are without knowing that humans are fallen and tend to sin, not only with our bodies but even with the way we think about things?
So for me the real question is: what is the message of the Gospel and how is it to be applied in particular situations? I think if we can name what we hear as the core message of Scripture we might understand more of what the other says, even if we still disagree.
July 29th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Thank you Rev. Mark Roberts for your recent series on the changes in the church and the homosexuality series. As for me, I’ll stay with the Scriptures on these challenging issues. My attitudes may not be considered politically correct but after hearing the gay issue for almost 30 years, I’ll stick with trying to do good deeds. I often think of the verse They’ll call good evil, and evil good. Thank you for offering scriptures on these issues in your website. Texas is sure an easier & more pleasant subject to write or converse about! Thanks again for your thoughful and relevant topics explored on this website. Again, God Bless
Also, many persons are supportive of you and your insights. They are frightened to voice & incur an opinion-maybe relatives, the press,
July 29th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Malachi dealt with the righetous vs. justice issue.
2:17 You have wearied the Lord with your words. But you say, “How have we wearied him?” Because you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the Lord’s opinion, and he delights in them,” or “Where is the God of justice?”
It’s not difficult to understand. I know I weary of my children’s refrain “It’s not fair”!
July 29th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“If you want to know about gay people, talk to gay people, not Paul.”
That comment tips your hand that you don’t think scripture is inspired. Paul’s words are exactly what God wanted there, and he addressed homosexual behavior as being sinful.
Jesus was also quite clear that marriage was for one man and one woman.
“I was making a point.
If Jesus appeared to you and told you to rape your daughter, and slit her throat with a knife would you do it?”
That argument fails because it implies that the Bible doesn’t address homosexual behavior. Jesus won’t tell you to rape and kill your daughter, because He made the rules for sexual behavior and murder.
“IF we believe that there is a God, and that God is the divine being who created the universe and the life it contains, including us, then it seems arrogant to the point of silliness to believe that the God who could do this is too impotent or ignorant to keep His word straight, and simple enough to understand.”
Amen, Charlie!
July 29th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I haven’t heard one proponent of gay ordination say: “If it can be shown that the Bible truly regards all homosexual behavior as sinful, then I will change my mind and oppose it.” Rather, I have heard many say, in effect, “Whatever the Bible might teach about homosexuality, I am convinced that homosexuality is not always wrong
Equally
I haven’t heard many of those against gay ordination say “If it can be shown that the Bible does not regard all homosexual behavior as sinful, then I will change my mind and support it.” Rather, I have heard many say, in effect, “Whatever the Bible might teach about homosexuality, I am convinced that homosexuality is always wrong.”
at least that is what I experience in my world view. I submit there is not such a big difference between the two views.
July 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I encourage you all to click on the link john provided above in comment #9 and read the post. It will help clarify for you even further just how different the approaches to scripture and this issue really are.
The two sides (to be simplistic about this) are speaking two very different languages. How can the “sides” come together if they can’t share a common foundation or language?
One question for John or others: what happens when someone else who has had different experiences than you decides to pick and choose what is right or wrong based on their opinions? For (an extreme) example: if someone feels that genocide is acceptable despite the fact that the Bible condemns murder but since they know other murderers that they feel do and feel that it is good to rid the world of another ethnicity, is it then acceptable? Can this person tell Jesus that he is wrong as well? I’m assuming you would respond, “Of course not!” My question then is: Who/what then becomes the authority? Please don’t focus your response on this specific example but on how you would reconcile such differing opinions that exist as to what is right/wrong based on people’s varying experiences. You have made your decision on what is right in regards to this issue (even if Jesus himself disagreed) based upon your experience, but what happens when someone else’s experience tells them otherwise?
Please help to clarify this for me and others.
July 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
You have been talking about how the different sides interpret Scripture and how they look at the authority of Scripture for their life.
Isn’t there a place for the Holy Spirit to clarify truth.
When we lift up scripture we lift up the law and need for obedience, but the law points out our inability to live up to the law. The progressive side is saying they do not want to live by what Scripture says, they don’t think it is necessary or even attainable.
The law kills, but the Spirit brings life.
We forget that there is a third person of the Trinity that leads us into truth - helps us know its meaning, Transforms us to live according to God’s will - if we choose to submit to the Holy Spirit. Do you think
the real problem is that some have hardened their hearts to the work of the Holy Spirit and that is why there is division in what people chose as their view of scripture. What can we do to bring the Holy Spirit in revival to our churches?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
“For (an extreme) example: if someone feels that genocide is acceptable despite the fact that the Bible condemns murder but since they know other murderers that they feel do and feel that it is good to rid the world of another ethnicity, is it then acceptable?”
Interesting example since much of the Bible celebrates murder and genocide as the will of God.
What does become the authority? Good question. It is my question. It depends upon what you are talking about. My mechanic is a higher authority over the Bible in regards to the oil leak in my 2002 Corolla. Do you deny that? Should I go to the Bible over the mechanic in order to fix my car?
What about other issues? What does the Bible say we should do about undocumented Mexican immigrants?
What does the Bible say I should do about my savings account?
One could say the Bible isn’t silent about any of that (except for maybe the car). There are verses there that you can pull out as an authority for your viewpoint.
How do we decide? We work it out. We try to figure out the best course of action. The Bible doesn’t give us a menu for all the issues that we face, including sexuality.
It is a call, an invitation, a nudge, a command, to be in relationship with the Holy Spirit.
Likewise it is a call to see others as they really are–face to face–real people, not abstractions.
Thanks for the response.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
The language disconnect is startling and alarming to this layman.
Mark, you mentioned our seminaries; they’ve concerned me for a long time. Unfortunately, many preachers can provide no more than “Chicken Soup for the Soul” sermons. I’ve long been suspicious that such sermons are just a cover for the lazy. Now, perhaps it’s becoming clear that we may also be graduating and ordaining pastors that care little and/or know little about the Bible, theology, or much of anything beyond their own experiences.
Isn’t this the type of ignorance and hubris so many of us (including myself, at times) associate with some of our political leaders? Why in the world do we bother sending people to seminary if this is all they manage to come home with? I cannot imagine hiring an engineer, for instance, who knew little of calculus, Newton’s laws of motion, or the law of conservation of mass, and who chose to ignore them if they did not suit his wishes. If this is all our seminaries are accomplishing, I’d like to point out that it would be a lot cheaper to just do away with paid ministers and purchase the full set of “Chicken Soup for the Soul;” doing so would also alleviate concerns related to property, pensions, and all matter of pastoral scandals.
As for the denomination itself, I’m not sure of the best approach as we move forward; but it seems clear that we MUST evaluate and reform our seminaries as necessary so that this does not happen again.
July 29th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“If Jesus appeared to you and told you to rape your daughter, and slit her throat with a knife would you do it?”
The comparison is faulty. The Bible condemns rape and murder as it does homosexuality. A command not to engage is homosexuality cannot be equated with a command to engage in rape and murder.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 am
When Jesus interpreted the law he always made it harder. He said, “You have heard it said, “do not murder.” I say, “don’t call anyone a fool.” You have heard it said, “don’t commit adultery.” I say,”if you look on a woman/man with lust you have committed adultery in your heart.” etc. I can’t imagine if he HAD addressed the issue of homosexual practice that he would have said, “You have heard it said, “do not lie with a man as with a woman.” But I say to you,” Be patient. It’ll be ok 2,008 years from now when the Presbyterians get the vote right.” There was no better opportunity to set the record straight on previous misunderstandings than in Jesus. If Jesus really condoned or affirmed homosexual activity (or usury or gluttony or thievery etc.) and didn’t set the record straight and force his followers to struggle for 2008 years under the misconception that he really does condone and affirm it, I find that incredibly cruel. Time and again Jesus reached out to the outcasts, Prostitutes, tax collectors, Pharisees,the woman caught in adultery, one out of two thieves on the cross, the woman at the well in Samaria…but those who were touched by him changed. zacchaeus repented and paid back those he defrauded and then some. One out of 2 thieves on the cross asked to be remembered when Jesus entered his kingdom. The woman caught in adultery was instructed to go and not get caught in that sin anymore. We aren’t told if the woman at the well in Samaria married the sixth man she was with, but she certainly became an evangelist to her whole town. I find it hard to imagine a person committing to follow Jesus and leaving unchanged.
July 30th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Dr. Roberts, I attended the seminary to which you refer, and I regret not have you as a professor!
Now, I know what I am about to relate here is purely anecdotal; but as a student at this PCUSA seminary, I had regular disagreements with many of my instructors. Class time often became extended debate time in front of my fellow students. In these classes I had professors categorically deny the legitimacy of Old Testament miracles, deny the doctrine of eternal punishment, deny the value of the ancient creeds while preferring the recently written ones. Except for Calvin’s Institutes, every textbook assigned advocated “the latest” theological trend — speculations regarding the Bible’s origin and intent (Just guess how many ‘Isaiah’s’ there are now and Paul couldn’t have written THAT many letters…) I was even ridiculed in class for being a Republican! I’m grateful for my time there! It was a “double education.”
Regularly, I would be approached by students who were foreign born; those not confident with the English language. They would tell me, “Thank you so much for speaking up for what I believe! I would like to speak up too but I don’t speak English like you do.”
Let me also report that while I was there, I also had instructors who encouraged me greatly in the faith. I now serve as a minister in a Presbyterian church today.
All this to say: “What’s going on in these seminaries?” Have you read The SFTS Magazine? Have you read what kind of books these professors are writing? Have you read the titles of doctoral dissertations issued? I’m sorry friends! There is more being written about social engineering than about theological reflection.
What has happened in your seminaries is what is happening your denomination. Your expanding book of confessions has opened the door to more “truths” and more factionalism. Your desire for unity with diversity has created a monopoly of bureaucracy.
Fighting for peace,
July 30th, 2008 at 3:42 am
“having”
Goodness!
August 8th, 2008 at 10:13 am
[…] Roberts writes a multi-part series on the current controversy in the Presbyterian Church regarding […]
February 18th, 2010 at 9:29 am
Thank you, Mark, for your articles. It is obvious that those who disagree with what you say allow experience to trump Scripture. How sad! I am so grateful for your witness. Yes, the Scriptures are crystal clear: homosexuality is sin, an abomination, and not natural. It not only goes against the order of creation but a number of Scriptural references. Humans can interpret its words in whichever ways they desire, but IT IS WHAT IT IS. “The grass withers and the flower fades, but the Word of the Lord endures forever!” (no matter what people say)
June 6th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
The problem with this discussion is inherently it assumes that god was willing to adjust his philosophy to the present political view. Heterophobic rights is a political movement at best and an abomination of all who have worked for the betterment of humans at worst. Might as well ask why heroin addicts are not celebrated and ordained. There are lots of sinners, just because Harvard says some people are not longer sinners does not make them good stewards nor good examples that we want to aspire to. Are we perfect- no. Should we strive to improve and reach the ultimate-yes. Funny how most religiions, like Buddhism, discourage sexual activity of nay sort, and the liberals want sexuality at all costs accepted.