God’s help (Pastors’ conversation on Bible and same-sex)
2016-06-07

Some would say what happened last week was mere coincidence. But to me, God was acting.

I was scheduled to give a crucial presentation on Wednesday. As Monday began, I had a lot of preparation to do. But I was sick, using more tissues for my nose than perhaps any day in my life! Tuesday, my cough deepened and I added a couple-degree fever.

This presentation was part of a series of conversations by eight area Mennonite pastors who are meeting to discuss Bible passages bearing on same-sex partnerships. This is a great group: all are good-hearted and, remarkably, all of us have an inner peace that makes it as easy for us to be silent as to speak; and we cover the spectrum on the issue. We plan to meet maybe 12 times between April and October. I believe we will come to understand each other. Will we also come to disagree less?!

I was to talk for 20 minutes on a Scripture text which the church has historically interpreted as showing that all same-sex intimacy is sin. I wanted to clearly present why I believe that that understanding of the text is strong: that it’s 1) a natural, straightforward reading and 2) part of a main theme of Scripture rather than an isolated text. My goal was not to trumpet my view but to test it. Would this group help me see that I’m wrong? Or would it become clear that progressives have not fully grappled with the passage?

But what if I was too sick to fully prepare? Or even go to the meeting? On Monday and Tuesday I kept doing bits of preparation as I could, without anxiety or panic, due to my sense that God wanted me to do the presentation and due to a confidence that God’s strength can be shown in our weakness (2. Cor. 12:9-10).

Somehow I woke up Wednesday still weak but no longer sick. And my preparation seemed enough. The presentation had a lot of power. As the group discussed it afterward, no one seemed to attempt a counter-argument. A moderate in our group, whose voice carries a lot of weight, noted the strength of the traditional understanding of the passage.

Was it mere chance that I was strong enough to make that presentation? Well, I have seen a pattern over the years as I write and relate on this issue. I can tell other anecdotes far more dramatic, stories of “coincidences” too amazing to be merely accidental. It genuinely seems that God is rooting for these conversations on sexuality, helping arrange them, encouraging them.

---

Ambiguous “No’s” (Pastors’ conversation on Bible and same-sex)
2016-06-27

Words are often unclear. Take this instance.

A girl asked a guy if he thought she was pretty. He paused and said “No.” She asked him if he would want to be with her forever. He said “No.” She then asked him if she were to leave would he cry. Again he replied “No.”

She had heard enough. As she walked away, tears streaming down her face, the boy grabbed her arm and said, “You’re not ‘pretty’, you’re beautiful. I don’t ‘want’ to be with you forever—I need to be with you forever. And I wouldn’t ‘cry’ if you walked away, I’d die.”

Awww! We romantics are glad she finally learned what he meant!

What do we do when persons tell us that we are misunderstanding what God means by the “No’s” to same-sex intimacy in the Bible? These are persons I respect—ones who love Scripture and love God and neighbor sacrificially—so I talk with them and read what they write. Do they see something I’m not seeing? Can they show that God would allow us conservatives to change on same-sex marriage? That would make life simpler—it’s always easier to move with society around us!

These good-hearted brothers and sisters give two basic lines of argument.

First, they say that Bible scholars are not totally sure what some words mean in the passages which refer to same-sex intimacy as sin. Those words, they say, may refer only to sex that is exploitive or excessive, meaning that the Bible is only condemning such forms of same-sex behavior, not loving, committed forms.

I respond to this line of argument by pointing out that ambiguity by itself is not decisive. Almost all words have ambiguity—as the young woman in our story learned. (Anyone clever and motivated can come up with alternate readings for almost any statement, especially one from an ancient text.) Yet we don’t let that stop us. When we care about someone and what they have to say, we don’t ignore their words just because there is uncertainty about their meaning. Rather, we mull over those words until we have a sense of what the person was probably trying to say. When I weigh the various possible meanings of Rom. 1:26-27 and 1 Cor. 6:9-11, I see a very strong (80%?) probability that the church’s historic understanding of those passages is the most natural and straight-forward understanding. As I mentioned in my previous blog, eight of us area Mennonite pastors are meeting to discuss Bible passages bearing on same-sex partnerships over the next months. This series of conversations will be a place to test whether those texts are as clear as I think they are. Is there indeed strong probability that they refer to same-sex eroticism in general, including loving, committed same-sex relationships? Stay tuned.

Second, these brothers and sisters tell us to note other things God says. The young woman in our opening story was 80% sure (or more!) that the young man didn’t love her—three apparently-decisive “No’s” were enough. But then additional words by the young man revealed that her understanding, no matter how strong, was wrong. Perhaps there are additional passages which show us that the “No’s” on same-sex intimacy are not the Bible’s last word. So our pastors group is also looking at passages like Isaiah 56, Matt. 19:1-30, Acts 15, Gal. 3:23-29, and Rom. 14-15. Stay tuned.

---

Like an urban legend (Pastors’ conversation on Bible and same-sex)
2016-07-12

Did you hear that atheists are still petitioning the FCC to ban religious broadcasting? And that Facebook now owns the copyright to any media posted on their site? Hopefully you didn’t! Each of those seeming news items are only “urban legends”—rumors that keep circulating even though they are false. I repeat: those opening lines are false!

Why do such stories (and many, many others) continue getting told and retold? Simply because they say what people already tend to think is true. They confirm what persons want to believe, so they repeat them.

I realized the other week that this concept of urban legend might help explain a new understanding that has rapidly spread through the church: “When the Bible speaks against same-sex sex, it’s not talking about loving, committed same-sex relationships.” Persons are believing and repeating that narrative because they want it to be true, not because it is.

Here’s an instance. Paul has a list of sins in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, including two references to same-sex behavior. In recent years many persons have said that Paul is only referring to forms which are abusive and violent, not to loving, committed unions. Last year Matthew Vines summarized this view for The New York Times:

The predominant forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were sex between masters and slaves, sex between adult men and adolescent boys, and prostitution. In all those cases, men used sex to express power, dominance and lustfulness, not self-giving love and mutuality. Committed same-sex unions between social equals represent very different values than the types of same-sex behavior Paul would have had in view in 1 Corinthians 6.

When our pastors conversation group discussed this text, my impression was that most of us found the traditional interpretation (that Paul had in view all forms of same-sex intimacy) as the straightforward and natural one:

• One word in Paul’s list in 1 Cor. 6 is “male-bedders” (arsenokoitai), a word so rare in the Greek world that Paul probably coined it. Its rarity makes it likely that it refers to all forms of male-male sex. Why? Because the word had no chance, through use, to develop a meaning other than the general idea which “male-bedders” suggests: males choosing same-sex sex.

• Another word in the list is “soft ones” (malakoi), a common word in Greek for the passive partners in male sex. If Paul was only thinking of abusive same-sex relations, why list these partners, the ones being exploited, being sinned against? Including these persons in his list of sins makes it likely that Paul was thinking of something consensual, chosen by both partners. (Consensual forms were known in the Greco-Roman world as well as the more common, abusive forms.)

Vine and others have many things they can say for the view they hold. However, it’s my impression that their view never rises above about a 20% probability of being right (which is very weak, even as a vote by that percentage is weak). In contrast, the traditional view that 1 Cor. 6 refers to all forms of same-sex sex, even loving, committed relations can be shown to carry much weight of certainty.

So what Vines is saying is like an urban legend. And I do understand why he would want to believe it and repeat it: he highly values the Bible, and also he is highly certain of the rightness of same-sex unions; so of course the Bible would leave space for those unions. But it’s not true; he only wants it to be true.

---

The main argument (Pastors’ conversation on Bible and same-sex)
2016-09-27

The farm on which I grew up had a “pole barn”—a building resting on poles stuck into the ground. For about fifteen years during our denomination’s conversation on homosexuality, I was trying to identify the foundation “poles” for those who want our church to fully include those in same-sex marriages. What arguments do they build on? What is the reasoning that this group views as the most solid and secure?

The last three years I have plainly seen their foundation many times. It is primarily one “pole.” My most recent sighting was in the conversation on the Bible and same-sex which eight of us area Mennonite pastors are having. We’ve discussed eleven passages with two more to go and then some wrap-up sessions.

A key moment came in the session when we looked at Romans 1:18-32, a passage specifically referring to same-sex relations. We had just heard a presentation that listed common interpretations of the passage and showed that the historic understanding of the passage is the one with the most textual support. In other words, we had just seen that the strongest, most natural reading—the one most plausibly intended by Paul—is the view that all same-sex intimacy is sin. Then just a moment later the progressive pastors were sharing heartfelt feelings that the church needs to fully bless and affirm persons in same-sex marriage.

Some of us expressed confusion: doesn’t it matter if the Bible views same-sex intimacy as sin?

During our next session a progressive pastor explained:

When the church names all homosexual behavior as sinful, we witness trauma, pain, division, and death as a result; in contrast, when persons accept same-sex desires as part of God’s good gift to them, we see it being liberating and life-giving; and surely the Spirit of God leads us toward resurrection rather than death.

In other words, the pastor was saying that our experience shows us the right interpretation of Romans; the right one is not the one that is the most plausible and natural reading of the text but the one that has Paul saying what we, from our observation (hopefully led by the Spirit), think he should say.

As I said, I have seen this many times. When progressives are faced with the prospect that their interpretations have weak textual support, they retreat to arguments from experience. That is their main “pole.” Their stance finally rests, not on Scripture, but on their sense of what seems best.

But this is a tenuous foundation! So often when we “observe” something, our pre-existing ideas and assumptions affect what we observe. We see what we want to see. Also, the full impact of some choices can only be seen from the vantage point of multiple generations.

This foundation is also an unorthodox one. It elevates experience over Scripture as our authority for faith and life. It assumes that the Spirit might lead us to overturn a main theme or trajectory of Scripture. None of our confessions of faith teach that. If our conference or denomination would change its teaching position on same-sex marriage based on an argument from experience, surely many congregations would feel the need to find a new church home. It deeply grieves me to even think of this.

A further refinement I added later:
One using a “trauma hermeneutic” could still be orthodox, still be trusting the Bible; there is a proper role for experience in helping us interpret the Bible. Using the trauma lens could be a matter of trying to bring to the text what we already know from other sources of discernment and then looking for a possible interpretation that fits what we have learned from those sources. In other words, the right interpretation may not be the one that is the most plausible and natural reading of the text. It rather may be the one that has Paul saying what we, from our other sources of discernment, are sure he would say. Even if a reading is weak exegetically, if it is a possible reading, and if our “good sense” shows it is probably true, we should still choose it.

Those who are theologically-conservative use this “good sense” hermeneutic, looking for an interpretation that fits what they have learned from other sources of discernment. For instance, 1 Chron. 22:14 says that David, to prepare to build the temple, amassed 3,400 metric tons (“100,000 talents”) of gold. That is 70% of the gold stored in Fort Knox! Even staunchly conservative commentators read this description as some of the “monumental hyperbole” typical of ancient Near East rhetoric. In other words, even those with a high trust in the Bible will not insist on the most natural reading of “100,000 talents” here if

1) “other sources of discernment” give strong and clear indication that there must be an alternate meaning—and, in this case, they strongly and clearly do;

and 2) we can see reasons for why that alternate interpretation can possibly be how the author intended the text to be taken—and, in this case, it fits into the pattern of ancient Near East rhetoric: persons in that culture expected narrators to use hyperbole in describing a king’s wealth, military victories, etc. (These historical-critical reasons for the alternate interpretation are important to theological conservatives: without these reasons, the church must say that the Bible erred in what it said to its original audience, that it led that audience astray.)

Similarly, it might be appropriate for us to reject the most natural reading of Rom. 1 (that all forms of same-sex intimacy are sin) and choose an alternative reading (that destructive forms of same-sex sex are sin) if

1) other sources of discernment assure us that it must mean something else,

and 2) we can see historical-critical reasons for why an alternate reading can be a possible one.

My response: Yes, it could be appropriate to reject the most natural reading of Rom. 1. But here is why I think that that case has not yet been made:

1) those other sources of discernment are not strong, for there are alternate ways to view the perceived trauma (e.g., not all pain is harm);

2) the historical-critical reasons for the alternate interpretation are minimal, almost nonexistent; in fact, I think we can say that the alternative reading is not a possible one but rather violates a historical reality (first century Jews stood against all same-sex intimacy) and opposes a pattern seen throughout the NT and in Jesus (the movement is toward deeper sexual purity, tightening rather than loosening).

---

Conversation wrap-up (Pastors’ conversation on Bible and same-sex)
2016-12-13

A group of eight Mennonite pastors in the Harrisonburg VA area met from April to November for a series of conversations on the Bible and same-sex intimacy. For our final session on Nov 22, we each shared two things: 1) what we feel is important to tell our congregation about our time together, and 2) what reflections we would offer in a broader church setting. Below is a form of what I shared.

To my congregation (Trissels):

Even though our group of pastors represented the full spectrum of beliefs on the issue, showing strong disagreement at times, we clearly loved, enjoyed, and respected each other. All of us were quick to listen and slow to speak. All of us are deeply committed to follow Jesus. All of us love the church. There was also a passionate love for Scripture across the spectrum, though I felt that some of us did not squarely face the exegetical question that is at the heart of the issue (more below).

I poured much time and energy into our sessions because there is a possibility that our conference will join some of its sister conferences in changing its policy on same-sex relationships, abandoning the historic Christian stance. My concern is not because same-sex marriage (two persons committing to love each other!) is so bad. My concern is rather: does our church trust Scripture? or trust our own discernment of what is best? I feel that we cannot change on same-sex relationships without also changing our stance on Scripture (i.e., no longer honoring and submitting to all the Spirit’s movement in the Bible, specifically the theme of ever-deepening moral obedience). So I invested much in this conversation, thinking I could help prevent this shift and thereby spare us as a congregation from the trauma of needing to work through how to respond if our conference would change.

Our series of conversations definitely helped us understand each other more. But I don’t believe my input had much effect on anyone’s position. So I pray that God will raise up others who will help our conference remain true to Scripture (or else help us as a congregation see how our conference can change its stance on same-sex relationships and still be honoring and obeying Scripture).

To the broader church:

Why would eight pastors meet all those times to discuss the Bible and same-sex relationships?

A main reason: We are welcoming same-sex couples into our congregations. May this increase. We should welcome these couples in grace and with pastoral care. But when we call them to walk with us “on the way,” following Jesus, which way are we calling them? There are opposing answers.

Thankfully we have help in Scripture, our “fully reliable and trustworthy standard” for life (Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective).

Here is what Scripture says, things that we in our conference (Virginia Mennonite Conference) agree on:

- We agree that Gen 1-2 presents male-female unions as divinely designed.

- We agree that same-sex relations are mentioned in a list of sins in Rom 1 and a list in 1 Cor 6.

Conservatives go on to say that the strongest, most natural reading is that Paul is referring to all same-sex relationships known in the Greco-Roman world, including those that enjoyed a marriage-like commitment (such as we see today); a moderate in our group spoke of the strength of the traditional understanding of 1 Cor 6 (see the presentation to our group at interactingwithjesus.org/1cor6).

Progressives in our group spoke as if these lists do not apply to today’s same-sex relationships, though no textual reasons were given to support that interpretation. A moderate suggested that maybe progressives use a new hermeneutic here.

- We would agree that Scripture never affirms same-sex intimacy. There are no biblical passages saying that same-sex intimacy is good in God’s eyes. At most, texts can make room for the possibility that such intimacy is good.

That one variation—how Conservatives and Progressives read Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6—makes all the difference. Our stance on same-sex relationships depends on how we read those texts:

- Yes, a major biblical theme is welcome and hospitality, and a church that fully includes persons in same-sex marriages is following that biblical theme. However, if Paul had all same-sex relationships in view when he wrote Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6, then the church will not bless same-sex marriages or credential the pastoral gifts of persons in such marriages. We are not to welcome the marginalized (like the eunuchs - Isaiah 56, Matt. 19:1-30) in a way that blesses what Scripture calls sin.

- Yes, Paul said that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal. 3:23-29). But if he views same-sex intimacy as sinful his statement about “neither male nor female” would not be saying that male-male, female-female, male-female marriages are all equivalent.

- Yes, the Holy Spirit is active in the lives of LGBT individuals (like the Spirit in Gentiles like Cornelius - Acts 15). But does that presence show affirmation of same-sex intimacy? Or does it show grace? It cannot be affirmation if Scripture calls such intimacy sin. But it can be grace, just as the Spirit on the centurion Cornelius was grace.

- Yes, the church is to show tolerance when brothers and sisters have differing consciences regarding “disputable matters” (Rom. 14-15). But something is not “disputable” because a lot of people question it but because Scripture is not clear on it.

In other words, though there are biblical arguments raising the possibility for change in our stance on same-sex marriage (Isaiah 56, Matt. 19:1-30, Acts 15, Gal. 3:23-29, and Rom. 14-15), none of them work if the texts which specifically address same-sex relations say that all such relations are sin. It always comes back to what those texts say. We as a conference have not yet done study showing how they are not clear. (Nor have other conferences in our denomination, Mennonite Church USA. For instance, Central District Conference’s lengthy statement, Human Sexuality: A Biblical Perspective, omits any discussion of Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6.)

Our goal should be that we see each other respecting and valuing the biblical text, squarely facing the texts that might prohibit same-sex marriage. Honoring Scripture is an essential. Even if our conference is a centered-set (focusing on a common center) rather than a bounded-set (drawing boundary lines to show who is in and who is out), surely part of that center is trust in Scripture. If we decide to accept same-sex marriage without doing this Bible study, it will be evident that we are not honoring and trusting Scripture. And how can we be confident that we are giving the “fully reliable and trustworthy” message to the sexual minorities in our midst?

I believe God is using this issue for the church’s good. It is forcing us to sort through the role of Scripture. Do we trust it enough, give it enough authority? It is “enough” when we are willing to let our discernment “be tested and corrected” by its light (Confession of Faith in a Mennonite Perspective). May our faith and life ultimately rest on Scripture, not on what seems best to us.

The group’s response:

The main response was a pastor cautioning me that just sitting down and studying Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 with progressives won’t resolve the disagreement. I was told that I would not be able to discern whether the progressives are truly honoring those Scriptures until I live with them and walk with them in their daily lives.

This might be that “new hermeneutic” mentioned earlier. But as I told the group, it leaves me puzzled. It’s true that our life experiences affect what we see in the text. But once progressives see something new in the text, if it’s really there won’t they be able to set forth some historical-grammatical evidence for that reading? It’s true that a close relationship helps us hear and understand another. But, though difficult, surely many constructive conversations about the meaning and application of a text have taken place between two persons who don’t live and walk with each other in their daily lives.

I can think of only one reason for why I would not be able to feel any weight in another’s interpretation of a text until I spend time with them. That reason would be that a text’s meaning is that which is most plausible and natural to the readers in their context (rather than the meaning which would have been most plausible and natural for the biblical author in their context). Yet I don’t think our group members would say that. I think all would say that historical-grammatical interpretation (that tries to help us understand what the original author intended to convey to his readers) is necessary. So, as I said, I’m puzzled. If progressives are being thorough in their historical-grammatical work on Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6, isn’t it possible for them to set forth that work in writing or in conversation? Surely they can at least begin to set it forth. Progressives wouldn’t have to get conservatives to agree on how to interpret those texts. They just need to show why their interpretations of Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6 have weight (e.g, have 40% probability of being right).

---