The Courage to Hold and Speak Our Convictions

Yesterday, I pondered spiritual boldness and the need for Christians to pray for it in an increasingly pluralistic society. From a cultural point of view, uttering certain viewpoints is risky and costly, leading some Christ-followers to be circumspect if not silent about their faith. I found out yesterday that one of my former students, applying for a ministry internship, was challenged by the interviewer for having me as one of her references, “because [I am] against gay ordination.” The student, taken aback by that attitude in what was supposed to be an ecumenical environment, stood up for me. [For the record, they never called me, but they probably googled my name out of curiosity. Great way to “check references,” when it becomes an evaluation of the reference rather than the applicant!] Upon hearing about this uncomfortable interchange, I was sad that my views and actions would penalize her—obviously, a completely unintended consequence. But it would explain why some, with less mettle than my friend, would distance themselves from me if they felt their livelihood threatened.

There is growing concern that teaching a biblical view of sexuality may some time soon be considered “hate speech,” if it includes an injunction against homosexual practice. It doesn’t matter to those of an opposing view whether the speaker is of good character or gracious manner. If she holds the now politically-incorrect view that homosexually committed persons must repent before being ordained to the ministry, she is believed to be a bigot, or worse, a hater, and must be isolated out of fellowship among “rational” and open-minded people.

In any other generation, the constitutional guarantee of free speech and exercise of religion alone should protect a Bible teacher; but alas, now if someone feels hurt by what a teacher says, regardless of the intent or the content of speech, those feelings “prove” a wrongdoing.  We are entering a period of serious threat to reasonable discourse, historic constitutional interpretation, and even academic freedom. Some of my Presbyterian colleagues have felt this much more acutely than I have, and I empathize. This is no figment of the imagination.

And even in the PC(USA) I am hearing of more clergy who feel they cannot teach from the Bible on certain subjects, for fear that viewpoint would divide their congregations. There is great timidity out there, based on the desire to keep church members “in the boat” and not lose them. What I hear, however, is that members are leaving congregations for at least two conflicting reasons: the belief that the pastor is too conservative or perhaps not liberal enough. The fact is, because the issue itself exists and cannot be navigated in an emotionally healthy way, church membership is dwindling. Pastors cannot win for losing, so to speak. The challenge to a biblical and confessional belief about marriage and sexuality is slowly (though more quickly now) eroding the heart and soul of the church. Is that really what homosexualists want—to destroy the church?

If it isn’t their church members calling pastors to task, it is higher-ups who pressure conformity to the new standard (which is no standard at all, as I have previously written). What was generally touted as the removal of a restrictive standard has now morphed into a new “standard” forbidding consideration of a pre-established biblical standard of sexuality when evaluating candidates. Whatever happened to “the Scriptures, our only rule of faith and practice”?

So where does boldness come in? What is a person of conviction to do in a world and a denomination growing more hostile to a biblical point of view on sexuality? Careful consideration must be given to consequences, if only to prepare for them. But negative consequences did not deter the apostles from boldly proclaiming Jesus Christ and the transforming gospel. Peter and John, as mentioned yesterday, were strongly exhorted to never teach in the name of Jesus again (Acts 4:18). Paul, previously a persecutor of the church, was challenged constantly for proclaiming Jesus Christ, working miracles, and casting out demons (cf. Acts 16:16-19). And of course, we are inspired by the Savior himself. He knew what his job was—the atonement of humanity’s sin and the ushering in the Kingdom of God—and nothing deterred his progress toward that end. It meant momentary alienation from his family (Matthew 12:46-50 & parallels), the betrayal of friends (John 18), and ultimately his own death.

What about us? As the writer of Hebrews observed, “Consider him who endured such hostility against himself from sinners, so that you may not grow weary or lose heart. In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood” (Hebrews 12:3-4). What a convicting word! If our goal, navigating the waters of pastoral leadership, is not to suffer, we are missing the opportunity to develop under Christ’s discipline. If we are acting (or not acting) out of fear, we are to remember Paul’s exhortation:

“God did not give us a spirit of cowardice, but rather a spirit of power and of love and of self-discipline” (2 Tim. 1:7) The Christian faith is not a security blanket keeping us cozy in the safe confines of our homes and churches. The Christian faith, held with courage and conviction, puts us in danger or at least into trouble, where we can do the most good.

Worship As Pastoral Care

The presentation at a recent Covenant Network gathering by Plains and Peaks EP Dan Saperstein on “Marriage Equality in the PCUSA” is an articulate and careful assessment of political realities within our denomination. Dan is what I would call a moderate liberal, although in this talk he embraced all the progressive watchwords, concepts, and assumptions familiar to those who have debated sexuality issues for years. He represented well the dilemmas we have faced; and while I disagree with his conclusions, I think his characterization of conservatives in his speech was fair and balanced.

So this post today should not be read as a slam of a colleague I respect, but an engagement with an idea he is proposing. I think he offered his idea in that spirit, albeit among Covenant Network followers, not necessarily for conservatives’ consumption. But consider this post to be conservative/evangelical “feedback” on his suggestion of “how to create space to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in PCUSA churches.”

After a good summary of the issues and polity dynamics of the last twenty years, Dan suggests that openly redefining marriage within the Directory for Worship (DFW) would be ill-advised and inflammatory. He is certainly right about the effects of such an attempt, and I can promise strong opposition to whomever else is contemplating a same-sex marriage overture. But with an eye to the ultimate goal of so-called marriage equality, he suggests another approach based on a concept he feels is not particularly controversial in the church. This is “the historic right given to pastors to exercise discretion in the conduct of pastoral care.”

First, I would like to unpack this claim, and then examine how he extends the concept to include “discretion regarding the conduct of worship as pastoral care.”

Discretion in the Conduct of Pastoral Care. Pastors are given wide latitude in decision-making about pastoral care, I think because the belief is that one’s education, pastoral preparation, and accumulated wisdom through a candidating process adequately prepares one for pastoral discernment. Confidentiality in the conduct of pastoral care is a legitimate necessity. Situations already in process come to a pastor’s attention at midpoint, and sound guidance is needed to work through the messes of real life. We have all been there. We do the best we can, under the inspiration and with the power of the Holy Spirit. We are called to lead people to Christ, to the throne of grace and truth, for proper diagnosis, prescription, and healing action. We might give excellent counsel, but it falls on deaf ears. We might give lousy counsel, and a person surprises us with a much better response to a difficult situation. What pastors are called to do, though, is to represent the will of God, the compassion of our Savior, and the prophetic courage of Nathan as we come alongside those who see us as their shepherd.

Worship As Pastoral Care? What happens in private stays private as long as the counseled one requires privacy. But what happens in worship is by its very nature a public act, subject to the ordering of God’s Word enacted by Christ’s Body. A pastor in the Reformed tradition does not have full discretion as to the conduct of worship. The limitations are not only imposed by a session (e.g. regarding the conduct of sacraments, choice of hymnal) but also by the Directory for Worship, which outlines the essential elements of every service for the Lord’s Day and gives guidance for other occasional services. This guidance can be quite specific. For instance, the DFW strongly discourages an open casket or Masonic ritual during a memorial service held at the church, because we understand that this is a worship service celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ (DFW, W-4.10005).

Further, it is important to note the definition of worship and question whether it is proper to designate worship as pastoral care. Worship firstly is the corporate expression of praise, gratitude, and submission to God Almighty (DFW, W-1.1001). Worship is worship, directed to God. But as people join together to worship God, their corporate voice to God ministers consolation to the souls of those worshiping together. But it ceases to be worship if the events of the service turn away from God’s revealed will, promote disobedience, wallow in hopelessness, or otherwise focus on something other than the One and Only. [Do not misunderstand me here. This is not strictly a liberal vs. conservative issue; I’ve witnessed “evangelical” services that were not really about God at all. And memorial services can become simply idolatrous, on that scorecard.]

The issue at hand is this: with this proposed constitutional amendment, does pastoral discretion include the freedom to marry a same sex couple, so long as the worship service is necessary for “pastoral care”? Dan Saperstein believes that it does. But I think Dan is in error to believe that the worship of God can affirm and give permanence to a relationship God cannot bless. Yes, we have come to different conclusions about what the Scriptures teach on this matter. But I respectfully submit that the tie-breaker here is not what our society says is now okay. We must hold fast to the male-female prerequisite for marriage, which is never questioned in Scripture.

In the meantime, let us not get confused about what worship is and what pastoral care is. Invoking worship as a means of blessing something specifically proscribed in the Bible is nothing short of blasphemy, attributing to God what is not of God. God has abundant grace and power to transform the lives of repentant people; God has a deep love for all and welcomes them all into worship. But worship is a cleansing experience for all of us, as we bring everything to God’s throne and submit all of life to God’s refinement, reformation, and yes, extreme makeover. That may mean that one must give up expectations for a particular form of “pastoral care” and another must give up “tickling peoples’ ears” (as in 2 Timothy 4:30).

 

Is “The Right to Marry” the Real Question?

Thesis promoted by the President of the United States: Same-sex couples should enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples, and therefore, should be given the constitutional right to marry.

What follows sounds like boiler-plate language shared with Presbyterians who have engaged in this debate for several years. The president himself said, in his 2nd Inaugural Address of all occasions, that everyone should have the right to marry the person they love. This argument, if it can be called that, is as wrong for the American people as it is for Presbyterians who believe the Scripture is the only rule of faith and practice.

This argument is insufficient and inaccurate on its face, as there are legal limitations of marriage, most especially of age (age of consent laws) and number of spouses (only one). However, it the president’s argument gets traction in today’s open-minded world, the door opens to marriage of children and polyamory (a more general term than bigamy, which refers specifically to a man with more than one wife).

“The right to marry” is given to all citizens. Though it is not explicitly stated as such in the U. S. Constitution, it is a derivative of the basic right Americans have to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every citizen has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This right reflects the societal norm that has been in place for millennia. It was the operating assumption of American founders. Since the writing of the Constitution, applications have been rendered regarding marriage between people of different races or social classes and of “marriageable age” and parental consent.

The president in his press conference today stated that those in favor of California’s Proposition 8, now before the U. S. Supreme Court, deny marriage to same-sex couples simply because they are same-sex couples. The president is right in his observation, but it is a formidable truth he dismisses rather easily. It is a matter of definition that goes back to the very nature of persons as male and female; to the very sexual functioning for which we were, in part, created; to the necessary conditions for the conception and birthing of children; and, therefore, for the perpetuation of the human race. Heterosexual marriage supports all these natural requirements; homosexual unions by definition cannot. Yes, the president is correct in his observation.

The president is also wrong in his inference. In a culturally relativistic environment, which he is now illustrating perfectly, who is to say that same-sex marriage is inadmissible? By the same token, who is to say that it is admissible? Is it only up to what an individual person wants? To what an individual person defines? To what a specific couple justifies to the world? To personal conscience, even though it be warped and misinformed? The president is getting very dogmatic on the point that there is to be no dogmatism regarding marriage. He faces the ultimate conundrum of the cultural relativist. “Anything goes” until you violate my particular justice issue, and then it is important enough that I must impose my view upon you as a new dogmatic order.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims understand that God created human beings “in order.” That means God—above and beyond the cultural whims of various generations and beyond the pursuits of individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness—drew some boundaries around acceptable behavior by designing human beings to complement each other sexually. As onerous as this sounds to the cultural relativist, the authority for Proposition 8 comes from divine design and instruction. I have made those scriptural cases on this blog many times.

What is being proposed is not the remedial granting of a previously denied but constitutionally guaranteed right, it is the extension of a new right to a particular class of people (the president’s term), and therefore an entirely new thing. It is not “the right to marry” that is granted to people who previously had that right. It is “the redefinition of marriage” to satisfy a specific class of people. When the definition of marriage revolves around “living in sexual intimacy with whomever you choose,” the very nature of marriage itself will be taken out of societal definition for the good of the human race and into the realm of mere personal preference. And we all know, from reading the newspaper, those preferences without boundaries will take us to places we do not want to go.

 

Do Evangelicals Have a Voice in the PC(USA)?

I have lost my singing/speaking voice only once in my life. I had just completed a Palm Sunday performance of the Brahms Requiem, in which I was the soprano soloist. Some time during the reception to follow, my voice suddenly closed down. And so it remained for a full six days. I was advised to drink a lot of water, rest as much as a church worker can during Holy Week, and stop trying to talk. My greatest anxiety came with the awareness that I was scheduled to lead the musical worship at a large Easter sunrise service the following Sunday. I went to bed Saturday night unable to sustain a tone, but in faith I set my alarm for 4 a.m.—the service began at 5:30—not knowing what else to do, frankly. I got up, took a hot, steamy shower, and started to warm up vocally. It was all there, well-rested and ready to go, and a very grateful musician drove into the foggy morning eager to sing God’s praises and celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Scary? You bet! A faith-stretcher? Unmistakably! Putting God to the test? I don’t think so; more likely God was putting me to the test.

In the last several years, there has been a lot of talk in the PC(USA) about “voices at the table.” People and groups have complained that their voices have been silenced. Others have felt their voices have been drowned out. I would go so far as to say, in some church environments, that the voice of God has been taken off the air, which should be the most concerning thing of all. A high value has been placed on giving voice to the voiceless, as a matter of justice. The voice of a small minority is given equal time to that of the majority as though it has equal value, truth, or reasonableness. In Christian circles, this extends to the implicit belief that all opinions are biblical and faithful and must be included in our consultation with each other. The unintended consequence of the equal time rule, paralleled in 21st century journalism, is the perception that the house is far more equally divided than it might actually be. This offers the minority the advantage of more air time; we all know, the more times we hear an assertion, the more likely we are to believe it to be true. The church has undergone a major shift in its thinking and practice, precisely because a very vocal minority convinced the majority that theirs in the prevailing and right view.

Unfortunately now, in the PC(USA), the minority view—that persons committed to homosexuality are not barred from ordination and that “marriage” can include same-sex couples—is being adopted in practice and the majority doesn’t know what to do about it. An extension of that minority view is that anyone who differs from it is adorned with a new label: bigot or hater or un-Presbyterian (as the Parnell case implied in March 2012). After being railed against in successive presbytery meetings, evangelical members of my presbytery feel the tension in the room if they rise to ask questions. Murmuring, calls to sit down, and moderatorial gavel falls cutting off questioning all are sending the message that air time is only open to those who agree with the new way of doing things. During Open Space meetings, evangelicals’ comments are not passed on at the reporting phase, as if they never spoke up around the table. This reality stands in sharp contrast to the insistence by presbytery leadership that “we need your voice at the table.” Really? In one instance when the evangelical caucus provided twenty-one names to the mission council, at its request, for inclusion in presbytery/congregational discernment teams, only one was included in the final appointments. The message is clear, “We say we want you at the table, but we really don’t.”

So the question for evangelicals is this: what voice do we have in the church? Is that voice more likely to be heard from within or from without? Will it be a voice of teaching the flock from within, or prophesying to the Body from without? Will it be one voice speaking for many, or many voices speaking in concert? Or will it be a voice that goes underground, silenced for a time, until the prevailing winds of false doctrine eventually implode? These are serious questions we must ask ourselves and ask God, because we don’t know what to do.

My hope is that during this time of evangelical voice loss, we can be nourished in our souls, strengthened in our faith, and prepared for the Zechariah moment with God’s praises on our lips. We may be quiet for a time, but that doesn’t stop us from writing and praying and remaining faithful. We may not be heard by fellow presbyters for awhile— in fact, we may be shunned—but God can overcome the most impossible obstacles when the time is right. And then, will we be ready to speak?

 

Larson v Los Ranchos: A Case of Presbydoublespeak

Overnight I have had a chance to read not only the Final Decision and Order of the GAPJC in Larson v. Los Ranchos, but also the briefs submitted by the Complainants/Appellants and the Respondents/Appellees (the Presbytery). My initial summary of this case appeared in yesterday’s blog; today I’d like to share my impressions of what this decision means. Folks who believe a manner of life suitable for ordination in the PCUSA includes fidelity in heterosexual marriage and chastity in singleness are going to find it difficult to apply their reasonable biblical standard in ordination/installation decisions. Here’s what I observe to be the effect and fall-out from the GAPJC decision:

1. Presbyteries as a whole are not afforded the right to hold a corporate conscience, which is reserved only for individuals and must be “respected” by the ordaining body. The potential here is that one dissenter of a presbytery’s corporate conscience can tyrannize the rest, giving to one individual the power to override the conscience of the whole. Presbyteries do not have the right to state or enforce any requirement upon all candidates, but only to examine and make a determination of suitability for ordination on a case-by-case basis. The only basis now is “case-by-case,” not Scripture or the Confessions, because, after all, the PCUSA cannot agree on what the Scriptures and Confessions teach (Parnell). Situational ethics in full bloom.

2. The appeal to conscience has now flipped sides, but the door is shut behind those who were granted freedom for their consciences earlier this year. In previous cases, including the ones I argued before the GAPJC (Naegeli v San Francisco; Parnell v San Francisco), liberal progressives were demanding freedom to exercise their conscience and redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships. They were granted that freedom by Parnell. Now that it is evangelical conservatives asking for and acting on the same principle—Los Ranchos Presbytery declaring its conscience to apply the fidelity/chastity standard as a matter of biblical obedience—the door to freedom of conscience is slammed shut and its logical implication must not be allowed. Because— don’t we all know now— the Church has adopted a new and better standard of inclusion, and it is just plain wrong to think or do differently.

3. The removal of “fidelity and chastity” from the Form of Government disallows presbyteries the option of applying it in their ordination decisions, but instead requires  an ordaining body not to use it as an ordination standard. This despite the fact that the language that replaced “fidelity and chastity” in the Book of Order offered no replacement standard at all but simply removed the explicit provision. [This argument was used to gather support in presbyteries during the ratification process.] The illogical leap that has been made with Larson is to equate an omission with a prohibition: fidelity/chastity is now omitted and therefore its application is prohibited in all cases as a standard for ordination. The ‘new normal’ is that fidelity and chastity cannot be applied to candidates ever anywhere.

4. Despite its emphasis on case-by-case basis determinations, the GAPJC has twisted itself in a knot of presbydoublespeak. In a former case, in which a specific ordination decision was challenged by members of San Francisco, the GAPJC basically said, Who are we do circumvent an ordination decision rendered by a council that knew the candidate and determined that her interpretation of Scripture and manner of life were acceptable? In other words, we are not in a position to overrule a specific case regarding a specific candidate, despite ample evidence of her violation of Scripture and Confessions. But in the Larson case, the GAPJC did not hesitate to void the action of a presbytery that took its ordination responsibility seriously and was transparent about its obedience to Scripture and Confessions. So on the one hand, a presbytery ordaining on a case-by-case basis can make decisions that  are not—for all practical purposes— reviewable by a higher governing body even if they depart from scriptural standards; but a presbytery concluding and recording its understanding of biblical and confession requirements as a Resolution, and acting consistently in light of that belief, is ruled out of order. So much for a presbytery’s right and obligation to “bear testimony against error in doctrine and immorality in life, resolve questions of doctrine and discipline, give counsel in matters of conscience…” (G-3.0102) and “to nurture the covenant community of disciples of Christ . . . includ[ing] ordaining, receiving, dismissing, installing, removing, and disciplining its members . . .” (G-3.0301c). Keeping the door open on a case-by-case basis doesn’t resolve anything or counsel anybody in matters of conscience.

My friends, if you are in a presbytery where the question of sexual ethics is not disputed, count your blessings. For those of you who are in contested presbyteries, life is going to get harder and peaceful sleep will be elusive. Do not in any way diminish or mute your witness against error in doctrine and immorality in life and ministry. Take seriously your calling to teach and to admonish, according to the Scriptures. Your position may in fact lose support or even be ridiculed, but is it not better to suffer for having done the right thing than to suffer the consequences of going along with the wrong thing? (1 Peter 4:12-17).  Courage for the journey . . .

 

God Imparted Gifts to Humanity for Good Reason

²⁶Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

²⁷            So God created humankind in his image,
                      in the image of God he created them;
                        male and female he created them.

²⁸God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

 As I teach the first three chapters of Genesis, new insights are hitting me, for which I am grateful. This week, my class contrasted the two accounts of Creation in chapter 1:1—2:3 and in chapter 2:4—25. We observed that the first account seems to highlight the creation of time (evening and the morning, the first day…), while the second narrative highlights (among other things) space, giving special attention to the Garden and its location. Before God got to work, there was neither time nor space, only God. [I will have to ponder Revelation’s description of the New Heavens and New Earth, which obviously describes place as ongoing, but time as eternity—which is no time? or infinite time? or perhaps the fullness of time!] The first chapter stresses the orderliness of God’s creativity, wrangling chaos into meaningful and purposeful elements. The second account is remarkable for locating itself in down-to-earth terms, pointing our thoughts ultimately toward the concreteness of Jesus’ appearance, the wonder of the Incarnation, and the intimacy of God’s relationship with the people he created in that space and time.

But both accounts have at least three elements in common with each other: they each announce a likeness that empowers human beings for meaningful existence, they each identify human sexual distinctions to be foundational, and they each differentiate humans from the rest of the creaturely world. The first two of these three common features are explained today:

In chapter 1, verses 26-7, the imago Dei (the image of God) is proclaimed. God fashioned humankind (as an entire race) in his image and likeness. [Parenthetically, I don’t see image and likeness as two different things, but as a parallelism in the text.] In ways that we cannot fully comprehend or explain, humanity corresponds to and resembles God’s image. The tendency to limit this image to humanity’s spiritual (and perhaps mental) nature would, I think, be in error. Humans are physical, emotional, social, and spiritual beings who by their very complexity and integration somehow reflect the present, powerful, relational, and transcendent nature of God. Let us not get too technical here in describing the resemblance, only because we are tempted to think about it backwards by asking, “What are humans like?” and conclude that God must be like that, too. The truth is, God always was before we were, and we “take after him.” Whatever that means. It is the first gift we humans receive, to bear resemblance and to give witness to God as our Creator and Lord. Then look how closely the imago Dei is linked to opus et custodia hominum (humanity’s charge) in verse 26. The gift of God-likeness is given in order that we humans could accomplish the assignment God also gave us: to have dominion over the fauna of God’s creation. We steward the earth as God’s representatives, as his local agents created in his image and likeness. Blessed to be a blessing translates in this case to “possessing God’s image to bless the earth with godly stewardship.”

The second gift to humankind is sexual distinctions: “Male and female he created them.” Humanity as a whole comprises male and female, and the goodness of that gift is something we will appreciate all the more in Chapter 2. Here, the matter-of-fact declaration of “man as male and female,” as we used to say in the 1970s, simply identifies the sexes as an essential differentiation within a fundamental unity. Humankind (as male and female) is given responsibility, yes, for dominion (as in verse 26); but note in verse 28, after the introduction of male and female in 27, that they are also charged with being fruitful and multiplying. So, parallel with the gift of imago Dei in order to exercise dominion, the gift of sexuality and male/female distinctions is in order to conceive and give birth to children. Make no mistake; a child still comes into the world only by the participation of a man and a woman.

In summary, what we learn about marriage in Genesis 1 is that God created human beings with sexual distinctives of maleness and femaleness. God gave humanity his likeness and appointed human beings as his representatives to manage his creation. There is no distinction of roles here, providing a strong basis for the understanding of the dignity of women and girls as well as men and boys. That is to say, boys are not better. And we have learned that the gift of sexuality comes with the charge to produce children. And why is that important? Because having kids is not primarily to satisfy the happiness of a mom and dad, nor to fulfill them as people, nor to cement their marriage, but to provide the next generation of stewards of God’s earth. To be honest, I never thought of this when my husband and I were contemplating parenthood 35 years ago . . . but it is a very good reason to have children: to raise up those who will make a meaningful and godly contribution to society and the management of God’s resources after we’re gone.

In my next post, we will take up the third common element as we dig into Genesis, chapter 2.

 

Marriage: “Let’s Start at the Very Beginning”

Last night I launched my 2012-13 Bible study at church, called “It All Started in the Garden.” The class will take (at least) fifteen theological themes introduced in Genesis 1 through 3 and trace them through the Scriptures. As my blog readers have noticed over the last 198 posts, I quite frequently go back to Eden as my starting point on a topic. And yet, comments occasionally criticize my approach as misguided, believing that the Christian’s starting point for a topical study should always be “what Jesus said about it.” So I thought it would be helpful, in the midst of our process toward a PCUSA marriage curriculum, to remind ourselves of what characterizes biblical theology.

Biblical theology is undertaken when the reader wants to know what “the whole counsel of God” teaches on a particular subject introduced by the Word itself. It is an awareness that in the development of that topic through Scripture God makes himself known, offers insight into human nature, demonstrates how the Chosen People and the early disciples processed that subject, and ultimately teaches Christ-followers what to believe and do. With that in mind, we can make four observations about the Bible that shape the task of biblical theology:

1. Historical. The Scriptures give witness to God in action in history, both in deed and in word. God’s Story is embedded in history. We know what God is like by the way he has acted and what he has said. We do not worship a concept, a misty cloud, or some impersonal virtue. We have been encountered by the living God who is personal and immanent even as he is glorious and transcendent. But God from the beginning condescended to express himself to humanity through human language and the passage of time, as recorded by the writers of Scripture.

2. Progressive. Not in the sense of progressive vs. conservative, but progressive in the sense that God keeps communicating through history in periods and developing circumstances (some have called them ‘dispensations,’ but I am not promoting Dispensationalism here). These circumstances changed through biblical history because the human response to divine initiative varied and changed. And “when the time was right,” the Messiah appeared, and the fullness of the gospel was revealed in God’s Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ. All Scripture before and after the Nativity moment is inspired. It would diminish the inspiration and authority of the Scripture to claim that the biblical writings progress from lower to higher revelation. Rather, biblical theology sees movement forward from beginning to end through time, as God’s redemptive plan unfolds to its climax. God is working out his purposes, and we see the story progressing through history to an End on that great Day.  God’s revelation is linear, with a beginning and a conclusion, different from an Eastern mindset that sees history as circular.

3. Unified. Each part is essential to the whole understanding of Scripture. The one Author, God himself, is the “voice” behind (within?) the unique human voices giving witness to God’s grace and truth. There is an inherent unity between the Old and the New Testament, and it is one narrative, “God’s Story in Five Acts” as N. T. Wright put it [Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, The Church]. Biblical theology examines the whole of Scripture, allows Scripture to interpret Scripture, and offers God’s unified point of view on the subject.

4. Cumulative. Akin to ‘progressive,’ the Scriptures also snowball through the experiences of God’s people and the intervention of Yahweh. Everything builds on what came before. The Old Covenant is fulfilled by New Covenant; the Old Testament is the foundation, and the New Testament builds on it. It is impossible, as an example, to understand the words of institution at communion without grasping the OT imagery that defines its terms:

“This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, shed for you and for all people so that your sins may be forgiven.”

The Scriptures up to the Last Supper have accumulated events and practices that become sermon illustrations for Jesus. Ideas about covenant, the shedding of blood, atonement for sin, and forgiveness all have their definition in OT events.  But then Jesus pours new meaning into old forms and formulations for the purpose of making known the grace and truth of the gospel.

What harm is there, then, in starting at the very beginning on the subject of marriage, and noting in chapter one of Genesis that God created humankind male and female, instituted the two-become-one-flesh of marriage, and commissioned them to steward the earth and populate it? Because our task works with a Bible that is historical, progressive, unified, and cumulative, it makes sense to take the biblical data in the order in which it is presented, and work out what God is trying to teach us.

 

Marriage: Models and Mirrors in Scripture

As we develop a curriculum on marriage for use in the PCUSA, we must take a look at some biblical data causing questions and confusion in the church. Readers of this blog and contributors of others have cautioned that a fair Bible study on the meaning of marriage must include the diverse forms family takes. There is no question that the biblical narrative reports polygamy (Lamech in Genesis 4, Jacob in Ge 29f) and concubines (Abraham, Ge 25:5; Solomon, 1 Kings 11). As an aside, it is interesting to note that there are no reports of homosexual marriages or polyamory (multiple spouses, as distinct from polygamy which is limited to one man married to multiple wives) in the Scriptures. Suggestions that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers (1 Samuel 18:1) or that Jesus and John lived a secret life together (John 20:2) are spurious claims argued from silence or an assumption that “love” is necessarily expressed sexually. There is mention in Paul’s Corinthian correspondence of the man involved in an incestuous relationship with “his father’s wife,” condemned in the strongest terms (1 Corinthians 5). The fact that these various arrangements are mentioned is not evidence enough to permit them in today’s Christian community. It would be necessary to demonstrate that these arrangements were models blessed by God, recommended as normative for all humanity, and carried over from Old to New Testament in order for us to consider them legitimate arrangements for Christians today. Otherwise, we must consider the data as mirrors into the soul and society of human nature. One must give God credit for preserving a biblical story that is full of bad as well as good examples; the fact that there are relationships that exemplify God’s design alongside corrupt ones indicates that the Book is as much about human nature at its worst as it is about God’s design for humanity at its best.

By the time of the New Testament, in a Greek/Roman culture in which all forms of sexual practice were evident, the Christian norm for sexual relationships was monogamous, heterosexual marriage. Jesus quoted Genesis 2, the “two shall become one flesh” passage in his comments on marriage in Matthew 19; Paul made clear that sexual immorality included all other forms than heterosexual marriage (1 Cor 6:9). And we cannot ignore the theological observation that the Bible began with Adam and Eve, two becoming one, and ends with Revelation 21-22 and the “wedding feast” celebrating the joining of Christ and his Church. And sprinkled through the Old Testament are illustrations of defilement, in terms of Israel’s adultery in spurning Yahweh and going after other gods (Hosea, Isaiah). The illustration of exclusivity, intimacy, and faithfulness makes sense only in the context of the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, as God designed the sexes and commissioned then for their role in illustrating the great mystery of God’s covenant and redemptive act through history.

It remains a mystery to me why God allowed polygamy by the “righteous” Fathers of the chosen people. These relationships were certainly complicated, but prolific with progeny for the purposes of that “great nation” God promised to create. But even then, there were rules for the joining of a man and a woman in marriage, no room for homosexual unions nor polyamory, and after a time the sanction for polygamy was withdrawn. Jesus is our interpreter and teacher in this matter, and his Word settles the problem of what we are now to do (and not do).

The Scriptures lift up models of faith and practice for us to emulate. They also present us with mirrors into our own souls. A mirror helps us see ourselves as we really are, but it is the models we follow. May God give us the wisdom to tell the difference.

More Biblical Data on Marriage

As we map out a plan for studying marriage in the PCUSA, the basis for a curriculum must emerge from the Scriptures. We continue our collection of data from both Old and New Testament regarding the theological foundations for marriage. You will notice that I have not even touched upon practical theology (namely, how we are called to live within the parameters of marriage). We’re still finding the connections between God’s actions and statements and the relationship he instituted. If we do our work carefully at this stage, our praxis will be faithful and true to God’s intent.

Today’s additions to the master grid are the proscriptions and negative examples that steer us away from corruption of God’s original intent. I offer this framework with the invitation to add further examples space does not permit me to include. [Imagine that we are working in a whiteboard brainstorming session.] This is most definitely a work in progress!

Sub-topic	The Description or Command	Proscriptions	Negative Examples
Origin and meaning of marriage	Genesis 1—2 God created male and female; God created the female to correspond to the male; God charged them both to multiply and to steward the world. “The two became one flesh.” Mark 10:6—9  “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”	1 Corinthians 6:9 “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”	1 Cor 6:15—20 “Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.”  . . . Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself.   . . . your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you . . . you are not your own, For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.
Corruption of God’s original intent	Genesis 3:7—19 As a result of the Fall, the dynamics of guilt, blame, domination, and skewed dependencies enter marriage.	Leviticus 18:6—23 Sexual intimacy between relatives (incest), the same sex (homosex), and animals (bestiality) is out of bounds	Romans 1:18—30 Failure to give God glory and gratitude results in degradation, illustrated in this passage by homosexual behavior.
Fidelity and Faithfulness within Marriage	Hebrews 13:4 [Mark 10:6—9] “Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”	Exodus 20:14  “You shall not commit adultery.” Matthew 19:3—9 “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause . . . “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”	2 Samuel 11     David & Bathsheba The case study on adultery (not to mention murder and lying, sloth and abuse of power)
OT: Marriage Illustrates Covenant between God and His People	Hosea 2, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 31:31-33 On that day, says the LORD, you will call me, “My husband,” and no longer will you call me, “My Baal.” [Hos. 2:16]	Genesis 16:1—17:22 Abraham and Sarah, and the misstep with Hagar	Proverbs 2:16—19 “You will be saved from the loose woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words, who forsakes the partner of her youth and forgets her sacred covenant; . . .”
NT: Marriage Illustrates Relationship between Christ and His Church	Ephesians 5:21-33 Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. Rev. 19:7; 21:2, 9; 22:17 The church as the bride of Christ	Colossians 3:5 “Put to death, therefore, whatever in you is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed (which is idolatry).”	Revelation 18:18 The Fall of Babylon, the “whore” representing those who spurned God and disobeyed his law.

 

 

Exegetical Method Applied to the Topic of Marriage: Step 1

As my thoughts turn back to marriage, I would like to honor my parents who were married 43 years until my dad died suddenly of a brain hemorrhage in 1996. Today would have been their 60th wedding anniversary.

In the past few days I have demonstrated an exegetical method using the topic of women in leadership, to answer a question that comes up from time to time and to set the stage for applying the same method to the topic of marriage. This is the biblical work we must do to set the foundation for a course on marriage. Today, the same steps will be reintroduced by asking: What are the Scriptures that speak to the subject of marriage? Our grid will be organized differently and today we will fill in only the first column, but here is where we are headed in a biblical theology of marriage:

Sub-topic	Scripture Reference	The Description or Command
Origin of marriage	Genesis 1—2	God created male and female; God created the female to correspond to the male; God charged them both to multiply and to steward the world. “The two became one flesh.”
Corruption of God’s original intent	Genesis 3:7—19	As a result of the Fall, the dynamics of guilt, blame, domination, and skewed dependencies enter marriage.
Fidelity and Faithfulness within Marriage	Hebrews 13:4	“Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.”
Marriage Illustrates Covenant between God and His People	Hosea 2, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 31:31-33	On that day, says the LORD, you will call me, “My husband,” and no longer will you call me, “My Baal.” [Hos. 2:16]
Marriage Illustrates Relationship between Christ and His Church	Ephesians 5:21-33 Revelation 21:2	Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.

The next column will give the negative commands, prohibitions, and bad examples. Stay tuned!