BRANSON PARLER
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Catechism on Marriage and Sexuality
  • Writings
    • Books & Articles
    • Think Christian essays
  • Connect
    • CV
    • About
    • Contact

On "orthodox" and "catholic" Christianity: a friendly conversation with James K. A. Smith

8/4/2017

Comments

 
Jamie Smith raises some good questions on his blog today, in particular about whether the traditional Christian view of marriage and sexuality should be called "orthodox" and its opponents labeled "heretics." It sounds like he's been reading someone who repeatedly connects "orthodox Christianity" with viewing marriage as between a man and woman. Smith notes that, historically, what is considered "orthodox" grows out of ecumenical councils and creeds, which attempted to clarify Scripture's teaching in the face of key questions about disputed matters of the day, such as the divinity of Jesus. Given that teaching on marriage and sex don't figure prominently in these ecumenical councils, he raises the question: is it really fair to call marriage between a man and woman the "orthodox" view? Isn't it more accurate to call it the "traditional" view? 

​I think the linguistic and theological observations and questions he raises are worth considering. But I'd propose that, rather than use the word "traditional" to describe marriage between a man and woman, it would be better to use the word "catholic," in the sense of "universal." Now, I know that there are some who would protest the use of the word "catholic" to describe the view that marriage is between a man and woman, pointing to the many Christians who now support same-sex marriage.

But here's why I think it's a better approach. For starters, most "orthodox" beliefs had to undergo the historical transition from "catholic" to "orthodox" beliefs. For example, the divinity of Jesus is affirmed in Scripture and practiced in the worship of the early church, from the New Testament on. But on Smith's terms, this belief wasn't "orthodox" until the Christological controversies of the 3rd and 4th centuries led to lengthy debates and creeds like that of Nicea and Constantinople. In other words, a "catholic" belief has to be challenged for it to take on the status of "orthodoxy." 

This can help us think about our own historical moment and how we should talk about orthodoxy in relation to marriage and sexuality. Is it fair for someone to claim that Christians can hold any position on marriage, including affirming same-sex marriage, since there is no "orthodox" position on marriage? No (and Smith rightly points this out). Why? Because the creeds and confessions of the church were never meant to be exhaustive, stating everything or even everything essential that Christians should believe or practice. For that, we have Scripture, the only rule of faith and life for Christians.

But I do think what is happening now in North American culture is that our questions and controversies about marriage are causing it to move from a "catholic" issue to an "orthodox" issue. That is, there is no longer universal (catholic) agreement on marriage. This means that churches and denominations have to decide: how does Scripture speak to this and what must Christians say and do to be faithful to Scripture? We can't just rely on the fact that "it's always been this way," but we have to go to Scripture to articulate clearly why we believe and practice what we believe and practice.  

Orthodoxy is what is produced as the church returns to Scripture by the power of the Spirit in the light of each age's challenges. All of this highlights the fact that "orthodoxy" is not merely a once-for-all set of tenets passed down from ages immemorial but a posture of engagement as we consider the questions and challenges of our day.

Comments

Great Lakes Catechism on Marriage and Sexuality

4/18/2017

Comments

 
​To my sisters and brothers at Fourth Reformed Church, the North Grand Rapids Classis, the Regional Synod of the Great Lakes, and the Reformed Church in America,

​Grace and peace to you.

​As the covenant people of God, we are called to make disciples of Jesus and bear witness to the kingdom of God. If we are going to make disciples, we have to teach those within the church what it means to follow Jesus in concrete ways. If we are to bear witness to God's kingdom, we must be able to explain to those outside the church why we live the way that we do.

​In our time, there is great confusion both inside and outside the church about matters of marriage, family, and sexuality. In the broader culture, the sexual revolution continues to work itself out. In our churches, the sexual revolution unfolds as well, though at a slightly slower pace than the rest of the culture. This is a matter of great concern, for Scripture and the Reformed confessions clearly teach that being the people of God is not merely about beliefs in our heads but the daily practices of our bodies.

​We have often failed, however, to articulate clearly and winsomely the biblical teaching on matters of sexual ethics. We have simply said "don't do it!" outside the context of marriage, without articulating the meaning of our bodies, of marriage, of singleness, or of children. No wonder that Christians and non-Christians alike struggle to make sense of Christian teaching and practice on these matters!

​In light of this situation of confusion inside and outside the church, this catechism is offered as a basic teaching tool to help all members of Christ's body better understand the biblical teaching on marriage, family, and sexuality. It is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation of these complex issues but a succinct, clear foundation on which we can continue to build. It is also for the church. ​Though Scripture expresses God's will for all people, we recognize that we should not expect non-Christians to follow a path of discipleship (1 Cor. 5:9-10). Rather, we are called to preach the gospel of grace and live lives marked by the good works that flow from gratitude.

​This catechism is entitled the "Great Lakes Catechism" because it was developed as a resource and teaching tool at the encouragement of the Executive Committee of the Synod of the Great Lakes. It is my hope and prayer that it will serve the church well.

Blessings,
​Dr. Branson Parler
​President, Regional Synod of the Great Lakes

Click here if you'd like to access a PDF document of the Catechism

​1 Q: Is human sexuality a good thing or not?
A: It is good! We see in Scripture that God created us male and female as part of the creation order,
        that our sexuality is an inherent part of being human,
        and that our sexuality is part of what God calls “very good” in the beginning.[1]
 
Moreover, God created man and woman as full partners,  
                together bearing God’s image[2]
                and together receiving God’s blessing and call to
“Be fruitful and increase in number;
                                fill the earth, and subdue it.
                                rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky
                                and over every living creature that lives on the ground.”[3]
 
2 Q: But isn’t the body or the “flesh” the root cause of our sin and temptation?
A: Certainly not! Our sin problem is not ultimately a body or sex problem;
        it is a heart problem--
        we do not desire God as we should
               and so we desire other things in a way we should not.[4]
 
3 Q: May we then look to our bodies and sexual desires to learn what is right?
A: No. Our expressions of sexuality are distorted and twisted by sin.
        Sin warps us in many ways,
        including our desires, thoughts, and actions pertaining to our sexuality.
 
Because our sexuality is affected by the fall,
        we should not act on our desires, inclinations, or thoughts
        without first testing them by what Scripture teaches is honorable, right, pure, and lovely.[5]
  
4 Q: So Scripture is the source from which we learn what it means to be a disciple of Jesus in our sexual lives?
A: Yes. Scripture is the infallible rule for our lives.[6]  
                This means that we look to it to understand
                who God is and who we are called to be as God’s people.
  
In this world, we are called to test all teaching about marriage and sexuality
by Scripture,
and we must not put human writings,
                custom or tradition,
                the majority opinion,
                the thinking of our own time and place,
                or even past decisions of the church,
above the truth of God,
                For God’s truth is above everything.[7]
 
5 Q: Who should we consider our family?
A: Though many may consider their biological family their first family,
                Jesus teaches us that those who are his disciples,
                                who are united by one Lord and one baptism into God’s covenant people,
                should be considered our primary family.
 
6 Q: Does this mean our earthly families are unimportant?
A: No. In fact, Scripture teaches us that we are to honor our parents,[8]
                and that we should faithfully love our spouses and children.[9]
 
Nevertheless, we are called to seek first the kingdom of God.[10]
                God’s mission and vocation must shape all my relationships.
Though earthly families are good and a blessing,
                they may become an idol if we make them our ultimate priority or loyalty.
                All earthly loyalties and obligations,
                              including those of family,
                              must be subject to the lordship of Jesus. 
 
7 Q: Since marriage and family are good, is it necessary to be married?
A: No. During his earthly ministry,
                Jesus showed us that true human fulfillment does not need to include marriage or sex.
               Yet, the life of Jesus most certainly included close, intimate relationships
                              with those he called family.
 
8 Q: But why do many people in my church expect young adults to get married and raise a family?
A: The goal for all Christians is not marriage,
                but, whether married or single,
                to live decent and chaste lives.[11]
 
In the beginning, God blessed marriage and he calls many Christians
                to live out their discipleship in the context of marriage.
Nevertheless, Christians sometimes idolize marriage and family
                and promote the unbiblical teaching
                 that a person can only find fulfillment and happiness
                                in the context of a marriage and family.
 
However, this expectation is contrary to Scripture,
                which teaches that many Christians will be unmarried,[12]
                                whether through choice or circumstance,
                and that they live a true, fully human life,
                                as our Savior did.
 
9 Q: How then should we view the single, celibate life?
A: Singleness can serve as a sign and reminder to married people
                that our most basic calling is to seek first the kingdom of God,[13]
                not our earthly families.
 
In addition, the single person’s life points us ahead to the life to come,  
                when we will neither marry nor be given in marriage.[14]
 
10 Q: Why did God institute marriage between man and woman?
A: Though many see marriage simply as
                a path to personal fulfillment, happiness, or self-realization,
                or a relationship that may be dissolved if they are dissatisfied,
Scripture teaches that God instituted marriage between a man and woman
                as a sign of Christ and the church,[15]
                as a state of mutual help for life’s journey,[16]
                as a relationship in which married Christians are sanctified,[17]
                and in order to provide for the continuation of the human race[18]
                              and the raising of children into a life of faith in Jesus Christ.[19]

11 Q: Should we view the duties and obligations of marriage and family as a hindrance to the truly spiritual life?
A: No. When properly understood, we see that
faithful devotion to one’s spouse
                and faithful care of one’s children
                                are not merely ‘earthly’ or ‘natural’ matters
                but are in fact key elements of a faithful walk with Christ.[20]
 
Furthermore, the married person is a sign and reminder to single people that,
                 just as a husband or wife has obligations to their spouse and family,
                 so we all have obligations to the family of God.
 
12 Q: What is the meaning of sexual union?
A: God created man and woman to be able to unite not only our bodies,
                but our very lives and selves as husband and wife.
 
In marriage, husbands and wives give themselves completely to one another,
                and the one-flesh sexual union embodies the fact
                that these two persons are no longer two, but one flesh.[21]
 
13 Q: But isn’t sexual union just a physical act?
A: No. It is certainly more than that.
 
In fact, when we reduce sex to a merely physical or biological act,
                we end up reducing other image-bearers of God
                to mere objects to be used.
 
We see this abuse and hatred of our neighbor all around us,[22]
                in pornography,
                prostitution,
                rape,
                promiscuity,
                cohabitation apart from marriage,
                and sexual union outside of the covenant of marriage. 
 
14 Q: How, then, should we understand sexual union?
A: Sexual union is a part of the total giving of oneself--
                 body and soul, indeed one’s whole self--
                 to one’s spouse,
just as God in Christ gave himself completely to his bride, the Church.[23]

And just as God is a faithful God who gives himself to us in covenant,[24]
                  so sexual union is a covenantal act
                  that commits one to faithful, lifelong love to one’s spouse.[25]
 
Sexual union is also meant to be a free act, entered into without coercion,
                but freely and graciously,
                as God in Christ freely and graciously loves us.[26]
 
And finally, God created husband and wife so that
                they fruitfully participate in the miracle of new life.[27]
                Just as God’s life and creativity brought us forth,[28]
                           so children are not to be seen as a nuisance or impediment
                                        to the marriage relationship
                           but as gifts of God,[29]
                                        disciples to be raised in the training and instruction of the Lord.[30]             
 
15 Q: Does Scripture limit marriage and sexual union to a husband and wife?
A: Scripture consistently teaches that the difference
               between a woman and man in marriage is essential
                            to properly represent, symbolically, Christ and the church,
                            to the one-flesh act of sexual union
                                              and one-flesh relationship of covenantal marriage,
                            and for the bringing of children into the world.
 
In Scripture, bodies matter.
                We are saved by the body of Christ, broken for us,
                                and his blood, shed for our sins.
                Without Christ’s body, we cannot be saved.
 
Furthermore, in the sacraments, we see that the material elements matter.
                God does not merely give us grace through invisible means
                but gives us visible signs and seals,
which are not empty and hollow signs
but which have their truth in Jesus Christ,
                                without whom they would be nothing.[31]
 
In a similar way, bodies matter in marriage,
                which is defined in part by the sexual difference
                of male and female, who together—body and soul—bear the image of God
and symbolize Christ and the church.
                Thus, marriage is not defined merely by the will or desire of any individual
                                but by the recognition that our Creator and Redeemer God has instituted marriage
                                to take a certain form, with certain kinds of bodies:
                                               “A man leaves his father and mother
                                                and is united to his wife,
                                                and they become one flesh.”[32]
 
16 Q: Does Scripture really condemn all same-sex sexual activity?
A: Yes. Scripture consistently and categorically
                    condemns sexual activity between persons of the same sex as immoral.
                                Genesis 1-2 presents the male-female relationship as God’s design for marriage.
                                The Torah given by God to Israel teaches that same-sex sexual activity is wrong.[33]
                                Jesus re-affirms the teaching of Genesis on marriage,
                                                 that marriage is between a man and woman.[34]
                                The early church condemns same-sex sexual activity
                                                 when they condemn “sexual immorality,”
                                                  a term that points back to Leviticus 18 and encompasses
                                                  all forms of sexual sin,[35]
                                and the New Testament writers re-affirm the sexual ethics of Torah,
                                                including specific condemnations of incest, adultery, and same-sex sexual                                                         activity.[36]
 
17 Q: Does the Bible especially condemn same-sex sexual activity above other sins, sexual or otherwise?
A: No. Scripture never singles out same-sex sexual activity
                as a worse sin than others.
 
18 Q: What should characterize our attitudes and actions toward those who are same-sex attracted, whether inside or outside the church?
We must first remember that there is a difference between being same-sex attracted,
                and acting sexually on that attraction.
Just as there is a difference between being attracted to people of the opposite sex,
                And acting sexually on that attraction.
 
Furthermore, though Scripture condemns sexual sin, it also condemns
                all forms of mockery,
                degrading words and thoughts,
                economic oppression,
                abuse, threats, and violence
                against anyone based on their sexual identity or activity.[37]
 
Anyone involved in such behavior must repent
and walk in obedience to Jesus’ command to love.
 
19 Q: What about those who fail to keep fully Scripture’s teaching on marriage and sexuality? How should we view them?
A: We must first remember that “they” are us! [38]
We are all sinners
                saved by God’s extravagant grace.
We must therefore see all people with the eyes of Jesus,
                who looks on us with compassion.
 
We must also remember that we should not expect people who are not disciples of Jesus
                to act as though they are.
Indeed, Scripture teaches us that we should expect to interact and associate
                with those who are idolaters and sexually immoral
                                as part of our daily life in this world.[39]
 
But as disciples of Jesus, we are also called
to teach, rebuke, correct, and even discipline one another,[40]
                for we know that without discipline,
we dare not call ourselves the church of Jesus Christ.[41]
                And we do not love one another in this way merely
for the sake of following the rules or keeping human traditions
                                but because God’s life-giving Spirit empowers and equips us
                                for a life of faith and gratitude,[42]
                                for which we were made and to which we are called. 
                               
[1] Gen. 1:31

[2] Gen. 1:27

[3] Gen. 1:28

[4] Jer. 17:9; James 1:14-15

[5] Phil. 4:8

[6] Belgic Confession, art. 7.

[7] Belgic Confession, art. 7.

[8] Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1.

[9] Eph. 5:21-6:4

[10] Matt. 6:33; Matt. 12:46-50.

[11] Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 108.

[12] 1 Cor. 7:29-40.

[13] 1 Cor. 7:33-35; Matt. 6:33.

[14] Matt. 22:30

[15] Eph. 5:31-32

[16] Gen. 2:18

[17] John 13:34; Gal. 5:13; Phil. 2:3; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5; 1 Cor. 7:4-5; Gal. 6:2; 1 Thess. 5:11.

[18] Gen. 1:28; Ps. 127:3

[19] Deut. 6:4-9

[20] Eph. 5:21-6:4

[21] Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7-8; 1 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 5:31

[22] Heidelberg Catechism, Q&A 5.

[23] Phil. 2:5-8;

[24] Ex. 34:6-7.

[25] Mal. 2:16.

[26] Rom. 8:32.

[27] Gen. 1:28; Ps. 139:13-14

[28] Gen. 2:4-7, 18-22; Job 10:8-9.

[29] Ps. 127:3-5; Gen. 21:1; Gen. 30:22; 1 Sam. 1:19; Ps. 139:13-14

[30] Eph. 6:1-4; Deut. 6:4-9.

[31] Belgic Confession, art. 33.

[32] Gen. 2:24

[33] Lev. 18:22

[34] Matt. 19:1-10

[35] Acts 15:19-20

[36] 1 Cor. 5:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:9-20; 1 Tim. 1:10

[37] Belhar Confession, art. 4. Luke 6:31; Lev. 9:9-18; Prov. 6:16-19.

[38] Romans 2:1-4

[39] 1 Cor. 5:9-10

[40] Matt. 18:15-20; 1 Cor. 5:11-13; 2 Cor. 2:5-11.

[41] Belgic Confession, art. 29.

[42] Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 32 & 33. 
Comments

Kids & Politics: A Resource for Youth Workers

2/20/2017

Comments

 
Picture
In my role as Director of Faith Formation at Fourth Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, MI, I recently drew up the following to help our Sunday School teachers and other youth workers navigate the conversations that sometimes arise as kids try to make sense of our world. I thought I'd share it here in hopes that other churches or organizations might find it useful. 
​
Keep in mind…
  • They are likely taking in information and simply trying to process it all.
  • Expect what they say to be very simplistic and repeating what they’ve heard.
  • Expect their tone to echo the broader culture right now.
 
Your role…
  • Is not to advocate for a certain political viewpoint.
 
  • Is to help them understand what following Jesus means for how they interact and respond to other people with whom they may disagree, especially other Christians. Whatever other identities we may claim—Jew, Gentile, male, female, rich, poor, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal—we must remember that “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Gal. 3:27) “So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view”—in other words, through worldly categories like Republican or Democrat—because God has “reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:16-18). 
 
Remind them…
  • Jesus is the true King we proclaim! He says “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.” And he gives us a mission: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28:18-19)

  • Their identity is in Christ, not in a political party or stance. Christians sometimes disagree about political matters, and that’s okay. But we must remember that what unites us is Jesus, not having the same views on everything. “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph. 4:3-6)
 
  • Name-calling or ridicule toward those who hold other views is never appropriate. Though politicians may throw manners and civility out the window, Christians don’t!  Our words can get us into a lot of trouble! James tells us that “the tongue is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body” (James 3:6). That’s why he also says, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry.” (James 1:19) Proverbs also reminds us that “sin is not ended by multiplying words, but the prudent hold their tongues.” (Proverbs 10:19).
 
  • That while they may be fearful about what may happen, we can trust that God is with us no matter what happens. Jesus says, “I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt. 28:20). “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind” (2 Tim. 1:7).
 
  • That while there may be a lot of disagreement, even hate, toward people on the other side of the political aisle, Christians are called to love not only our brothers and sister, but even our enemies. We are called to be children of our Heavenly Father, who “causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:45-48). We are called to walk by the Spirit, and “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control…since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying one another” (Gal. 5:22-26).
 
Some stock phrases…
  • “It’s easy to get upset with people who disagree with us. But the Bible tells us that we should show love and patience and kindness in our words. So even if you disagree with someone, how do you think you could say it in a way that shows love, patience, and kindness? Or is it really something that you need to say at all?”
 
  • “I understand that you might be worried about what the future holds. But Jesus tells us that he is the true King and that he is with us always. So while we don’t know what the future holds, we know Jesus is walking with us.”
 
  • “Remember that our hope is in Jesus. We might be happy about who’s President or get upset about who’s President. But Presidents come and go. Jesus is always on the throne.”
 
  • “What makes us Christians? Is it because we all agree on politics, on favorite movies, or sports, or which jobs to have, or even on every point of theology? No! We’re Christians because Jesus has called us to be part of his family. Does everyone in your family agree about everything all the time? Of course not! But we’re still family.”
 
  • “That’s ridiculous.” (Because sometimes, it’s the most appropriate thing to say to kids.)

Comments

A Brief Letter in the Time of Trump and Anti-Trump 

1/25/2017

Comments

 
This past weekend a friend wrote to me to ask whether I thought Christians were missing the gospel in the midst of the political climate right now. Here's part of what I wrote back: 

I think many Christians (probably including myself) are missing it to the extent that we get sucked into treating any earthly kingdom as though the kingdom of God depends upon it. Christians--liberals and conservatives alike--assume that what God is doing in the world depends on having the right person or people in the proper seat of power, when our own faith should teach us that the only person that matters is King Jesus, seated at the right hand of the Father.

When we take our eyes off him, we end up assuming that it's our job to make the world turn out right, so we end up elated when our candidate ends up as President and end up in despair when our candidate doesn't win.

We've tied our identities and hopes to nations, to political parties within nations, to movements, rather than to the kingdom which will not be moved and the city which will not be shaken, whose founder and builder is God.

And when we tie our identities to anything other than Jesus, we turn ugly. We think it's about us. We move from treating others as neighbors to be engaged and turn them into enemies to be defeated. When we take our eyes off God's grace, we end up treating people as we think they deserve, rather than acting toward them as God acted toward us--gracious, patient, and truthful.

Christians have for too long been driven by a lust for political power, which is one reason why progressive Christians lauded Pres. Obama and conservative Christians attacked him at every turn, and why now that the actors have changed, the game goes on. We need to stop hating the players, and starting hating the game of marrying Christianity with our nation and/or our political party.

Seek first the kingdom of God. 

Realize that our job isn't to run the nation or make the world a better place by seeking political power.

​Realize that the church, not America, is the beloved community. 

We're called to bear witness to God's kingdom together, as God's people, by proclaiming the truth about King Jesus and, by God's help,loving each other as Christ loved us. If that's not our main focus, then we're definitely missing it. And, God help us, I think many of us are.
Comments

Hair Length and Human Sexuality: 1 Corinthians 11:14

10/20/2016

Comments

 
Every year, Kuyper College has an annual Faculty and Alumni Scholar Day, where faculty and alumni give presentations based on scholarly work they've done. In April, Calvin Theological Journal published an article I wrote entitled, "Hair Length and Human Sexuality: The Underlying Moral Logic of Paul's Appeal to Nature in 1 Corinthians 11:14." You can find the article here or you can watch the video below, which is a summary of key points from the article. I thoroughly enjoyed researching this article, as it brought together several strands of teaching and research interests, including hermeneutics, ancient philosophy, and sexual ethics. And although the question of the morality of hair length for men and women may not be much of an issue in many Christian circles, the question of how to understand "nature" and Paul's use of it in 1 Corinthians 11 and Romans 1 is directly connected to current discussions of same-sex relationships. 
Comments

The Bible and Human Sexuality: A Resource for Biblical Interpretation and Dialogue

10/3/2016

Comments

 
Picture
One of the things I'm passionate about is biblical interpretation. I want Christians to dig into Scripture and to not only understand what they believe but why they believe it.

I'm also passionate about Christians having good conversations when they disagree about how to interpret the Bible. Rather than just stand in different camps and lob theological grenades at each other, I want people to understand why and how others came to different conclusions. This is not just a matter of nice manners. Rather, fair-mindedness, humility, and love for truth are Christian essentials. 

Over the past several years, I've also been drawn to the research area of marriage, family, and sexuality. Needless to say, this is an area where both biblical interpretation and the skill of good dialogue come into play. The denomination I am part of, the Reformed Church in America, has people in it who disagree on how to interpret and apply what the Bible says about same-sex marriage.

To help facilitate discussion and clarity on that particular issue, I've developed a series of twelve short videos and discussion questions that could be used by individuals or groups. You'll find this resource on my website under "The Bible and Human Sexuality" tab above. 

The first four videos discuss basics of biblical interpretation and how to think about the task of process of interpreting the Bible. For many Christians, it's something we do all the time, but precisely for that reason is something we just do without always thinking about why we do what we do.The second section of videos walks through an affirming interpretation of Scripture--that Scripture does not in fact prohibit loving, same-sex relationships, while the third section of videos walks through the historic interpretation of Scripture--that marriage is for a man and woman. The final video asks some questions of consistency and coherency of both sides of this discussion as we place our views of same-sex marriage in the context of broader questions about marriage, family, and sexuality.  

My hope and prayer is that this resource will further equip Christians as we seek to understand Scripture and God's call on our life today.



Comments

Christian Schools and Sports

9/2/2016

Comments

 
Picture
It's no secret the god of sports reigns over many realms of our culture, including youth culture. In fact, pastors identified it as a key cause in declining church attendance. In a region of the country that has many Christian schools, it makes me wonder: what makes them Christian? Their beliefs? Their practices? 

If the sports schedules of Christian schools demand just as much (maybe more!) time, energy, and effort from high school students on down, then what's the difference between them and our broader sports-obsessed culture? In our words, we may proclaim the priority of God's kingdom, but if the actual practice and liturgy of sports places sports on a higher pedestal than our commitment to the practice and liturgy of the church, it's pretty clear what our Christian schools are teaching. And it's not Christianity. 

Comments

The Heidelberg Catechism and Human Sexuality 

6/11/2016

Comments

 
Picture
What does the Heidelberg Catechism say about human sexuality? I’m glad you asked. It addresses human sexuality in the context of the Ten Commandments, specifically the seventh command (questions 108 and 109). Here’s the text, with Scripture references:
 
Lord's Day 41
Q&A 108
Q. What does the seventh commandment teach us? 
A. That God condemns all unchastity,1 and that therefore we should thoroughly detest it2 and live decent and chaste lives,3 within or outside of the holy state of marriage.
1 Lev. 18:30; Eph. 5:3-5
2 Jude 22-23
3 1 Cor. 7:1-9; 1 Thess. 4:3-8; Heb. 13:4
Q&A 109
Q. Does God, in this commandment, forbid only such scandalous sins as adultery? 
A. We are temples of the Holy Spirit, body and soul, and God wants both to be kept clean and holy. That is why God forbids all unchaste actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires,1 and whatever may incite someone to them.2
1 Matt. 5:27-29; 1 Cor. 6:18-20; Eph. 5:3-4
2 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 5:18
 
A few observations. First, this isn’t just about adultery. You may have been thinking, “Wow, I’m really glad the Ten Commandments focus on adultery, and not internet porn!” If so, I’ve got bad news. Ye olde Heidelberg follows the pattern of Jesus’ interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the Mount: it’s not only about the sinful act but about the sinful heart. So, for example, “thou shalt not murder” is about the sinful root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness.
 
Furthermore, the Heidelberg employs a rhetorical tool called synecdoche. (I know what you’re thinking—isn’t that in New York? No, that’s Schenectady). The idea is that a part represents the whole. Again, the command against murder is instructive. The Heidelberg declares that “thou shalt not murder” not only prohibits murder but it means that “I am not to belittle, hate, insult, or kill my neighbor—not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds—and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge.” (Q&A 105) Yeah, just when you were thinking, “Hey, I haven’t murdered anybody today. I’m good,” the Heidelberg comes along and says that belittling someone in my thoughts violates the command not to murder? Crap.
 
Finally, the commands are primarily stated in the negative—“thou shalt not.” But the Heidelberg makes it clear that these imply a positive. In other words, not murdering is not enough. In fact, that’s the bare minimum—“I showed Jesus’ love today by not murdering!” Good start, but please tell me you’ve done more. So Q&A 107 reads:
 
Q. Is it enough then that we do not murder our neighbor in any such way?
A. No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God wants us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly toward them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.
 
It’s not just about refraining from doing evil; we are called to actively do good.
 
So what does the Heidelberg Catechism say about human sexuality?
 
Well, it condemns “all unchastity.” What is chastity and unchastity? Chastity is the virtue that enables you to exercise proper control of your sexual appetite. Chastity is not to be confused with celibacy, which is complete abstention from sexual activity. What I appreciate about a focus on chastity is that it gets at the heart of our sexuality. The opposite of chastity is lust (not to be confused with properly ordered sexual desire), which places the self at the center of sexual desire. Maybe an example will help.
 
If you’re married, it’s certainly morally permissible to engage in sexual union with your spouse. But your sexual desire for your spouse could be self-centered and self-focused; that is, I could place my own desire for physical gratification at the top of my priority list (which is not evil in itself but can be if it is made the ultimate goal). I can lust after my own wife, seeing her as just an object and a means to the end goal of my pleasure. That would be morally wrong. That’s different from proper sexual desire. Lust attempts to possess, own, control, or use another for my own selfish ends.
 
So in condemning “unchastity,” the Heidelberg speaks broadly, condemning “actions, looks, talk, thoughts, or desires” that are condemned by Scripture. This includes both certain objective acts but also subjective dispositions (like lust). This is why it says that single and married people alike are called to chastity. A legalistic approach to sex focuses solely on the external action—is a person married or not?—whereas this heart-centered approach looks not only on the external action but also at the heart.
 
But what “unchaste” acts are prohibited, beyond adultery?
 
Before I address that question, let me just clarify: unchastity is not merely about internal intention, but also about objective actions. In other words, you can't say something like "Well, I really have a self-giving love toward this person I'm committing adultery with." Whatever your internal intentions, the objective act is wrong. 

And the biblical references in the Catechism are telling here. The first Scripture reference is to Leviticus 18. Why is this significant? Because Leviticus 18 is a key baseline for biblical sexual ethics. Remember synecdoche? “Adultery” is the part; Leviticus 18 is a whole, more complete list.
 
Many of the New Testament references listed in the Catechism mention “sexual immorality” (the Greek term is porneia). If you’re familiar with the Bible, you probably realize you hear this term quite a few times (25 in the New Testament). Maybe you haven’t asked the question: what exactly is included in this term? I’m glad you asked. As New Testament scholar Scot McKnight puts it, “when you double-click on the term porneia, it takes you to Leviticus 18.” For first-century Jews, including Jesus and Paul, this is a broad term that refers to all forms of immoral sexual activity, which are most clearly stated and catalogued in Leviticus 18.
 
So for the early church, Leviticus 18 wasn’t to be discarded. The Jerusalem Council expressly states that Jews and Gentiles alike are to refrain from porneia, in part because the text of Leviticus 17-18 makes clear that the commands contained therein applied to Jew and Gentile alike in the Old Testament as well (Lev. 18:26). In fact, the text of Leviticus 18:24-28 makes clear that God’s judgment on Jew and Gentile alike are linked to the land being defiled through these sexual practices. Another case in point from the New Testament: Paul condemns incest in 1 Cor. 5 because it’s a prime example of porneia as forbidden in Leviticus 18. The Belgic Confession affirms this pattern of hermeneutics of the New Testament here by stating that “we continue to use the witnesses drawn from the law and prophets to confirm us in the gospel and to regulate our lives with full integrity for the glory of God, according to the will of God.” In other words, much in the Old Testament (including the Ten Commandments and the principles behind them) applies to us today.
 
Although the Heidelberg Catechism doesn’t give us a full list like Leviticus 18 or name any specific sexual sin other than adultery, I think it’s reasonable and accurate to say that it intends to condemn not only adultery but other things listed in Leviticus 18 and other Scripture, including incest, rape, sex with prostitutes, and same-sex sexual activity.
 
So it turns out that, in saying a little bit about sex, the Heidelberg Catechism actually has a lot to say about sex.  
 
Postcript: What does this mean for the Reformed Church in America?
 
Okay, if you’re not part of the RCA, feel free to ignore this. Part of what’s currently up for debate in our General Synod is a “constitutional” way forward on the issue of human sexuality, specifically same-sex relationships. Here’s what I think is significant: the RCA’s Standards (which are part of the Constitution) include the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Heidelberg Catechism does indeed condemn same-sex sexual activity in question 107 and 108. You could argue that it’s not mentioned specifically. True. Neither is rape or incest. Grand theft auto and insurance fraud are not mentioned under “thou shalt not steal.” So while you could make the claim that they are not specifically named, I think it’s fair to say that the RCA’s constitution does indeed speak to the moral order of human sexuality. If someone introduced a motion to affirm larceny or make a misleading declaration about a presidential candidate, I’d make a similar argument—that doing so would ultimately, at root, go against one of our confessions.
 
Admittedly, I’m not an RCA polity wonk, so I’m open to feedback here.
 
But I think this also makes it clear that the divergence of views about how to interpret Scripture and the Standards on this matter should be treated as a confessional issue, not merely a liturgical issue. Or, at the very least, we need to clarify whether our confessions and liturgies may disagree with one another. In my opinion, a motion that would approve a liturgy for same-sex marriages would fly directly in the face of the Heidelberg Catechism. The liturgy would violate the Standards. We could do it, but our constitution would then be inconsistent. 

Comments

Were there non-abusive same-sex relationships in New Testament times? 

6/10/2016

Comments

 
Short answer: yes. 

But why is this significant? Because some scholars try to make this case: 

1. There were no loving, non-abusive same-sex relationships in New Testament times. 
 - What relationships there were (so the argument goes), were abusive: master-slave, or older man with younger, teenage boy (pederasty).
2. So when New Testament authors condemn same-sex sexual activity, it's because those relationships were abusive. 
3. Therefore, the New Testament does not speak to loving, non-abusive same-sex relationships. As a result, we can affirm loving, non-abusive relationships that involve same-sex sexual activity. 

The underlying moral logic to this revisionist argument is: same-sex sexual activity condemned by Scripture is sinful because these relationships are abusive, not because they are two people of the same sex. 

This differs from the traditional understanding of these texts, which is: same-sex sexual activity is sinful precisely because it is same-sex sexual activity. It's the objective act and fact that makes it wrong, just as (for example) one could have an adulterous relationship that is loving, mutual, consensual, and non-abusive but still morally wrong. 

At the heart of the above argument is the basic historical statement of #1. Is it true? No. Here are some examples of loving, non-abusive, and often lifelong same-sex relationships, ranging from Plato's Greece to the Roman Empire centuries after Jesus: 
  • From the Attic period of Greek history, we have at least 12 vases with erotic scenes involving bearded men—both partners are men, not boys.
  • In Plato’s Symposium, Agathon and Pausanius are adult lovers. They are consenting adults whose age differential is irrelevant and who have chosen to continue mutually loving one another.
  • Plato’s Euthydemus: Ctesippus and Cleinias are both younger men and are lovers.
  • Charmides: Charmides, a young man is said to be an eromenos of other youths.
  • In Xenophon's work: (1) Memorabilia – men using other men as women. (2) Anabasis: Menon, a youth, has a barbarian eromenos, Ariaues, who is a bearded man older than himself. Age and role reversal clearly move this outside the realm of pederasty. Mutual consent is necessary. (3) Symposium – Critobulus and Cleinias, two younger men well-endowed with body hair (a key mark of manhood, not boyhood), are lovers.
  • The sacred band of Thebes. This military force was made up of lovers who at first fought while interspersed throughout the regiments but who later who made into a separate contingent of troops. This fighting force made Thebes the most powerful state in Greece.[1] Xenophon observed that, at Thebes, the male relationships were not transitory as in other states where pederasty was much more transitional; rather, male companions lived together “like married people.”[2] Aristotle noted that in his day, Theban male lovers still plighted mutual devotion (as in marriage vows). Plutarch thought the name “Sacred Band” came from this rite.
  • Cicero criticizes Marcus Antonius by bringing up his past relationship with Curio, with whom he joined “in a stable and permanent marriage.”
  • Martial describes a man, Galba, who had married six or seven cinaedi. He also describes a same-sex marriage complete with torch-lit procession, a wedding veil, a dowry, and the cheers for good luck.
  • Juvenal notes that a man of wealth and status was given away in marriage to another man; he surmises that the day is close when male-male marriages will take place and be recorded in the state’s registers.
  • A brief narrative in Lucian’s ‘Dialogue of the Courtesans,” describes a marriage between women.
  • Funerary relief from the Augustan period depicting two women holding hands in a dextrarum iunctio, the prime symbol of marriage.
  • In the 4th century AD, a law issued by Constantius II and Constans prohibited a man from marrying a man “as if he were a woman.” A law like this is generally issued only when this is a real possibility and debate (as in the numerous states in 2004 who passed similar laws). 
  • Finally, the example of female homoeroticism in the ancient world, though less prominent than male homoeroticism, does not in any way map onto the practice of pederasty or abuse. Female homosexuality is all over the spectrum, including marriage.​

Here's how scholar Mark D. Smith summarizes the situation: “Whether the same thing is meant by ‘marriage’ in all these cases is unclear, as is also the legal status of such unions, but the existence of some form of homosexual marriages cannot be doubted, and none of them can be termed pederastic in any meaningful sense.” (“Ancient Bisexuality and Romans 1:26-27,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64, no. 2 (1996): 237).

Historian Kyle Harper notes we have “extraordinary testimony” to “durable forms of same-sex companionship. In a peaceful and prosperous society, amid a highly urbanized and remarkably interconnected empire where marriage was valorized as an institution of the greatest moral and emotional fulfillment, same-sex pairs openly claimed, and ritually enacted, their own conjugal rights.” (From Shame to Sin, 36). 


So why does the myth of #1 persist? I don't know. Revisionists like James Brownson and Matthew Vines don't mention these historians or address their viewpoints head on. I suspect that many modern people, including scholars, have so bought into the myth of enlightenment--that we moderns are so much more morally developed than the ancient world--that we simply ignore the historical data.

What I find interesting is that historians like Louis Crompton (Homosexuality and Civilization), Eva Cantarella (Bisexuality in the Ancient World), and Kyle Harper (From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity) are top-notch historians who consider the argument made by revisionists--that the New Testament condemns same-sex sexual activity because it is abusive--and explicitly reject it. Rather, these historians, whose focus is on understanding the moral logic of those in the Greco-Roman world, argue that the underlying moral logic of the Bible is indeed what Christians have traditionally held: that same-sex sexual activity per se is wrong, not merely when it takes place in abusive relationships. 

So can one make the revisionist case? Perhaps. But it can't be rooted in the historically inaccurate idea that all same-sex relationships in the Greco-Roman world were abusive or exploitative. They weren't. Of course, the other option would be to simply acknowledge that the Bible does intend to condemn same-sex sexual activity per se, but we don't want to. That would allow us to be honest with the historical scholarship and honest about what some are doing with the Bible: setting it aside. 


Comments

James Brownson's view of "one flesh": Does it work? 

4/12/2016

Comments

 
Picture
James Brownson’s Bible Gender Sexuality is one of the most prominent works that attempts to make a biblical case for affirming same-sex relationships. I've worked through the book several times for a variety of purposes. I greatly respect Dr. Brownson as a theologian and as a fellow member of the Reformed Church in America, and it is in the spirit of respectful dialogue that I want to examine briefly his chapter on how to understand the biblical phrase “one flesh,” which, in my view, makes some problematic assertions about this phrase. I’ll briefly summarize what I see as key moves that Dr. Brownson makes in this chapter and explain why I question some of these moves.
 
Brownson rightly asserts that the phrase “one flesh” in Genesis 2 is not simply a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but speaks of the “kinship bond”—Brownson’s key phrase here—forged between husband and wife. I agree. Sexual union is the union of two bodies that points to something deeper and greater—the union of two persons, two lives. As Brownson helpfully puts it, “Sexual union is conceived in the Bible as profoundly metaphorical—it points beyond the physical act to the relational connections and intimacy that undergird and surround it” (89). Sex says something, and Brownson rightly asserts that “we cannot say with our bodies what we will not say with the rest of our lives. Bodies are not indifferent, and what we do with our bodies is not indifferent” (102).
 
So far, so good.
 
But the central focus of this chapter is not sex, but kinship—the lifelong obligations to care for another person and live in a relationship of commitment and care. Thus, in Brownson's view, “one flesh” has little if anything to do with gender complementarity, biological differences of male and female, or procreation; in short, with anything that might suggest that “one flesh” implies that the male-female relationship is exclusively normative. The Bible may largely assume male-female marriages, but there's nothing in the concept of "one flesh" that logically entails it.
 
However, at a certain point, Brownson recognizes that focusing on a committed kinship bond alone can’t be enough to define marriage. If this were the case, Ruth and Noami’s relationship would certainly qualify, as well as celibate spiritual friendship relationships. If “a committed kinship bond” = “one flesh,” then a man could have a “one flesh” relationship with his sister, grandma, son, or good friend. But clearly Brownson needs and wants “marriage” and “one flesh” to be more specific than a general committed kinship bond. So while he begins the chapter by rightly wanting to avoid “oversexualizing” or “overgenitalizing” the term “one flesh,” he also acknowledges that one-flesh relationships must be connected to sex and genitals (otherwise, we’re back to questioning why I don't have a legitimate one-flesh relationship with my grandma and celibate friends). And this is where things get interesting and, in my reading of Brownson, a bit convoluted.
 
In order to emphasize the sexual nature of the “one flesh” relationship, Brownson makes recourse to 1 Corinthians 6:16 and Paul’s language of “one flesh” to refer to a man having sex with a female prostitute (107). Paul’s use of “one flesh” here is clearly and overtly referring to sexual intercourse. So, yes, says Brownson, “one flesh” clearly has to do with sex and genitals, not just a committed kinship bond.
 
But, Brownson asks, why doesn’t Scripture refer to same-sex relationships as “one flesh” relationships? Well, he says, same-sex relationships were “marked by differences in social rank and status, and they were always described as episodic rather than permanent” (107). Furthermore, same-sex relationships were often unilateral and one-sided, with one partner being dominant and the subordinate partner serving the other’s sexual needs. For the sake of summary, note the characteristics again:
  • Difference in social rank and status
  • Episodic
  • Unilateral and one-sided
Because same-sex relationships in the ancient world always had these characteristics (according to Brownson—other historians and classicists would disagree), the biblical authors would never imagine referring to this kind of abusive relationship as a “one flesh” relationship.
 
I can understand why Brownson makes this strategic move. In this chapter, he’s simply trying to establish that “one flesh” relationships might include same-sex relationships. He imagines an objector saying something like “But the Bible never refers to these relationships—including their sexual component—as ‘one flesh’ relationships!” So Brownson responds in two steps: first, one-flesh relationships are more than just sexual and second, that same-sex relationships in Bible times didn't live up to what the Bible means by "one flesh." To this second point, I imagine him saying something like, “Well, these relationships were abusive in Bible times, so that helps us see why the Bible would never use the term ‘one flesh’ to talk about one-sided, episodic, power- and status-driven relationships!”
 
Except…
 
Except that’s what Paul just did. In 1 Corinthians 6, the very passage to which Brownson has just appealed earlier in the very same paragraph (107-108). Prostitution clearly involved these characteristics:
  • Difference in social rank and status
  • Episodic
  • Unilateral and one-sided
 
What’s the point here? Precisely this: less-than-ideal sexual relationships are not a barrier to biblical authors referring to sexual relationships as “one flesh” relationships. This being the case, Brownson’s main response to the objector noted above loses its force. In the Bible, the concept of "one flesh" is a prescriptive concept--it shows us what should be. The one-flesh sexual union should take place only within the context of the one-flesh lifelong kinship bond. But Paul can also use it as a descriptive concept--simply to describe the nature of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. That objective act still says something (as Brownson agrees) and you shouldn't say with your body what you aren't saying with your whole life. But Brownson's argument depends on treating "one flesh" as a purely prescriptive concept; if it can work merely descriptively to talk about the act of sexual union, regardless of the other factors in play, his argument breaks down.
 
So, if Brownson’s explanation doesn’t hold up, why don’t the biblical authors refer to same-sex relationships as “one flesh” relationships? One possibility is that two people of the same sex can't actually be "one flesh" in the most basic physical sense. In other words, the biological complementarity of male and female is actually necessary to the concept of "one flesh," and thus to marriage. One can certainly be committed in a life-long kinship bond with someone of the same sex (friendship), but it can't be the specific form of life-long kinship bond that involves sex and genitals. 
 
The historic Christian view of marriage would say something like this: the one-flesh marriage relationship entails the union of a woman and man. It unites their bodies, emotions, lives, selves, and souls. But this communion of persons includes the one-flesh sexual union that requires male-female difference: in the ‘marital act,’ their love can literally become personified in the one flesh of the child produced as a result of their life and love. In other words, the metaphorical meaning of sexual union--the union of two lives, not just two bodies--is built on the literal sexual union of male and female (Brownson's view would want to keep the metaphorical meaning while jettisoning the literal meaning; I want to say that they're distinct but inseparable). The one-flesh sexual union is a sign and seal of the whole-life one-flesh union of the couple, which brings forth, with God’s help, the one flesh of the child. The term ‘one flesh’ is thus a theological concept rich in meaning and one that has a view toward the unitive meaning of sexual union—that it unites husband and wife not just as bodies but as persons—but to the procreative meaning—it is fruitful and participates in the mystery of life.
 
And here is where Brownson has to avoid or erase the particularities of male-female difference as somehow inherent to the meaning of ‘one flesh.’ He alludes to the fact that our bodies say something and that sexual intercourse says something, but he doesn’t explain what different bodies say. In other words, do two male bodies or two female bodies involved in sexual activity ‘say’ the same thing as a male body and female body involved in sexual union? He does say this: "People are not to say with their bodies what they cannot or will not say with the whole of their lives" (109). He doesn't seem to consider this statement from a different angle: people may be able to say something with the whole of their lives that they cannot say (or should not attempt to say) with their bodies, i.e., sexually. I have life-long, committed kinship bonds with numerous people, but there's only one person with whom it's legitimate for me to have a specifically sexual relationship. Historically, part of the reason that same-sex couples were not treated as married was because it’s literally impossible for them to engage in the ‘marital act,’ the act of sexual union that actually says, with our bodies, that we give ourselves fully, faithfully, freely, and fruitfully to one another. Is this exclusionary and prejudicial? It may be, but it seems as though we here simply come up against the scandal of particularity, the limits of our bodies, and the limits of the givenness of creation (limits and givenness that modernity hates). But for his argument to work, Brownson would have to disagree; for him, male and female bodies may not be identical but they must be fundamentally interchangeable to the meaning of sex, which means in part that children have nothing to do with the meaning of sexual union. Said differently, the historic view affirms that marriage is the peculiar kind of kinship bond aimed at least partially (but essentially) at creating more kin; Brownson’s revisionist position has to say that marriage as kinship bond has nothing to do with procreation, i.e., producing more kin. But that’s another chapter in his book and a post for another time.



Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>

    About the blog

    My thoughts on how following Jesus calls us to go with the grain of the universe and against the grain of the world. I love the Bible, theology, and philosophy and how they intersect with just about anything else. 

      Subscribe! Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox 

    Submit
    Search:
    Use the search box below to find past blog topics
    Tweets by @BransonParler

    RSS Feed