When reading through the original forty questions, I couldn't tell if DeYoung was being antagonistic (as though these questions don't have answers), snarky (as though anyone who gave serious thought to these questions would surely agree with him), or genuinely curious (as though I should give him the benefit of the doubt...which I suppose I should...). I, for one, am frustrated that so many on the fundamentalist side of the Church assume that their brothers and sisters have not devoted serious and intense theological thought to this issue.
I came across DeYoung's post when a friend shared Ben Irwin's forty answers. As soon as I read the first question in the original post, I thought: I have to provide my own answers. Not because I'm somehow convinced that DeYoung will ever see my blog. Not because I think I can change anyone's mind.
Instead, I offer my answers for the same reason I suspect Irwin did: the Church really doesn't like having these conversations, but we must. There is a deep divide in the Body of Christ, and to heal it, we must first give careful, detailed, charitable, and orthodox voice to every side of the debate. And so, as much as I want to think that DeYoung is being cocky, I'm going to take him at his word. I'm going to respond to these questions as though they are an invitation to dialog rather than an antagonistic shot across the bow.
- - -
Kevin DeYoung: 1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?
Answer: I first started to re-asses my stance on same-sex relationships and marriage towards the end of college and came to my current position during seminary. I grew up on and around military bases during the days of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and so if I knew any LGBT persons growing up, I did not know it. (In high school, there were a few students who identified as LGBT, but I largely ignored the legitimacy of their self-identification. To them, I offer my sincere apology.) During the last year of undergrad, I volunteered at a parish with very open and affirming clergy; they paved the way for me to consider that a Christian could faithfully love and affirm LGBT persons and relationships. At Candler and LTSS, I met a large number of LGBT students sincere in their desire to serve the Triune God and the Church. Many of these students are much better Christians than I will ever be; they understand and live out Christ's concern for those on the margins and for the oppressed in a way that I can only pray to one day experience. Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson also played a major role in my shift, and I commend his writings on the issue. I was pushed to consider the full extent of the Church.
All told, it has been a seven year shift, and I've held my current position for about five years.
2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?
Here, DeYoung and I part ways. As someone who grew up within the UMC, I carry with me a respect for the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Like Luther and the Evangelische Reformers, I hold to a view of Scripture as primum verum rather than the sole authority. Therefore, I am open to the role of Reason (as guided by the Holy Spirit) and Experience (mediated through Scripture, Tradition, and Reason) in opening up the mysteries of faith.
To that end, no single passage from the Bible has led me to change my mind. It should be noted, however, that close readings of Sacred Scripture in full historical context are open to interpretation in a way that DeYoung denies. (Irwin's response offers a descent summary of these interpretations.) I might also note that a literal reading of Scripture does not forbid polygamy except for clergy.
3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?
Using the same pericopes used to affirm all sexual activity within the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Specifically, I look to readings from Genesis 2, the Song of Songs, Jesus at the wedding in Cana, and the metaphorical language of the Church as the bride of Christ as affirmations of right human sexuality.
4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?
The same ones DeYoung points to and for the same reasons: the marriage metaphor is not primarily about the physical act of intercourse. Instead, it is about a mutually self-giving love.
I would further point out that heterosexual marriage cannot adequately depict the relationship between Christ and the Church. Humans can only love imperfectly, whereas Christ loves perfectly. If we could love like Christ loves, we wouldn't need Christ.
5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?
First, why are we discussing Jesus in the past tense? We worship a risen Lord.
If we are, for some reason, distinguishing between the historical Jesus of Nazareth and the Risen Christ, then it is highly unlikely that the Jesus of the first century ever considered same-sex relationships which were consensual and monogamous. Such relationships were rare (though, unlike many of today's thinkers, I am unwilling to say that they did not exist). However, I am generally unwilling to make a distinction between the historical Jesus and the Risen Christ, and I hope that DeYoung would agree with me on that point.
I believe that Jesus celebrates with the Church anytime two people enter into a loving and committed marriage.
6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?
Christ does not reassert "the Genesis definition of marriage" (and I note that the Genesis definition of marriage is polygamous) but quotes it as the establishment of marriage as a social reality and affirming the permanence of marriage. When he quotes Genesis 2 in the tenth chapter of St. Mark's Gospel, he is not saying, "Only men and women can get married." Instead, he's saying, "People get married. These married people become flesh. They are united in God, and should remain united."
7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?
If I had to use a single word to translate porneia, I would render it "promiscuity." I'm not a Greek scholar, though.
If I had to fill out that translation, I might define it this way: "seeking sexual fulfillment with another person outside the confines of a consensual, healthy, honest, and loving relationship; extending the physical nature of a relationship beyond the emotional, mental, and spiritual commitments within said relationship."
8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?
The "traditional" reading of Romans 1 always assumes that the relationships among women and men are "shameful" because they are homosexual. What if it's because the sexual relationships were not monogamous, consensual, or loving? From what we know about same-sex relationships in the first century world, they were almost entirely based around prostitution and an abuse of power dynamics.
9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?
No. Not unless the "liars" are kept out of Heaven as well. And if the liars are kept out, what hope is there for any of us?
10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?
DeYoung repeatedly asks for a list of sexual sins. I'm going to stick with my definition of porneia from Q7.
11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?
The fruits of biblical criticism over the centuries are incalculable, and modern theologians have built upon the work begun by Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and yes, even Calvin. We must never assume that our forebears had a perfect understanding of Scripture or of God. They were, after all, human.
Moreover, while I hesitate to say that I better understand Scripture better than Aquinas, I might be so bold as to claim that twenty-first century Christians have a better understanding of same-sex relationships than Christians from centuries past.
12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?
There was a time when European and North American Christians had to convince Christians in Africa that polygamy was unacceptable and "biblically incorrect." I wonder what arguments they used, given that polygamy was practiced among certain African civilizations and within Israelite culture.
Larger issues of sexuality and monogamy aside, I fail to see why different arguments are needed for the Global South than among fundamentalists down the street.
13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?
No. Instead, I would suggest that people who oppose same-sex marriage act out of a number of fears and misunderstandings, often sown by Church leaders, which results in biased actions. The bigotry and animus comes from ecclesial and political leaders who fear losing their power and privilege within a changing society.
As to the political aspect, we can only ever speculate about motivations when politicians change and clarify positions. Politicians may publicly deny support for same-sex marriage out of political greed and a thirst for power; they may support same-sex marriage for the same reasons. I care about their motivations, but I do not pretend to know them.
14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?
I think children do best with loving parents, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, and a loving community to raise them.
15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?
Numerous studies have demonstrated that children of same-sex couples are not any worse off than children from heterosexual couples. What we should be concerned about is that we provide every child the resources needed to thrive; we should care more that a child has three meals a day than that they have two mothers.
16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?
The Church and the state both have a role to play in providing children with parents or guardians who can provide a safe environment to learn, grow, and thrive.
17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?
Yes, and we as the Church should also note that it is possible for persons to find fulfillment outside of marriage as well. The Church used to affirm those called to celibacy, and we have unfortunately lost that affirmation (and, more unfortunately, we have also at times forced that call upon the LGBT community).
18. How would you define marriage?
I distinguish between civil and religious marriage. Civil marriage is defined by the state and is marked by certain obligations under the law. Religious marriage, as defined by the Church, is a sacramental union between two consenting adults, pledged in front of and affirmed by both God and the Church, to offer mutual love, support, and care, and, when it is God's will, to raise children. (Note well that same-sex and infertile couples can still raise children.) In this sacrament, the couple practices kentoic love.
19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?
No. Support for same-sex marriage is not the same thing as supporting a pan-sexual free-for-all.
20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?
Legally, yes. Within the Christian tradition, yes.
21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?
Any relation: easy. In-breeding and abuse of familial power.
Any number: legally, to promote the civil benefits of marriage (one designated "next-of-kin" to serve as medical proxy and inheritor of the estate -- with my apologies to lawyers who are probably shuddering at my inaccurate terminology).
Religiously, the Christian Tradition has interpreted marriage as between two people. Within the New Testament canon, monogamy was only ordained for elders and deacons (which, the Tradition has understood as clergy, up until the Reformation). The Tradition later expanded monogamy.
22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?
Yes, and 18 seems as good a place as any in as far as the US and many other nations have identified it as the "age of majority." I'm not sure why this is an issue, though. Again, support for same-sex marriage is not equivalent with support for any of the "parade of horribles" imagined by certain Supreme Court justices.
23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage? - and -
24. If not, why not?
This question is poorly conceived, and the answer is "Yes, but also no." For one thing, meaningful relationships are not the same as marriages. I have many meaningful relationships with friends and family as well as with my wife. But my spouse is in a fundamentally different category from my friends and family. I interact with each of those groups differently.
On the no side, there are certain family relationships which already include many of the same benefits of legal marriage. Legally, marriage is about certain tax and medical benefits (along with a long list of things about wills and estates that I don't fully understand) -- a unity within a given household, if you will. Those protections already extend to other legal dependents through different legal means (birth or adoption for children until they reach adulthood).
As for friendship, on the yes side, the state does not check to see if two people of the opposite sex are "in love" before issuing a marriage license. Legally, there is no restriction to prevent a woman (let's call her "Sally") from marrying a man ("Jim") just because Sally and Jim want to share in the copious benefits of being legally marriage.
If, though, DeYoung means something other than a consenting adult human, he is simply traveling further down his slippery slope argument. Marriage requires two humans legally capable of consenting to marriage. By its definition, it excludes animals.
25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?
Again, it depends. Nobody is suggesting that a pastor ever be forced to perform a same-sex marriage, even if that person is a chaplain in the employ of the state. If, on the other hand, that person is a judge or clerk, they must be willing to serve all citizens equally. Likewise, I can understand a photographer or musician not being compelled to perform their art at a same-sex wedding ceremony (or a ceremony outside of their religious tradition, for that matter). But a baker cannot refuse to make a cake for a reception -- baking a cake for an after-party is not the same thing as participating in the marriage service itself.
We must also be careful about language of "punishment, retribution, or coercion." Religious persecution is one thing; loss of one's perceived "preferred status" is quite another.
26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?
If a Christian pastor is ever forced to perform a marriage in direct contradiction to their religious beliefs, I will be among the first in line to protest.
If a Christian baker is boycotted for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception, I will likely join in the boycott.
If either of those Christians comes to me to discuss the issue, I will welcome them in the name of the Lord.
27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?
If by "shaming and bullying," DeYoung means being unfairly targeted for emotional, verbal, or physical abuse based on adherence to one's identity, then yes. I will stand up against bullying, whether the victim is LGBT or hetero/cis, Christian or any other religion, male or female, nerd or jock. But if he means, "Will you break picket lines?" then I must point back to my answer for Q26.
28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?
Pre-marital counseling, referral to licensed couples' counselors (if needed), and the full support of the Church are essential for all marriages. I would go further and point out that some times, maintaining a healthy marriage requires that the Church lend financial and material support in addition to emotional and spiritual support for struggling families.
29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline? - and -
30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?
Adultery is wrong. Adultery is always wrong. The Church does not recognize "consensual" forms of adultery. (And I hasten to define adultery: sexual activity in which a married person commits sexual acts with someone other than his or her spouse.)
As to "sexual activity outside of marriage": "Sexual activity" is difficult to define. Hugs and kisses can be sexual or platonic acts. In keeping with my definition of porneia ("extending the the physical nature of a relationship beyond the emotional, mental, and spiritual commitments within said relationship"), I would say that acts involving the genitalia are reserved for married couples.
31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?
By affirming a positive image of monogamy and developing a healthy theology of the body and human sexuality. This must be instilled in our youth, which means we must affirm that young women have value outside of their roles as wives and mothers. (We cannot deny that feminist and queer theologies are both linked to developing a robust and positive view of human sexuality.) By affirming and supporting married couples in all ways. And, above all, by offering the grace of Christ to those who fall short of these ideals.
32. If “love wins,” how would you define love?
Love wins because Christ conquered the grave. Thus, love is a self-sacrificial, kenotic activity rooted in the infinite love which is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and expressed perfectly by their relationship. This love is infused to us all by God's grace.
33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?
Genesis 1:1 - Revelation 22:21 -- The entire witness of Scripture testifies to Divine Love.
As to "proof texts," Matthew 22:36-40, John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13, Galatians 5:14, Philippians 2:7, and 1 John 4:8 are good starting points.
34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?
Christ came to fulfill the Law. The Law is to love. We are called to be like Christ.
35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?
Yes.
36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?
A lot. Faith is dynamic and ever-changing.
37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?
I'm honestly not sure how to answer this question. For one thing, I'm a Lutheran; when I use the term "Evangelical," I mean it in a completely different way than DeYoung and the folks at The Gospel Coalition. When I speak of being "born again," I'm referring to the Sacrament of Baptism (which has become a lot more important in my theology over the past several years, but is only loosely tied to my views on same-sex marriage). I've actually come to reject the "penal substitution" model of atonement in favor of the more ancient Christus Victor model (unrelated to my view of same-sex marriage; oddly, I think I could make more of a case if I held to penal substitution). DeYoung and I mean different things by "total trustworthiness of the Bible." As to the "urgent need to evangelize the lost," (again, I wouldn't use that term) I find it much more loving to tell people about a God who loves them enough to join them on the margins of society than to tell them of a God who loves them but fundamentally hates who they are.
38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?
Many parishes within the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and even a few within the United Methodist Church. Member churches within the Union of Utrect (Old Catholic). There are even a few individual parishes, clergy, and members within the Roman Catholic Church. And because DeYoung is "Reformed," I would be remiss if I didn't point out the Presbyterian Church (USA). Though I doubt he would consider these denominations "orthodox" -- apparently there was a gap in Christian Orthodoxy between the time Paul died and Calvin entered Geneva.
39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?
Yes to all of the above. More so than any other question, this one feels like a slap in the face -- that somehow, DeYoung believes that a Christian cannot answer this question in the affirmative and still affirm LGBT persons and same-sex marriage.
40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?
...didn't we already cover this one? Cf. Qs 8-10.
- - -
I am curious -- how would other Christians answer these questions?
If you've answered them elsewhere, please, link in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment