Re Time to Listen for the Spirit’s Voice, November 2014
I appreciate David Harris’s call for serious prayer, seeking God’s will and to “quiet both our emotions and our thinking” when it comes to discussing the controversial area of same-sex relationships in the context of the Presbyterian Church. One cannot question the sincerity of both sides of the discussion that biblical faithfulness is paramount. The wise words of exhortation from our moderator “On Fighting Fair,” are timely and to be heeded. A lot of church conflict revolves around minor and trivial issues but can be destructive. The concern of same-sex relationships and more broadly, Christian sexual ethics, is of prime importance and should be openly discussed. But again, let both sides engage in a “fair fight, speaking the truth in love.”
The two Testaments do not explicitly employ contemporary vocabulary such as “same-sex relationships” nor on a wider basis use the acrostic LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender). This does not suggest, as David Harris states that “there is little in scripture that can be clearly said to prohibit committed same-sex relationships.” Such familiar passages as Romans 1:26-27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 continue to be cited as texts clearly prohibiting same-sex relationships. Besides these and other text we could draw upon, Jesus himself clearly articulates his teaching on sexual ethics.
Mark 10:1-12 is one of the primary text Jesus develops his teaching of sexual ethics.
This periscope presents the radical difference between the conventional values thus far espoused by the disciples (and by the society to which they belonged) with a new perspective of the kingdom of God. Jesus does not base his kingdom values on so-called progressive values, opinions and cultural sentiment. Jesus resolutely extracts his sexual ethics from the Genesis account of creation.
In this text of Mark we find the Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus on a point of Mosaic law. These Pharisees already had some indication that Jesus’ view on the subject were extreme, not likely to endear him to people in general, leaving him open to the charge of contradiction to the Mosaic law. “Jesus, is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” “What did Moses command you?” rejoins Jesus. “Well, he permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.” Jesus does not correct them but will give the reason for such consent. “Moses allowed this concession not because it was the law of God, but it was because of your hard hearted ways. This rebellion of your hearts made it necessary for Moses to legislate for a situation which was never envisaged in the divine purpose of God.”
Over against this concession Jesus cites God’s original intension as it appears in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. This was God’s primary blueprint for humanity before the Fall. In Mark’s text Jesus endorses God’s injunction that the marriage relationship is exclusively between male and female. This was established from the beginning, at the outset of creation. These first principles must take primacy over the subsequence corrective provision Moses made with his “certificate of divorce.”
Geneses 1:27 and 2:24 unite to clearly express both sexes were created in the image of God. Together they were to unite in marriage, sexual union, creating one flesh.
Jesus doesn’t engage the Pharisees in an endless and futile debate about what the law stated and what Moses’ conceded. Rather he returns to God’s determined plan for marriage and sexual relationships extracted from the creation account. This “certificate for divorce” was a concession for those who rebelled against the paradigm of marriage God instituted at the outset of creation. In discussing marriage relationships Jesus adopts a “back to creation” model of human sexuality. Jesus’ kingdom principles are marital monogamy and permanence of the “two-ness” of the sexes.
Nowhere do we discover Jesus naively imbibing from the cultural wells of the time. He would not adjust nor accommodate God’s clearly stated standards for marriage and sexual relationships to that of the Pharisees(nor any other common cultural values of the time). Again, the basis of such resolute teaching Jesus firmly established on the bedrock of God’s created order.
How unfortunate for the church to ignore what Jesus taught regarding marriage and sexual ethics in human relationships and at the same time triumphantly claim “Jesus is Lord?” How can we individually or corporately claim the “Lordship of Christ” and continue to promote or practice what Jesus never endorsed?
Discipleship demands unconditional servanthood. “If anyone would follow me they must deny themselves and take up their cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life, will lose it, but whoever looses their life for me, will fine it.” Discipleship is giving up your rights, demands of entitlement and individual self-expression.
A follower of Christ is one who declares with fear, trembling and humility, that “I am not my own, but belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ.
Christ calls us to his radical kingdom principles and values. He does not call us to accommodate ourselves individually nor corporately as His church to cultural values and opinion in order to make His gospel more palatable.
As a church, we have this incredible opportunity to be the church Christ has called us to amidst a culture that is sexually broken and confused. Jesus located himself in the middle of those who were “eating and drinking with the tax collectors sinners.” He did not come for the “healthy, but for the sick, the broken.”
This is not to be triumphalistic nor vitriolic towards those we disagree with nor hostile towards sexual orientations which we oppose. It is an opportunity to incarnate the love, the values and truths of Christ for which a world He gave his life for.
Let us remember Paul’s words, that we are not, nor do we have any reason to be ashamed of the “gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes.” At the same time, a diluted, accommodating Christian message, fashioned and shaped in the opinions of culture, is an impotent gospel.
