Can Churches change their interpretation of Scripture in regard to same-gender marriage? If so, who gives them that authority?
Rev. Whitton in Louisiana, who penned a previous guest post on diversity in the United Methodist Church, returns today with a helpful reflection on whether the Christian tradition has and–further–can change their interpretation of Scripture…and what that means for denominations in response to Marriage Equality.
[post formatted to match HX’s style sheet]
===
By Whose Authority?
Rev. Brady S. Whitton
In the wake of the recent SCOTUS ruling on same-gender marriage, the scriptural authority debate in the Church has once again reached a fevered pitch. Some argue the plain (and perhaps inerrant) teaching of the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith, while others believe some Biblical writings, while inspired by God, came to us through fallible human hearts, minds and experience and must be weighed in light of the living Word of God in our midst.
The question, of course, is who is right? Which approach to the Bible is the correct one? And when it comes to interpreting Biblical teaching for the life of the Church who has the final say?
First Interpretation…
Some suggest the first significant Christian act of scriptural interpretation happened in Acts 15 in what is known as the Jerusalem Council.
The early Church was locked in a debate about whether Gentile converts to Christianity should be required to obey the Jewish law, which included circumcision, in order to follow Jesus (see Galatians 2:11ff). In Acts 15, we read how early Christian leaders gathered to consider the issue and offered the following decision: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these [four] requirements . . .” (read Acts 15:28-29 for the details). What we see here is the early Christian community debating, listening, and praying about a matter of scriptural interpretation.
In the end, they decided to reduce the number of commands from 613 to only four. Talk about a reinterpretation!
…By Whose Authority?
The question is where did the early Church get the authority to do this? How did they come to the conclusion that the written word (in this case the Hebrew Scriptures) was not the highest and final authority, but that they, the living community, were?
Some would say the authority came from Jesus himself.
In Matthew 16, Jesus says to Peter:
“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, andwhatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18).
In rabbinical language, to “bind” and “loose” is to declare certain actions forbidden or permitted, which is precisely what we see the early Church doing in Acts 15.
When Peter died, the binding and loosing authority given by Jesus passed to his ecclesial descendants:
- In the Roman Catholic Church to this day, the final authority in interpretive matters is in the hands of the Pope.
- For Protestants, however, the question of authority is a little more complicated. Because Protestants don’t look to the Pope as head of the Church the authority to interpret the Bible and its place in the life of the Church has been vested in a variety of ecclesial bodies — Presbyterians have General Assembly, Episcopalians General Convention, United Methodists have General Conference, etc. (Yes, these are interpretive bodies not just legislative ones!)
The Methodist Connection
In Methodist history, we have seen the interpretive authority of General Conference at work in several important moments.
- In the 18th and 19th centuries, there was considerable debate about the morality of slavery. Methodists disagreed over whether or not Christians could own slaves. One side interpreted scripture as allowing slavery, the other forbidding it. The issue was debated and put to a vote at the 1844 General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC). Despite the temporary schism this vote caused, with it the MEC overturned thousands of years of Biblical interpretation that permitted Christian slave ownership. Where did they get the authority to do this? Matthew 16:18.
- A similar debate took place regarding the place of women in Church leadership. 1 Corinthians 14:34 says plainly, “Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak.” Some traditions to this day interpret this literally and do not allow woman to serve as clergy. In 1956, however, The General Conference of the MEC voted to allow the ordination of women. Where did they get the authority to do this? Matthew 16:18.
The question before the United Methodist Church today is whether or not we should rethink the traditional Christian stance on homosexuality. Some clearly believe change is not an option. The Bible says what the Bible says. My question is why not? It’s been done before. Why is this time different? Does the 2016 General Conference – like the Council of Jerusalem and the General Conferences of 1844 and 1956 — have the authority to make this interpretive decision or not?
While some would offer a loud “No!” believing the Bible to be the highest and final authority, the early Church didn’t seem to have this attitude. When interpreting scripture for their life together they believed and acted as if they — the Spirit-filled and living Body of Christ — were the highest authority. They believed the Holy Spirit was still at work in the Church and was still capable of leading and guiding them. They sought the Spirit’s guidance and trusted their ability to faithfully discern God’s will for their time.
Looking Forward
What about us? Do we believe the Spirit is still at work in the Church? Are we willing to prayerfully debate and listen to see where the Spirit is leading us today? Are we willing to use the authority Jesus has given to bind and loose? Are we willing to use the authority Jesus gave us to extend God’s welcome and blessing to all of God’s children?
Are we willing to accept that God may want us to do a new thing?
The early Church was.
The Methodist Church has multiple times in the past.
Why should this time be any different?
By the way, if United Methodists do vote to do a new thing in 2016 and anyone asks, “Where did you get the authority?” — and some surely will – I suggest we start our answer this way: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . .” (Acts 15:28).
Rev. Brady S. Whitton is the Senior Pastor at First United Methodist Church in Baton Rouge, LA. He holds a B.A. in Philosophy and Religion and a Master of Divinity from Drew University. Brady is married to Dr. Natasha Whitton, who teaches English at Southeastern Louisiana University. Together they have three children ages 10, 7, and 4. When he’s not being a pastor, husband, and dad, Brady likes to collapse and watch a good movie!
===
Thoughts?
One quick note is that I’m quite pleased to see other people have picked up and are applying the binding and loosing authority that we’ve explored previously here and here.
I really, really dig this.
As Christians, we reinterpret scripture all the time. If we did not do this, I think we would deny that God is still capable of teaching us new things. And, if God cannot continually teach us, then we must already know it all. I find that quite absurd.
Peter did not reinterpret the Bible. He simply chose what Levitical laws to enforce for gentiles and what laws not to enforce.
Throughout the Old Testament and New Testament, sexual immorality has been treated differently from other sins, even more so with homosexuality. Sexual immorality was also one of the four things Peter said gentiles needed to stay away from.
The two examples used by the author are disingenuous at best. While forced slavery may have been permitted by the church, it was not permitted under Levitical law except as directed by God as an alternative to death. The the laws regarding how to treat slaves was to protect slaves, and the type of slavery that was permitted was what we call today, indentured servitude.
1 Cor 11:5 allows women to pray and prophesy. Titus 2:4 talks about women teaching other women. The problem Paul addresses in the epistle to the church in Corinth is distraction. The women in that particular church were often disruptive. Paul’s admonition was that those who were causing the distraction and not submitting to the church elders should be quiet.
Part of the problem we face, as Christians, is that we can’t seem to love our sinful neighbors as we love our sinful selves. There is a difference between loving, welcoming, and walking beside sinful people and endorsing their sin.
Jesus modeled for us the right thing to do when he saw the adulteress about to be stoned. He showed the sin of self righteousness to those who were about to stone her. Then after they left, he told her to go and sin no more. He didn’t say she didn’t sin. He recognized and acknowledged her sin and showed her love, grace, and mercy. That is the model we as a church should follow.
We need to heed Isaiah’s warning: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). We also need to keep in mind what Paul says in Romans: Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)
I believe the churches who are endorsing and even celebrating homosexuality are hearing the words of the marketing they are bombarded with, and the words coming from their sinful hearts, but are not hearing the words of the Holy Spirit.
OK, Bruce. You have successfully dealt with the author’s arguments about slavery and women’s ordination. And you have also proclaimed that sexual sin is more serious and thus treated differently than other sins. However, there is one area, one sin, that you didn’t deal with (and, frankly, I have never seen any traditionalist attempt to): remarriage to another person after divorce. Jesus calls it “Adultery” (Mark 10:11-12) and Paul, along with other writer, affirms this (1 Corinthians 7:10-11).
Prior to sometime in the 1940’s, the Book of Discipline said that divorce was not allowed by clergy (men at that time) and they could be charged and excommunicated from the church if they remarried after divorce. Further, no one who was divorced and remarried could become ordained. I also believe, but I could be wrong, that clergy could not officiate a second marriage of someone who is divorced. The only exception being a divorce because the first spouse was unfaithful.
1. How is the acceptance of UMC clergy performing same-sex wedding ceremonies different or not different from UMC clergy performing a wedding ceremony were one or both parties are divorced from other people?
2. How is having ordained or licensed LGBT clergy in the UMC who are married to the another person of the same gender different or not different then having ordained or licensed clergy who are divorced and remarried to another person (I know several and I think you might know a some)?
Gary, the second question is pretty easy. No one who is divorced wants to go through it again. Unlike homosexual marriage, it is not an ongoing activity. It is not a repetitive sin.
As to the first question, that is harder. You can make the argument that one who is not scripturally divorced should not remarry. We have undoubtedly fallen prey to what culture believes about divorce, in the same way we are being asked to line up with culture on homosexuality. However, if our church is wrong on the issue of divorce, that is not an argument to repeat the error in homosexuality. Past error does not support future error.
In Christ,
The eery hates clarity
AMEN, Brother Bruce !!…
There is no other authority in heaven and earth than God’s Word… When Jesus returns, there is going to be a reckoning for all of that reinterpretation that people have done…
More questions than answers. Keep the wheels turning. #positiveprovocation
Recon we will seize up & decay when we quit questioning the status quo?
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9–10).
Amen. Plain English.
Well, “Bible believer” and Fabian, the Bible wasn’t written in English, and not even by people familiar with loving, committed same-sex relationships. There’s a lot of different interpretations and translations of this particular “clobber passage,” and even when fairly accurately translated, it’s usually taken entirely out of context. Here’s a link to one of the many analyses/discussions of this passage that come to different conclusions than you apparently have:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
here’s another:
http://lakeweedatarrowhead.net/5hardtou.htm
and there are many more, as well as those that try to rebut this type of thoughtful, contemporary anaysis. But do you have any words from Jesus on the topic of homosexuality?
Oops–“there ARE a lot of different…”
David T,
and here is one reason why I ask and wonder about the lack of education of most UMC pastor’s in original languages. I am a UMC pastor, with a minor in Classics from The University of Texas at Austin, and took 2 years of Greek there. I also then took additional Greek classes in seminary, and also undertook Hebrew grammar as well. I am trained in working with the languages, and so for the most part, when in these types of discussions I know enough to work with basic language tools to go back to the original languages. Most of our UMC pastors have no idea what Nestle-Aland is or what the Biblica Stuttgartensia are.
Now, to ask if Jesus deals with homosexuality, the answer is yes. Jesus is very clear in how He deals with a positive definition of marriage and the proper place for human sexuality to be used. In Matthew 19 Jesus is asked about divorce. Instead of focusing myopically on divorce, Jesus instead, answers in a positive way about God’s intention for marriage before sin entered the human experience in The Fall. We are now all born after the image of Adam and have original sin (see Article VII of the Methodist Articles of Religion). Because of the fact that Jesus knew people would look for loopholes, by positively defining marriage, then everything outside of that is outside of the proper definition. This would include a long list of things that I could begin to make, but we could probably never reach an exhausted conclusion!
Two comment: 1) The context of 1 Corinthians 6 is disputed within the community that lead to lawsuit and who can decide what is right… That was the point of the post. 2) Did you really have to go to KJV to get the language you wanted? It is the only translation to impose the specific restrictions cited. Who approved that translation as opposed to more recent versions?
Thanks for this. I absolutely believe that they’ve for same sex marriage in the church is move of God’s Holy Spirit. This is an excellent essay on helping us recall how these same movements of the Spirit have happene in previous historical eras.
I’m thinking of Rachel Held Evan’s powerful blog “The Bible Was Clear” as a powerful companion to this.
Finally, it’s ironic that both conservatives and progressives tend to downplay the role of the Spirit in these matters. Conservatives tend to embrace the Spirit, but not this social change as evidence of it. Progressives tend to do the opposite.
I believe we are called to embrace both.
Rev. Whitton gets to the point and tries to overcome the clobber verses, but today I read an appeal by Dr. Robert Hunt who argues the issue is more fundamental: do we view the tenor of all scripture as gendered and heterosexual marriage as the duty and imitation of Christ and the Church? Every man a new Adam with heterosexual marriage as vital to Christianity… or is the person and character of Jesus sent to make every person free and remember they are made in the image of God, and all can participate equally in this love?
Rev. Whitton’s perspective with Dr. Hunt’s, I think, rises above the prooftexts all sides use. However, we interpret the tenor of scripture so differently, can we even agree on the wording and grammar at General Conference when we’re so far apart?
That sounds like a great article. Link?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2015/07/two-religions-one-name/
Goes back to Dr. Hunt’s view of Christianity or “Christianities”. It’s the first time I’ve encountered a concise view of why non-LGBT affirming Christians, who are non-literalist, and know full well of Paul’s ignorance of modern science behind human sexuality still cannot embrace LGBT relationships or full inclusion.
In a way, it’s like family portrait of Mark (we all have one father, all other males are brothers) and the Disputed Paulines (marriage as imitation of Christ and the church).
Something tells me that when liberals pray about this, they understand a different message from the Holy Spirit, to what the conservatives hear.
Scripture does not contain much opposition to slavery, though you can find one or two instances. However, if you don’t have slaves, you are not in violation of Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that a Christian must have slaves.
In regards to women speaking in church, it depends which Scriptures you give priority to. Some Scriptures indicate its fine for women to speak in church.
But homosexual practise is different again. There are no Scriptures that state that homosexual practise is ok.
Did the church change doctrines for the gentiles. Yes. But part of the reasoning behind that was that Jesus became a living sacrifice for the sins of mankind, setting us free from the religious law, including circumcision etc. They had mandate. Do we?
The same tired arguments which Bruce debunked in his comment. What happens if CG votes to retain the current statement on homosexuality? Will Rev Whitton accept that as authoritative since it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us? Somehow I doubt it. Voting cuts both ways. The last ten times GC voted on this nothing changed. Was the Holy Spirit absent those times?
Kevin,
I’ve been a United Methodist my whole life and a UM pastor for almost 20 years. I accept the authority of the General Conference and have never threatened, as some do, to leave the church when I don’t agree.
I obey the Discipline to the best of my ability and think other UM pastors should too. If a pastor engages in a chargeable offense I believe it is just for charges to be filed. That’s what UM clergy agree to.
I don’t think we know each other, so I would ask you not to make assumptions about me. I will extend the same courtesy to you.
The last time I checked, engaging in theological debate and discussion was still an acceptable practice in the church.
Rev Whitton
I do not know you. Theological debate is healthy and I am all for it. Unfortunately within The UMC we are engaged more in caucusing and partisan politics. I did indeed make assumptions about you based upon your post. How could I not? It seems as if you have predetermined which way the Holy Spirit should take us next GC. If we vote to retain our current policy then I am assuming you will accept that as Spirit driven and I applaud your obedience despite your personal disagreement. It shows you to be ethical. There seems to be a shortage of that among UMC clergy these days.
That of course leads to another interesting set of questions. Such as; Is disagreeing with the Holy Spirit a healthy endeavor? Were our previous GCs Spirit driven or not? How do we know? Can the Holy Spirit evolve over time to move us in a new direction?
Apologies if you took offense.
Kevin, thanks for your response.
I believe faithful Christians, in trying to discern the Spirit’s movement, can reach different conclusions. Who is right? Who was right in the disagreement between Luther and Rome?
Fortunately, the Spirit works in and through us even when we disagree. (Most local churches are proof of that!)
I actually doubt GC will change anything in 2016, but the Spirit blows where the Spirit wills.
Whatever GC decides I will honor. (I hope others will too.)
I will continue to “think out loud” and work for ongoing dialogue and mutual respect between the “sides”.
Rev Whitton, I, too, appreciate your statement that you expect everyone to follow the rules. I also have the question, though, do you think the results that came from General Conferences past (2012, 2008, 2004, etc) were the Spirit’s handiwork? Why or why not?
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
theenemyhatesclarity,
In very few circumstances would I presume to speak for the Holy Spirit. Do I think previous General Conference votes fit the category of “it seemed good to the Spirit and to us”? Yes. In each of these instances Christian people prayed, pondered the scriptures, listened to one another, and voted their conscience. That does not mean the conversation is over, however, or that the Spirit is done with us. The Spirit is evidently still stirring in some Christian hearts. Where will all this lead? Only God knows.
Thank you for your response to my question. I appreciate it.
In Christ,
The enemy hates clarity
The Bible itself is proof of how good our God is. Its constant reinterpretation over the last couple of thousand years is a miricle that never ends. The book that once proved that the sun revolved around a flat Earth was reinterpreted in the light of new information, and found in communion with scientific facts.
Slavery, and women in leadership are some examples… but do not forget that the bible also was used to demonize electricity, printing, moter cars, and science.
The miracle of The Book is that it stands as an unfallible testament in a very fallible world… that each challenge to its wisdom is answered completely even when the answer changes.
Sexual immorality is a sin… God wants us to live in faith with the mate he has provided… even if that mate happens to be of the same gender.
Indiscriminate sex, multiple partners outside of an oath made in front of God…promiscuous behavior and prostitution, whether male or female is still displeasing in the eyes of God…but so is hate, and bigotry.
This issue is one of social justice…it is as much about end of life issues, and hospitalization rights as it is about teen age suicide, and homelessness. The statistics are staggering and tragic… please do not confuse sexual deviance with a need to be loved… or challenges to our social norms as biblically ordained signs of an eminent apocalypse.
Just a few differences between the matters that you bring up. The Bible never teaches that the sun goes around the earth. It is true it speaks of the setting and rising of the sun, but surely most of us still use these terms not intending any scientific speaking, but rather use language of poetry (where the rising and setting occur or are mentioned in Scripture, in poetry).
The Bible does not ban or condemn all slavery. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t right to end slavery in the, or to end all slavery in the world. But, while there is much moral good that can occur without slavery, the Bible doesn’t deal with slavery in those terms.
Women are found in all types of leadership positions within the OT, and the NT. Within the Jewish nation, and within the life of the early Church. There are also places in which there are specific prohibitions against women leading men in certain instances. These passages can be seen as in conflict, and yes, we have been working out these matters (and still are working on).
As far as sexual immorality, the Bible here speaks with great clarity and consistency. Time and time again I have seen people ask for just one example of a positive treatment of homosexuality in the Bible, or same gender sexual relationships. I have never seen a response. The Bible simply has no examples of this. Polygamy (which I don’t think any here are arguing for) has a much stronger Biblical case than homosexuality as being morally upright.
>>> “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these [four] requirements . . .” (read Acts 15:28-29 for the details).
I read Acts 15:22-29. 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
What is sexual immorality if it does not include homosexual intercourse?
Homosexual intercourse is abomination to god there for immoral