August 05, 2004 11:44 AM

One netfriend wrote: Although impressed by Nathan's articulate advocacy for his position on same-sex marriage, I remain thoroughly unconvinced, and firmly of the opposite view.

Nathan responded:

"Thoroughly" and "firmly"? So, given that I know [him] well enough to know that he is a thoughtful, compassionate and prayerful person and not one of those who simply wear a defiant conservatism as a badge of honour or as an evangelical meal-ticket, there must be real reasons. Can someone help me to understand the holes in my argument, or the issues I have simply overlooked and failed to address?

Netfriend:

I am also uncertain of the value of revisiting this topic yet again

Nathan:

I understand the feeling of being tired of it. After my involvment in the [denominational]

taskforce on the topic a few years back, I was sick of it and reluctant to engage in any discussion of it for a few years too. But it is not going to go away, and we may look back on it as one of the defining issues faced by the churches in our generation, perhaps alongside the integrity of our response to our own history of sexual abuse by clergy. Given Jesus' radical and revisionist leadership in including those who were outcasts on religious grounds (including sexual impurity), this issue may come to be seen as having gone to the heart of our faithfulness in following our Messiah. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but if Jesus divides up the sheep and the goats and says to those on his right, "I was a hungry, I was a prisoner, I was an outcast homosexual...", it will be a bit late to wonder about the value of revisiting the topic yet again. Unless there are good grounds to say that the questions have all been resolved and a clear consensus has emerged, then it would surely be spiritually suicidal to put aside a question like "does the gospel include these people or exclude them?"

What seems to be happening is that a long established consensus is fracturing, just as did the consensuses on the acceptability of slavery and the unacceptability of women in ministry. Last weekend, one of our brightest young theologians with an impeccable conservative evangelical pedigree gave a couple of examples of why cracks were appearing in his certainty over this issue, and virtually pleaded with the conservatives among us to help him see where he was going wrong, and so far absolutely no one has responded to his questions. It's pretty hard to imagine any reason for that other than that there are no good answers out there. Not everyone is as courageous and honest as he, so there are a lot of people papering over the cracks with ever more strident assertions, but if no one has any answers for him, then the papering is looking pretty thin.

Is there anybody out there who used to share my theological conviction that Christian discipleship and faithful homosexual relationships are compatible, but who was led to the traditional view as they became more theologically proficient and more pastorally sensitive and experienced? I don't know anyone who has made the journey in that direction, although I'm sure there must be a few. But if the traffic is mostly one way, what does that say? Do people really think that I, and others who have changed their views on this issue, have all lost our passion for the gospel, given up prayerfully reading the Bible, sacrificed our theological integrity, and slidden down the slippery slope into tailoring our theology to the values of the world? And if that is what you think of us, why is no one responding to [his] cry for answers?

Netfriend:

1. There has been debate about the significance of the Bible's injunctions *against* homosexual practice, hence same-sex 'marriage'. What about its *support for* these practices? I can find clear Biblical approval of heterosexual unions in several places, but can anyone help me find such support for a homosexual 'marriage'?

Nathan:

No, there are no passages that say anything one way or the other about homosexual marriages, because such a possibility had not been envisaged when the Biblical materials were written. Therefore, our use of the Bible on this issue employs the same principles as we would use on other issues that could not have been envisaged when the Bible was written. The possibility of a society without slavery had not been envisaged either, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing in the Bible which is of use in reaching such a radical conclusion. Similarly, a fundamentalist Mormon would point out that there is plenty of Biblical support for polygamy, and that if it is prohibited at all it is only for church leaders. But on these issues, and many others, we have long since accepted that the Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from his Word and that therefore the Church has the right and the responsibility to use Biblical principles and prayerful discernment to extend the church's teaching and practice beyond what was envisaged by the biblical writers to respond to new understandings and new realities.

Netfriend:

2. Rowland, the introduction to your original post stated: "Same-sex marriage legislation is pending (or already in law) all over the Western world." Could you be more specific?

Nathan:

In additions to the recent ones which Rowland named, I think such legislation has been in place for a little longer in some of the Scandinavian countries. I have no idea of the credentials of the organisation involved, but I have heard that in Scandinavia the Council of Contemporary Families has reported that the rates of heterosexual marriage have actually increased since the recognition of same sex marriage. I think that is understandable, because any action which promotes the value of life-long exclusive commitments to one sector of the community is likely to have a spillover impact on other sectors of the community who have such options available to them.

Peace and hope,

Nathan

______________________________________ Nathan Nettleton Pastor, South Yarra Community Baptist Church