Dear Friends,
As you know, our Kirk Session recently met to discuss the consultation paper from the General Assembly’s Special Commission on same sex relationships and the ministry. The whole consultation exercise has been, in our view, deeply flawed. However, our duty is to respond as best we can in the circumstances. In our answers to the specific ‘yes/no’ questions asked, we have unanimously rejected the possibility of those in same sex relationships being in leadership in the church, and intimated that we see this as denying the heart of the faith, and, were it to transpire, certain to destroy our denomination.
The elders also felt it would be helpful for you to see our response to the more open-ended questions which helps explain why this issue is not peripheral, merely an ethical matter, as some would like to claim, but central to the Bible’s theology of God and man, of sin and salvation.
1a. How should we think about same sex relationships in the light of the Bible’s witness for Humanity?
As a Confessional, Reformed Church, we recognise the Bible to be the supreme and sufficient authority in matters of faith and conduct. We submit, in line with the consistent and universal understanding of historic orthodoxy, that the Bible’s teaching on the nature of human sexuality is clear, both in its general witness to the unfolding history of creation and redemption, and in the specific texts that treat the area of human sexual activity.
However interpreted scientifically, it is indisputable that theologically Genesis 1-2 are foundational for our doctrine about God, humanity and the created order. Their normative character for subsequent teaching must therefore be the starting point, and the theological touchstone for interpreting and applying all subsequent Scripture:
The image of God created as male and female (Genesis 1:27) is the basis for the essential complementarity of the sexes which is to result in the multiplying of other ‘image bearers’ and their stewardship of the earth through procreation. This image, albeit vitiated, survives the Fall, hence in Genesis 9 God reiterates the preciousness of his image thus created (9:6), and restates the creation mandate as his ongoing will for humanity (9:7).
Marriage, as instituted in Genesis 2:16-25 sees the loving union of one man and one woman as the appropriate context for their mutual fulfilment and sexual expression.
The fundamental importance of this exclusive, complementary and permanent relationship becomes abundantly evident when we see that throughout the whole storyline of redemptive history (the Bible’s ‘Big Story’) the marriage covenant is the chief language for God’s relationship with his chosen people. The Law and the Prophets speak constantly of the faithful, monogamous love of the LORD for Israel his bride, and at the same time speak powerfully, and repeatedly, of the sin and unfaithfulness of Israel’s disobedience in terms of promiscuity, adultery and whoredom (see, for example Hosea 1:2-3; Jeremiah 3:8; Ezekiel 16: 32). That the worst depths of rebellion and sin against God’s person by his people should find their expression in the analogous language of corrupted human sexual relationship bears witness to the appalling seriousness of such departures from the divinely ordained pattern.
The New Testament continues to see human marriage, in its essence, as but an analogy of the great marriage, that of Christ and his Church. Paul’s use of the Genesis passage in Ephesians 5:22-33 is particularly significant: redemption is the restoration of Christ’s adulterous bride, the Church, to purity and holiness through cleansing from sin by the Saviour-husband who ‘gave himself up’ for her at infinite cost. The biblical story ends in the language of consummation in the book of Revelation, with the marriage supper of the Lamb with his Bride ushering in the restoration of the whole cosmos, the new heavens and earth (Rev.19).
"Marriage is central to the whole revelation of what the Christian gospel is."
The marriage relationship is not merely an aspect of biblical ethics. Rather, the language of monogamous, faithful marriage, between Bride and Bridegroom, is central to the whole biblical witness explaining God and humanity, creation and redemption. Marriage is central to the whole revelation of what the Christian gospel is.
Some argue that there are plentiful examples of polygamy, adultery and incest in the Bible. These undoubtedly occur, but always with a presentation of their malign consequences (See eg Gen 19:30 for incest; I Kings 11 for polygamy and Mark 6 for adultery). To see these as viable alternatives is to make an elementary mistake in hermeneutics of treating narrative as normative.
The Lord Jesus Christ did not participate in debate with the rabbis of the day. Rather, claiming absolute authority (‘but I say to you’) he reaffirmed the Old Testament teaching on the creation pattern of exclusive male and female marriage (Matthew 19; Mark 10). This is where his Church has stood ever since, and from this position we have no liberty to depart.
This is the creation pattern in the light of which any discussion of homosexual relationships must be placed. When homosexual acts are explicitly condemned, as they are in every single case where they are mentioned in Scripture (for example, Leviticus 18 and 20; Romans 1; 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1), they are condemned as sinful deviations from that divinely appointed pattern.
1b. Does this suggest our approach to same-sex relationships should be different from our approach to remarrying divorcees, for example? Why/why not?
For the reasons outlined above, the Bible clearly treats the breaking of the marriage relationship as always a very serious matter. However, remarrying of divorcees is not in any way parallel to the acceptance of homosexual activity.
By the very use of the analogous language of adultery and divorce to speak of sin, The Old Testament recognises the tragic reality of such rupture of the marriage bond because of sin, and makes merciful provision and protection for the victims of divorce, almost always the abandoned woman (See, for example, Deuteronomy 24).
In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ underlined the sanctity and God-given nature of marriage, but said (echoing Moses in Deut. 24) that in the case of adultery of one of the partners that the bond was broken (Matt. 19:3-9). The apostle Paul applies this principle practically to the Church in Corinth in 1 Corinthians 7, implying remarriage is a possibility in such (limited) circumstances.
This is also the classic Reformed view and is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (XXIV: V,VI ) to which our Church adheres. Divorce is not seen as a good thing to be made easy or to be affirmed, nor remarriage to be entertained lightly, and only in such circumstances as Scripture permits. But remarriage may occur, with biblical warrant, and need not imply unrepentant sin.
Acceptance of homosexual activity as permissible, or even normal, in the Church has no such biblical warrant, and does therefore imply wilful, unrepentant sin. Acquiescence in sexual immorality in the church was clearly a scandal to the apostles: ‘And you are proud? Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you’ was Paul’s response (1Cor 5:2). This is the unchanging ‘commandment of the Lord and Saviour through his apostle’ (2 Peter 3:2); again, we have no liberty to disregard such clear authority.”
The seriousness of this issue
The Commission should not imagine that this issue is merely a divergence of views on ethical behaviour, and concerns only about same sex acts. It is about whether this denomination will dare to publicly reject the historic, apostolic Christian gospel.
"The choice is about whether we love the Word of God or the world of men."
The choice is about whether a small but vocal minority will be allowed to split the Church of Scotland, effecting accelerated (and in all probability) terminal decline in the national church or whether, by having the courage to stand for the truth of God against the spirit of the age, The Church of Scotland may be brought back from the brink of its own self-destruction. The choice is about whether we love the Word of God or the world of men.
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world. (1John 2:15-16)
The Lord Jesus Christ has declared that he will build his Church. But neither individual denominations nor nations have any guarantee of preservation in the face of apostasy. We call attention to words of the Risen Lord Jesus Christ which should strike solemnity into our hearts:
Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. (Rev. 2:5)
That Church, like the others in Asia Minor, apparently did not listen. Virtually no trace of their existence remains. Let it not be so with us.
Please do pray for biblical clarity to prevail in Kirk Sessions and Presbyteries across our nation, and for our denomination to pull back from the brink before it is too late.
Yours prayerfully,
William J U Philip