The Heart of the Matter - Non-Salvific?

The Heart of the Matter - by Tom Walcott

I am going to assume we agree that we have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. What we have received is a gift of amazing grace from God. I am assuming that even though there are various understandings of Scripture, most, despite those differences, desire to follow God and seek to faithfully and respectfully understand and apply Scripture. 

Some believe that all same-sex activity violates God's Word and that the proper loving response to those who disagree with this is to bring them to repentance. One tool they prayerfully use is exclusion from church membership, not only in their local congregation but in all CRCNA congregations. This exclusion is not limited to those who are in same-sex marriages but also applies to those who support or tolerate those who are.

Others conclude that when the Bible speaks about same-sex activity, it is not referring to monogamous marriages but rather sexual relations outside of marriage, often in connection with abuse or pagan ritual. Therefore, they conclude, there is no prohibition in Scripture to monogamous same-sex marriages. Since, in their view, these marriages do not violate God's Word, the proper loving response to those who disagree is to bring them to acceptance of this point of view. One tool they prayerfully use is inclusion, in both church membership and church office, which they would like to see not only in their local congregations but in all CRCNA congregations. 

Still others may be in agreement with either of the groups above as far as their understanding of the passages that speak to same-sex behavior, but they do not believe that exclusion or full acceptance are the only options available to or required of them. They seek to maintain the unity and testimony of the CRCNA, even though they may not agree on which interpretation is most accurate. A tool I believe many in this group would like congregations to have is the freedom, as led by the Spirit, to prayerfully utilize discretion, allowing the local church to determine whether or not at the local level they will include those who disagree with them on this topic or exclude them.

For there to be any possibility that this “third-way” could work, there is a key question that must be answered. Is this a salvific issue? In other words, if someone holds to the positions spelled out in in the first two groups described above, requiring either full exclusion or full inclusion, can they be saved?

My focus is not on which interpretation of the texts that speak about same-sex activity is "right" or which is "wrong." There are others with greater insight and knowledge than me. I hold to a more “traditional” view of marriage, but acknowledge that it is difficult to know specifically what some passages, written in a different language, culture, and context from mine, mean with absolute certainty. Part of my unwillingness to speak with absolute certainty is that I know, trust, and respect individuals whose lives indicate that they are followers of Christ (“by their fruit you will know them”) and who are in or support monogamous same-sex marriages. I also see room for different interpretations of what these verses are saying. For example, do they refer to all same-sex activity, or is it only extra marital sexual activity? So while I hold to a more “traditional” view of marriage, I am comfortable with allowing others to hold a more “affirming” view if that is how they understand God’s Word. I can, however, only hold that position if I am convinced, which I am, that monogamous same-sex marriage is not a salvific issue. 

I am going to resist a long list of proof texts from either side of the discussion. Yes, there are passages that refer to same-sex activity and include that in a list of sins. And yes, there are passages that speak about the grace and mercy of God without condition. Based on the weight we give these different passages we can be led to different positions.

I do want to focus briefly on Romans 1 and make four observations.

First, Romans 1:18ff speaks about those who do not recognize God as God and who worship and serve the creation rather than the Creator. It is their rejection of God that leads to the behaviors listed and God’s judgement, not the behaviors themselves.  Paul makes the case that refusal to acknowledge, recognize, and worship God is the issue.  

Second, since Romans 1 is speaking of people who do not recognize God as God, what about those who do? Are believers who boast or are envious outside of God’s grace? I don’t think many would say that they are. Why then are those who engage in other behaviors on the same list considered outside of God’s grace, even if they do recognize and worship God? Paul condemns those who fail to glorify or thank God. But what about those who do glorify and thank God?    

Third, we know from the context that the reference to same-sex activity in Romans 1 (“shameful lust, shameful acts”) do not refer to Christians and do not specifically refer to monogamous same-sex marriages. So what isn’t clear in this often quoted passage about people who have rejected God and live immoral lives as a result, is what about people who have not rejected God and who are living monogamous sexual lives? I don’t think we can say with absolute certainty what Paul is addressing here.

Finally, Paul is setting up his audience. He is talking about people who have turned their backs on God and because of that engaged in sinful behavior. You can see the audience nodding in agreement about “those” terrible people. But then he turns the table on them/us. “You”, he charges, “are just like them” (2:1). To point at a sin or series of sins, he says in effect, misses the point. We all, he says, have sinned by rejecting God. So having all been shown to be guilty of rejecting God, let’s turn to salvation.

So the question before us is how wide and deep is the grace of God? If we have all sinned what, as the jailor asked Paul, then must we do to be saved?” 

Paul says in Romans 10 “If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”  A few verses later he writes “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” There are no other conditions - or requirements - in these verses. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8). 

So what do we do with a person who believes? Who confesses that Jesus is Lord? Whose life shows the fruit of the Spirit? Who gives thanks and glorifies God? Who believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, and yet engages in any of the behaviors Paul lists in Romans 1? If Christ has accepted them, which He says He does, how can we not? Our possible discomfort with some behaviors over against others should not be the tipping point on this issue. 

In John 17 we have Jesus’ final prayer before his arrest.  The topic is not theology, doctrine, law or church polity. It is certainly not the interpretation of a confession.  It is love and unity. He is praying for the same people that he knows will soon leave him, who later will argue about theology, doctrine, law and church polity, but who will remain united anyway. They will work through new thinking on unclean food, what it takes to be included in the family of God, even the day of worship by making dramatic changes to what is clearly stated in the Old Testament. Can we find a way to follow their example? I hope so. Their unity, and ours, is the answer to Jesus’ prayer.

Looking at the history of our church, there were times when people of other races, couples from mixed race marriages, and those who had been divorced were excluded from the church. Later those who were divorced were accepted but not those who remarried. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote in congregational meetings. There was a time, and still is in some of our congregations, when women who wanted to use their spiritual gifts in church leadership, were excluded from that role. When those debates were taking place some called them salvific issues. While the journey for those mentioned above was long and painful, we came to a time of understanding. Even CRC congregations today who do not allow women to hold church office remain in fellowship with congregations that do and vice versa.

Some have asked why bother trying to stay together as a denomination? Because Jesus said it was important. Some of my colleagues in ministry like to say “has God not said?”  Well, has God not called us to unity?