Mark Achtemeier Seminary professor raises 'unsettling questions' concerning PCUSA's stance on homosexuality The Layman Online Monday, June 18, 2007 Other articles on the Achtemeier/Layman controversy Achtemeier, Rogers at Spring President's Colloquium Speaker: There can be 'faithful exceptions to a set of Biblical commands' for ordination Letters to the editor on Achtemeier/Layman controversy PCUSA task force member declares his 'departure from Biblical tradition' Achtemeier's response to Layman Article's claims 'categorically false' Williamson's response to Achtemeier Retraction, apology not warranted Reflections on the Achtemeier-Layman Controversy Achtemeier responds to Gagnon The following excerpts are taken from a transcript of the Rev. Mark Achtemeier's speech at the Spring President's Colloquium at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He and the Rev. Jack Rogers addressed the topic, "Whom shall we send? Whom shall we not? The Church's Struggle with Homosexuality." Achtemeier is an associate professor of systematic theology at the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary and was a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity. Rogers is professor of theology emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary and moderator of the 213th General Assembly. A transcript of his speech will be posted on The Layman Online later this week. In February of 2005, Achtemeier demanded an apology from The Layman after it published an article saying he had told his seminary class at Dubuque that his "position on homosexuality represents a 'departure from the Biblical tradition.'" "This is categorically false," Achtemeier said. "As a theologian of the church I consider myself absolutely bound to the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ. I could not in good conscience hold to any position that contradicted Biblical teaching." The Layman's article also said "Achtemeier reportedly told students in his class that he believes passages in Romans and other books of the Bible that condemn same-sex behavior refer only to promiscuous behavior, not sexual activity that occurs within monogamous relationships. He said he has come to the conclusion that the church needs to support homosexuals who commit themselves to monogamous relationships." Achtemeier also denied that statement, saying, "This claim is false. I presented the claim described here as one of the arguments put forward by certain progressivist thinkers, in lectures designed to acquaint students with different approaches to the issue. I never defended or claimed it as part of my own position." Excerpts Achtemeier's speech at the Spring President's Colloquium: "Jack [Rogers] has found himself in his career in the uncomfortable position of being possessed by a truth that members of his long time friends and colleagues did not want to hear. ... Jack has had the courage to bring the truth he has been given before the church at large for our edification and scrutiny, often at great personal cost. And so whether you agree with him or not, I think all of us should give thanks to God for Jack Rogers' ministry …" "So it is with considerable fear and trembling that I come before you today to say that I do not think this issue is settled. I think aspects of the current situation in the church, in fact, ought to be deeply unsettling to all of us who confess the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ." "The first unsettlement I want to lift up before you is pastoral. I believe we have a huge pastoral problem on our hands in the Presbyterian church and one that goes right to the heart of gospel faithfulness." "We conservatives in particular have made it a hallmark of our position to say 'trust in Jesus and just say no.' That's essentially the pastoral stance which conservatives have taken. But the pastoral reality is that there are many gay and lesbian believers who see that "just say no" as a kind of impossibility that is completely out of their reach. Countless gay and lesbian persons showing up on the church's doorstep do not believe that there is any alternative path available to them other than the way they are on." Achtemeier's 'unsettling questions "Now should this picture of shattered souls turning way from Jesus in despair raise some unsettling questions for us as a church?" "Is the snuffing out of faith and hope the good fruit of the gospel that Scripture would lead us to expect when the church faithfully engages its mission?" "Is this harvest of despair consistent with the ministry of Jesus, who broke bread with outcasts and promised life to all who trust in him?" "Is there something Biblically questionable about a church that calls gay people to a solitary existence which God has declared not good, and in the process drives large numbers of them away from Jesus in despair?" "Could it be that this disturbing pastoral situation we have noted might result from a mistaken application of the Biblical commandments on homosexuality?" "But is it possible that new circumstances have arisen in our own day that would require us to say along with Calvin that while the Biblical commands remain fully in force, some of what we see happening around us in our own time is not the same thing as what the Biblical writers rightly condemned?" "Is what we see around us today – faithful marriage-like gay and lesbian partnerships – is that the same thing as the same-sex behavior which the Bible rightly condemns?" "There are a lot of people who deep in their hearts do not believe there is any moral or practical possibility of their ceasing to be gay. We could perhaps talk about whether they are mistaken or not in that belief, but to have any integrity, such a conversation would surely have to be with them rather than just about them. But rather than beginning even at that level, the first and primary word these folks hear coming from our sex-obsessed church is that they are fundamentally unacceptable to God unless and until they make this change in themselves which they see as either immoral or impossible." "But the church's ruling that they are categorically unqualified for ordination communicates loud and clear the message that even in a church of redeemed sinners, they are uniquely unacceptable no matter how faithfully they may try to live out this hand they have been dealt. And the tragic result – the unsettling result – is that countless thousands of gay people turn away from Jesus in despair. They leave the church convinced that the Christian God is against them, that Jesus has nothing to offer them, that the body of Christ is their deadly enemy." "I think perhaps we conservatives need to read Genesis 1 and 2 and a bit more carefully than we have been." "Now I would submit that a proper Biblical description of homosexuality has to acknowledge this orientation toward life with another – this good gift of the Creator – and it has to concede that this gift has not been done away with or overruled in gay and lesbian people. It has been shifted toward persons of the same gender." "But to ask someone to renounce the possibility of life lived in nuptial communion with another, that is asking them to renounce a piece of their humanity that God has placed in all of us as a good and gracious gift." "When the bank pays you interest on your savings account, it is not the same thing as the exploitative lending that the Biblical writers were prohibiting even though superficial descriptions might make them sound similar, and that's why Presbyterians administer a pension fund in good conscience." "Interest payments that take advantage of poor people are still absolutely prohibited by the Bible, but Calvin's analysis of the intention of the law giver allows him to argue in his own social context for a faithful exception to a set of Biblical commands that on the surface appear to admit of no exceptions." "On the surface level, the Biblical case against homosexuality is almost as strong as the one against charging interest. The difference is, again, we have no direct word from Jesus about same-sex behavior. But, with the one exception, the two cases are really pretty similar. All of the direct Biblical references are disapproving of the practicing question. But is it possible that new circumstances have arisen in our own day that would require us to say along with Calvin that while the Biblical commands remain fully in force, some of what we see happening around us in our own time is not the same thing as what the Biblical writers rightly condemned?" "We do know there are big differences in what same-sex behavior looked like in Biblical times compared to our own day. Recent studies lifted up in Jack's book and the one that's come out from Stacy Johnson draw our attention to a large body of historical scholarship that shows there simply was no available cultural space in Biblical times for anything remotely resembling some of the same-sex practice we see today where ordinary citizens can live out a committed, marriage-like relationship in the context of a relatively tolerant civil society." "Well, as a conservative who seeks to interpret the Bible faithfully and responsibly, I don't know of any better place to turn for help with this than to Calvin with his insistence that we have to interpret the Biblical command with reference to the intention of law giver." "So the key factor in God's intention for nuptial communion seems to be its capacity for bringing forth from us a loving Christ-like gift of the self to this other person." "But the unsettling thing about this understanding of God's intention is that the Bible's prohibition of same-sex relationships doesn't seem to fit. There appears to be nothing about a faithful lifelong, same-sex relationship that would render it incapable of promoting this kind of Christ like self-giving that God intends. So why then would the Bible prohibit it? Well, that prohibition makes perfect sense if it applies to the particular kinds of same-sex behavior that the Biblical writers would have been familiar with." "So the pieces of the puzzle fit together beautifully if we understand the Bible's prohibitions as referring exclusively to the exploitative and idolatrous sorts of same-sex behavior that the Biblical writers would have known in their own setting." "Is what we see around us today – faithful marriage-like gay and lesbian partnerships – is that the same thing as the same-sex behavior which the Bible rightly condemns? "If we say yes to that, if we say they are exactly the same thing the Biblical prohibitions hold across the board, well then it is hard to see how we are going to be able to hold together the whole body of the Bible's teachings in any kind of unified and coherent framework." "If we say no, what we see today is not the same thing as what the Biblical writers condemn, well then we have a beautiful way of understanding the consistency and coherence of the Bible's teaching of sexuality but we will also be faced with the deeply unsettling prospect of a church whose official policy toward gay and lesbians is urgently in need of rethinking in order to bring it faithfully into line with the intentions of God revealed to us in the Bible." "God is at work among us. It is not our habitual conclusions or our established ways of seeing things that are the final authority for our lives."

Respond to this article

Home · Archives · The Layman · PLC Publications Presbyterian Lay Committee · Feedback · Links