Tests
… To Hear What the Holy Spirit is Saying About Same-Sex Marriage
A summary
Scripture’s Trajectory
​Many traditionalists argue that, whilst the trajectory of Scripture points towards female equality and abolishing slavery (e.g. Galatians 3), it does not point towards accepting same sex-marriage. So we have to reject it.
​
This “trajectory of Scripture” argument is really just another way of saying: because God didn’t directly address this issue in Scripture, we just have to assume it’s a no. I’ve already explained in my earlier section on "Scripture’s Silence" linked here why, I believe, this approach is simply wrong.
The Moral Vision of the New Testament
Back in 1996, the late great evangelical New Testament scholar, Richard B. Hays, published his seminal work, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. This explored the moral principles we derive from the New Testament that should guide the way we live today: the community, the cross and new creation. He argued that accepting even faithful homosexual relationships breached these three key principles. Many suggested his principles were sound but he misapplied them to this issue, something which he later admitted in The Widening of God’s Mercy .
A different trajectory - the Widening of God’s Mercy
Richard’s new work, The Widening of God’s Mercy, co-authored with his Old Testament scholar son, Christopher was published in late 2024, only months before he died. They demonstrate from numerous examples in Scripture that, whilst God’s nature does not change nor his essential requirement of us “to act justly and love mercy”, his specific requirements of us do sometimes change as his mercy extends to new groups of people. Just one example was the lifting of the strict command that all his male followers of God must be circumcised. They say this process continued long after Scripture’s canon was complete, for example, with slavery and the role of women. When God changes his mind about what he requires, his church should also change its mind. They point out from Scripture how our God is a God of surprises who continues to do new things, as Isaiah prophesied, “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up, do you not perceive it?” (Isaiah 43:19). The church needs to keep its eyes open to perceive where God’s spirit is doing a new thing. They perceive his new, new thing is extending his mercy to fully embrace LGBTQ people and their covenanted relationships,
The Fruit of the Teaching
This test is well articulated by Matthew Vines in God and the Gay Christian and strongly supported by New Testament scholar Professor James Brownson in Bible, Gender and Sexuality.
They say that the test our Lord himself gave us to work out if a teaching is true or false is its fruit - good or bad, as set out by Jesus in Matthew 7:15-20. A true prophet’s teaching should ultimately promote the good fruit of the spirit; false teaching will produce Satan’s bad spiritual fruit of thistles and thorns.
They argue that this test was applied by the apostles in accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the church. Scripture had strictly required all males to be circumcised before they were accepted as part of God’s people. Jesus had never addressed the issue. But seeing the fruit of the Spirit in the uncircumcised Gentiles believers, Peter persuaded his fellow apostles that the Holy Spirit was telling them that he was not just declaring all types of meat as “clean” but accepting uncircumcised believers as “clean”.
They argue when this same fruit of the teaching test is applied to the same-sex relationships debate, this points very strongly in favour of accepting same-sex marriage because of the good fruit of revisionist teaching in the positive changes in the lives of LGBTQ people when fully accepted into the church on the same terms as heterosexual people and the bad fruit of traditionalist teaching in the serious damage done to LGBTQ people due to their sense of rejection and isolation.
Many traditionalists, including the popular speaker Mike Winger, agree that the fruit of the teaching is the correct scriptural test. But they believe it’s the revisionist teaching which produces the bad fruit in people’s lives.
The Ultimate Test of Christ’s love
I believe the trajectory of God’s mercy and the fruit of the teaching are good tests of what the Holy Spirit may be saying to us on issues like this which Scripture does not directly address. But I believe Scripture shows us the ultimate test for working out true and false teaching is the Test of Christ’s Love – what does good or harm? As Paul reminded us, “The commandments … are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfilment of the law.” (Romans 13:10) And so, when asked how to interpret and apply Scripture to a particular situation, Jesus replies, “Which is lawful … to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (Luke 6:9)
Being a God of love who always works for our good, in his word he doesn’t just give us commands for the sake of it. They are given to us “for our good always”. (Deuteronomy 6:24). And the good, new life Jesus offers is not meant to be experienced only in the next age. It’s a better, more abundant way of living starting now, free from sin and able to enjoy God’s gifts for us in the way he intended, the way that’s best for us. So, Jesus declared, “I have come that they may have life and have it to the full” (John 10:10)
Scripture tells us there are two key principles to loving our neighbour:
-
Do what is for “the good of others” (see e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:24; Romans 15:1-2; 1 Philippians 2:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:15)
-
Do others “no harm” (see e.g. Romans 13:10; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8)
Because Christ’s rule of love goes to the heart of what was behind the Old Testament laws it very often sets a much higher standard. But it’s a different standard: “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:6, ESV)
Although both celibate, Jesus and Paul encouraged an attitude of appreciating and thanking God for his gifts in this life. Paul preached directly against ascetism: “Since you died with Christ to the elemental forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: ‘Do not handle! Do not taste!’ Do not touch!’? ... Such regulations indeed have the appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility, and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining self-indulgence.” (Col 2: 20-23)
Paul therefore actively encouraged marriage and plenty of sex within it as the proper outlet and control for sexual desire (see 1 Cor. 7) and preached strongly against a denial of marriage. Not just because marriage and sex within it are a good gift from God, but because banning marriage could not prevent the harm of sexual self-indulgence. He therefore warned against the teaching of those who “forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Tim 4:3-4).
Throughout the New Testament we see Jesus and his apostles put that higher law of love into action in the way they interpreted and applied Scripture to the situations they faced in a purpose-driven, love-centric way, asking: what does people good and what does them harm? This is Christ’s test and law of love. By contrast, the Pharisees took a zealously literalistic, legalistic approach. They tried to "strain the gnat" from Scripture's commands rather than focus on "the weightier matters of scripture - to act justly and show mercy." (Matt 23:24)
We see these contrasting approaches in Jesus's Sabbath healing of the man with the withered hand (Luke 6:1-11). The Pharisees’ literalistic approach convinced them that healing on the Sabbath was working on the day the Lord had commanded men to rest and so banned by Scripture. On a purely literal application of the words of Scripture, this seemed correct. But Jesus’s purpose-driven, love-centric approach to Scripture looked at the reasons behind the Sabbath commandment - to do good to people by allowing them to rest and to prevent harm by banning employers or slave masters from depriving their servants of a rest day. But when a strict application of the command caused harm rather than good, the command was no longer fulfilling its purpose and should be set to one side. And so he asked, "which is lawful to do on the Sabbath - to do good or to do harm, to save life or destroy it?" Healing this man's hand on the Sabbath day did good, not harm and so he healed him then and there.
Peter and Paul followed the Master’s example by applying Scripture in just the same love-centric way: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” (Gal. 5:6).
Christ’s law of love requires us to take the same love-centric approach to Scripture. So, where Scripture says nothing about an issue then Scripture itself instructs us to follow “in the new way of the Spirit” and keep the one ultimate command of “loving our neighbours as ourselves.” This means doing what brings them good and avoiding what brings them harm.
Equally, where there are two alternative arguable interpretations of Scripture, one of which we can see overwhelmingly causes good and the other harm, the right one must be the one that has the good consequences, the wrong one causes harm.
I believe same-sex marriage falls into the first category and if not certainly the second. Either way, the same test of Christ’s love should be applied: do what brings good, avoid what causes harm.
This process has continued long after Scripture was complete, with the emancipation of women and the abolition of slavery, where the church heard the Spirit declare he was doing a “new thing” requiring them to re-interpret Scripture to follow Christ’s higher law of love.
A much greater challenge is where the church is being asked to set aside apparently clear commands of Scripture because they contradict Christ’s higher law of love. This made the Acts 10-15 decision to accept uncircumcised male believers far more radical than churches today deciding to accept same-sex marriage.
​
​Led by John Calvin, the church had also followed the same law of Christ's love to re-interpret the strict scriptural ban on all lending with interest ("usury"). Calvin discerned the age-abiding principles behind the usury ban - to prevent commercial exploitation of vulnerable farmers by the rich - and re-applied it to a new context - a more commercial world. He did that in a way that did good rather than harm - allowing lending with interest but banning excessive interest.
Some traditionalists seem to think “faithfully surrendering” to Jesus requires that if the Bible in any way refers to an issue we should logically extend that as far as possible and then trust our heavenly Father that doing this will end up for everyone’s good, even if we can’t see how. That's what he requires of us, isn't it? No, actually what Jesus requires of us is to love and show mercy: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” (Micah 6:8)
This should mean that, just like Jesus, we should apply scripture in a love-centric way that benefits rather than harms others. Very often this is obvious and requires a simple following of Scripture’s commands – do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. But sometimes it’s less obvious - when we’re facing a new situation not directly contemplated by scripture - like Sabbath day healings or embracing uncircumcised Gentile believers or, I believe, with a gay or bisexual person wanting to form a life-partnership with someone of the same sex.
The traditionalist approach to this issue seems to me just copying what the Pharisees were doing: zealously making logical extensions to the literal words of Scripture without regard to the harmful consequences.
If, like them, we treat Scripture as simply a book of instructions to religiously follow like a highway code, we diminish it to a legal textbook rather the guide-book for life its was intended to be, to “train us into righteousness.” (2 Tim 3:16]. We will be drawn to slavishly follow instructions the Bible intended as temporary for a particular time and place and so cause people harm rather than the good God wants. And taking such a literalistic approach might even tempt us into a more liberal direction in some ways. It might encourage an attitude that "if the Bible really says nothing directly on an issue then I’m free to do what I God damn want to about that." Instead, we should be looking for the age-abiding principles behind the Bible’s instructions to be our life-guide today.
The love-centric approach is actually how the large majority of evangelical Christians apply most of Scripture today. There are many issues where the large majority of evangelicals now agree certain biblical instructions were only for a particular time and place. So we follow a love-centric, purpose-driven approach which leads us in a different direction to scripture’s literal words. Otherwise, we would still insist women keep their hair long and their mouths shut to speak in church, men keep their hair short and we wouldn't give or receive interest on money.
But on certain issues, especially this one, many evangelicals behave like zealous, one-issue Pharisees – an approach of inconsistent literalism.
Paul rightly observed, “It is fine to be zealous provided the purpose is good.” (Galatians 4:18). The circumcision party then arguing against him for their own brand of Christian legalism were certainly zealous in standing for what they saw as traditional biblical values - zealous, but zealously wrong.
Being countercultural, even for God, is not necessarily a good thing. It depends what we’re being counter cultural about. We need to be careful that we don’t repeat the grievous errors of some of our evangelical ancestors, including America’s Southern Baptists. They long held out against abolishing slavery, black civil rights and emancipating women, supposedly based on God’s word. They are now one of the most vocal opponents of same-sex marriage, also supposedly based on God’s word. We should be very careful before we line up with them to oppose the rights of another group of people who feel oppressed and mistreated.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that taking the traditionalist approach must be the “safest” option because it involves no change to Scripture’s literal instructions. Whether we take the traditionalist or revisionist path we will be extending Scripture well beyond the New Testament’s literal instructions. But it’s only the traditionalists who are in denial about this.
Revisionists willingly acknowledge they’re extending Scripture beyond its literal words by taking the concept of biblical marriage beyond opposite sex couples to embrace same-sex couples too.
But, arguably, it’s the traditionalists who steer furthest from Scripture’s literal instructions: by compelling gay Christians to be celibate regardless of gifting, extending a ban on all-male intercourse to any same-sex sexual activities, including between women, and forbidding gay people to marry the person they love.
Like Jesus’s man with the withered hand, LGBTQ+ folk today are asking us for a divine blessing - not through physical healing but through accepting their committed same-sex partnerships as marriage. The questions I believe Jesus is asking now of the church today, are: "Which is the right position to take about how we apply to same-sex couples today Scripture's instructions for sexual conduct and marriage? In a way that will do good or do harm, save life or destroy it?" I believe Jesus is also saying to us, "IF accepting committed same sex partnerships as marriage today overall does good and saves life rather than does harm and destroys life, then you should accept them, regardless of what a literal interpretation of the of Scripture's words might suggest.”
To know whether God wants us that to accept or reject same-sex marriage today, I believe, we have no choice but to examine the evidence for whose application of Scripture does good or harm – the traditionalists’ or the revisionists’. With healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, the answer was pretty obvious. The current issue requires a more detailed exploration of the evidence.
Marriage is a good thing by which God intend to bless humankind. But can committed same-sex partnerships qualify as that “good thing” of marriage, as revisionists claim? Or, as traditionalists maintain, are they dangerous fake “marriages” that are ultimately harmful to both the individual partners and wider society? Like so much bad stuff in the world are they just another dangerous deception of the devil? (See e.g. Gen. 2/3, 1 Peter 5:8, John 8:44, 2 Cor 11:14) Or is the devil deceiving traditionalists into rejecting same-sex marriage to harm both gay people and the church?
To work out who’s right and who’s been deceived here we need to carefully examine the evidence to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) against Jesus’s ultimate test of love: Does accepting or rejecting same-sex marriage do good - the place where God’s truth should always lead us? Or does it do harm – the place where the devil’s lies always lead us?