A Reformed Theological Case for Same-Sex Marriage

Today marks one decade since I came out publicly for the first time.

It has been a long journey with many emotional moments—from crying in my car with close friends on my university campus to growing to accept who I am today. But it’s also been a journey into greater knowledge of Scripture—growing a deeper appreciation for who God is and how Reformed theology shapes our view of our world.

This essay marks a milestone in that journey. Too often the debate over same-sex marriage is reduced to trying to sidestep a few tangential passages or throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. Instead, we need a comprehensive Reformed theology of marriage that honors the full arc of Scripture from creation to eschaton.

I will be the first to admit that I do not have formal theological training. However, the Christian Reformed Church has been derelict in its duty to engage the modern arguments on same-sex marriage in good faith. Pastors and office-bearers who have questions about the merits of our position are now banned from asking them. And LGBTQ individuals like myself have been abandoned to sort through the patchwork of modern arguments for same-sex marriage on our own. Our LGBTQ children deserve better.

In that spirit, I humbly present this Reformed theological argument for same-sex marriage for discussion in our denomination and beyond.

—

Reformed Christians view God’s work in the world through a creation, fall, redemption, and consummation framework—what N.T. Wright describes as a grand drama. Act 1 starts with Creation. It’s followed with the Fall in Act 2, the story of Israel in Act 3, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ in Act 4, and the early church in Act 5, Scene 1. We know the play will end with new creation in Act 6. Our job now is to fill in Act 5, Scene 2.^[1]

How we live out our moment in God’s story hinges not only on how we understand the previous acts, but also how we understand the coming act. Neo-Calvinist giant Herman Bavinck emphasizes both the continuity and the transformation in new creation: “The point of arrival returns to the point of departure, and is simultaneously a high point elevated high above the point of departure. The works of God describe a circle which strives upward like a spiral.”^[2] Here’s one of my favorite paragraphs:

Just as the caterpillar becomes a butterfly, as carbon is converted into diamond, as the grain of wheat upon the dying ground, produces other grains of wheat, as all of nature revives in the spring and dresses up in celebrative clothing, as the believing community is formed out of Adam’s fallen race, as the resurrection body is raised from the body that is dead and buried in the earth, so, too, by the re-creating power of Christ, the new heaven and the new earth will one day emerge from the fire-purged elements of this world, radiant in enduring glory and forever set free from the bondage of decay.^[3]

When we think about a caterpillar or a chrysalis, we can hardly imagine the creative potential of the butterfly that will one day emerge. New creation is more. In Bavinck’s own words: “Christ gives more than sin stole; grace was made much more to abound.”^[4]

Perhaps the most obvious biblical data we have to confirm this view is the nature of Christ’s resurrected body. It is not a brand new body. The nail marks are still in his hands. Jesus ate food. Thomas suggested touching his side. Yet, it is not the same as his previous body. Jesus suddenly appeared in a locked room. He disappeared after the Road to Emmaus. His resurrected body ascended into heaven.

Traditionalist scholar Darrin W. Snyder Belousek suggests that embracing same-sex marriage requires “replac[ing]”, “rescind[ing]” or even “forsak[ing]” God’s intention at creation.^[5] He adds that: “Seeing the ‘new’ in Christ as overcoming the ‘old’ in creation sets Christ the Savior against Christ the creator.”^[6]

But leaning into Bavinck’s view of eschatology, I respectfully disagree. Revelation 21 paints a picture of the new creation that, frankly, repeatedly violates creation order. There will be no sun or moon. There will be no more sea. There will be no more night. Our bodies will be transformed. And, there will be no more marriage. But more on that later.

My friend Jess Joustra, one of the world’s leading Bavinckian theology experts, writes that Jesus doesn’t produce a new law, but he brings “a new understanding of the law.” She continues: “Nothing is lost in the law; the original meaning and intent is gained.”^[7] What is the “original meaning and intent” for us to gain in marriage?

Here is the bottom line: Our eschatological direction does not point us toward creation, but toward new creation. We are not staying in the chrysalis, but we are joining creation in turning into butterflies. Could creation—and therefore, marriage—be right now today on its way to unfurling its wings?

—

Augustine outlined three core tenets of marriage in a widely-accepted Western Christian marriage ethic: permanence, fidelity, and procreation. We can apply a Reformed, creation-fall-redemption framework to each of these three dimensions to understand its evolution from Genesis to Revelation.

	Creation	Fall	Redemption → Consummation
Permanence	God creates Adam and Eve to live forever in full communion with God and each other	Death divides and the law of Moses allows for divorce due to hardness of hearts	Christ says marriage does not exist in heaven after the resurrection
Fidelity	God creates marriage as an exclusive bond between Adam and Eve in Genesis	Men marry multiple wives through polygamy and pursue sex out of marriage	Christ says that lust itself constitutes adultery in one’s heart
Procreation	God calls humankind to be fruitful, increase in number, and fill the earth in creation mandate	God curses Eve with pain in childbirth and infertility derails   entire family lines	God’s family grows today through the Great Commission and includes Gentiles

In Creation, God ordained marriage to be permanent, that is, that the marriage bond could not be broken by death or divorce. It was exclusive—neither partner could violate it by leaving it for someone else, and no one else could enter the marriage bond. God also ordained marriage as the rightful place for Adam and Eve to fulfill God’s mandate to grow God’s family on earth.

After the Fall, marriage is no longer always the permanent institution it was intended to be because of death and divorce. The Fall also shatters the ideal of fidelity—commitments are broken, polygamy emerges, and prophets use the metaphor of an unfaithful spouse. The Fall also breaks God’s good gift of procreation: Pain is increased in childbirth. Some couples experience infertility, including Biblical figures like Sarah, Hannah, and Elizabeth. Still, God keeps the procreative lineage of the covenant going for God’s people—ultimately culminating in a baby in a manger.

Jesus redeems each dimension of marriage by both embracing God’s intent at creation and also making it new in the redemptive age. Jesus reiterates the creational permanence norm by rejecting nearly all reasons for divorce.^[8] Notably, Jesus says that marriage does not exist in the resurrection, a stunning new revelation about the ultimate impermanence of marriage.^[9] Christ’s redemptive work also embraces a new vision for the fidelity dimension of marriage by proclaiming that anyone who lusts has already committed adultery in their heart—both honoring what came before and making it new by revealing its core meaning and intent.^[10]

Finally, Christ both fundamentally makes new the procreation mandate while embracing its original intent. When Jesus expands God’s family to include Gentiles more fully, the move also replaces the necessity of a biological family with the new reality of a spiritual family. A CRC Synod 2003 panel says: “In the New Testament, adoption into the family of God through Christ is the theological concept that supersedes procreation as the point of entry into the covenant.”^[11]

Progressive scholar Robert Song writes: “Unlike the old covenant, in which membership of the chosen community was determined by shared ancestral blood, membership in the new covenant community is determined by sharing in the blood of Christ.”^[12] “If we accept that sex even in a non-procreative context can be good, and that there is no final reason why all committed relationships should be intrinsically or deliberately open to procreation, we are opening the way to same-sex relationships.”^[13]

Even Snyder Belousek points to this moment as one in which “traditionalists must accept the burden of argument,” particularly when it comes to contraception. “Christians cannot, consistently, affirm intentionally non-procreative marriage and then oppose same-sex union on account that God intended procreation as a good integral to marriage.”^[14] Yet that is exactly what the CRCNA has done: Synod 2003 determined that non-procreation in marriage is a “disputable matter”—allowing “a husband and wife the freedom to prayerfully before God choose not to have children.”^[15]

So does Christ’s work abolish the creational good of children? Of course not. Without a doubt, children are a blessing from God. But in short, the creational intent of procreation has been made new. Our new covenant family is God’s family!

—

In Genesis, God creates Eve as an ʿēzer kenegdo for Adam—or a “like-opposite” partner.^[16] Why? Men and women are “like” because they are both human—”bone of my bone” and “flesh of my flesh.”^[17] But how are they “opposite?” Why does it matter? And what are those differences now in the already-but-not-yet of Christ’s redemptive work? If procreation is no longer the binding force undergirding the like-opposite ethic in marriage, another option is gender complementarity—specifically, male headship.

The traditionalist case for male headship originates in Genesis 2—in which Eve is created as a “helper suitable” for Adam. Adam names her and receives her; Eve is silent. Traditionalists say multiple New Testament passages appear to confirm the headship principle—1 Corinthians 11:2 (“the head of the woman is man”), 1 Corinthians 14:34 (“women should remain silent in the churches”) and 1 Timothy 2:12 (“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.”).^[18]

In 1984, the CRC Synod narrowed male headship by rejecting it on a societal level and “quietly laid aside what had been for nearly two millennia the unquestioned status of man’s priority and dominance in society on the basis of creation order.”^[19] Further, Synod 1990 determined that the headship principle did not necessarily extend to church leadership.^[20]

In marriage, the CRCNA describes headship as a husband’s “direction-setting role” and a wife’s role of “voluntarily accepting his leadership.”^[21] Theologian John Piper writes that men have “a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women,” and women have “a freeing disposition to affirm, receive and nurture strength and leadership from worthy men.”^[22]

But the 1984 headship majority report also finds that “it does not appear that spiritual gifts as such are sex-specific—some feminine, some masculine.”^[23] Theologian Karl Barth says attempts to articulate tangible, normative headship definitions “have tended to lapse into apparent arbitrariness and been vague about their premises.”^[24] He suggests that these descriptions “obviously cannot be said or heard in all seriousness … On what authority are we told that these traits are masculine and these feminine?”^[25] Indeed, I would think that most traditionalists would be hard-pressed to articulate normative social roles of husbands and wives that absolutely must be present in every single marriage.

In his argument against extending the headship principle to the church, Calvin Theological Seminary professor John Cooper writes that, in Genesis 1, “there is no hint of hierarchy or differentiation of roles.”^[26] A 1990 synodical study committee report in the Christian Reformed Church in North America paints a picture of what it means to pursue an eschatological direction of the headship principle:

Isn’t the future kingdom already present now? Isn’t God’s kingdom already in our midst now? What does the here and now of God’s kingdom mean for husband-wife relations? What does it mean for males to be married to persons who will someday stand before God as their total equals in Christ? The overall thrust of the Bible—its eschatological orientation and direction—is toward women’s attaining a place alongside men, rather than under them or separated from them.^[27]

One might also argue next that anatomical complementarity still exists separate from procreation and separate from any social dimension. But what is the significance of this anatomical complementarity without the purpose of procreation? Does our entire Biblical sexual ethic rise and fall on only our literal, physical genitalia? To stake our sexual ethic here is to reduce the gift of marriage to a biological jigsaw puzzle.

So Barth offers one final suggestion: orderedness.^[28] He argues the simple fact that men came first and women came second is sufficient to maintain normative sexual difference in marriage:

Man and woman are not an A and a second A whose being and relationship can be described like the two halves of an hourglass, which are obviously two, but absolutely equal and therefore interchangeable. Man and woman are an A and a B, and cannot, therefore, be equated… A has not the slightest advantage over B, nor does it suffer the slightest disadvantage… Every word is dangerous and liable to be misunderstood when we try to characterize this order. But it exists.^[29]

Barth says any explanation of this difference is “better left unresolved.”^[30] How convenient for Barth not to enumerate any specific normative difference—given that we have not been able to find any normative, real-world reason to undergird our “opposite” ethic to this point! Reformer John Calvin ultimately agrees that this basis “does not seem to be very strong” because “John the Baptist went before Christ in time and yet was far inferior to Him.”^[31] I’m with Calvin: The existence of an ordered pair at creation, with some hidden meaning that we are unable to articulate, is far too narrow upon which to mandate lifelong celibacy for all LGBTQ individuals.

And when the CRC denomination’s 1973 report attempts its own reasoning for male-female difference beyond procreation, it actually backs into a more compelling reason to actually endorse same-sex marriage:

Turning to Genesis 2, we learn that the male-female polarity is by no means only for the purpose of biological reproduction. The account stresses the role of sex differentiation for the purpose of fulfilling the individual man’s fundamental need for companionship and personal wholeness. Woman is created as a complement to help man so that the two cleave to each other in love and form a unity in marriage. This is the created order into which male and female polarity form an integral part of being human.^[32]

Fulfilling a fundamental need for companionship and personal wholeness. Holding fast to each other in love. Coming together in unity in marriage.

“This is the created order.” Could it really be that simple?

—

Scripture links marriage to three important images: the one-flesh union, the image of God, and Christ and the church. All three mysteries, to borrow from Paul’s vocabulary, find their meanings “already” revealed to us in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.

First, the one-flesh motif in Scripture points us toward not only a unitive coming together of two individuals in marriage, but also, the new unity of Jews and Gentiles, Christ and the church, and ultimately, heaven and earth. The one-flesh motif does not, as some traditionalists claim, allude to some sort of reunification of the sexes into some original, unisex human being in Genesis.^[33] Nor can the “one-flesh” motif be reduced to only a familial bond, as some progressives suggest. That is certainly a piece of the puzzle, but Scripture certainly suggests a unitive component.^[34] Snyder Belousek writes that marriage “would not fully reflect God’s unitive plan of salvation” if male and female are not united.^[35] But why? This unitive salvation plan has already been revealed to us in Christ. No doubt, the meaning or intent of the figure lives on in Christ. This work is done!

The CRC denomination’s Human Sexuality Report makes a fair point here that Jesus’ mention of “male and female” alongside “one flesh” in Matthew 19 was not strictly necessary to answer the Pharisees’ question.^[36] But we can understand Jesus’ teaching within a creation-fall-redemption framework: He describes the creation account, acknowledges the Fall by moving to Moses’ law, and then ushers in the new era with his own authority. That’s why I must split with the report’s conclusion that this means Christ “understands sexuality in creational terms.”^[37] While Christ grounds marriage in creation, he understands it now in terms of his own self. Christ issues new rulings on all three Augustinian dimensions of marriage out of his own Messianic authority. (Regardless, this is far from the main thrust of the passage, in the same way traditionalists reference 1 Timothy 3:2 as a proof text against women in office because it requires elders to be “the husband of one wife.”)

Second, Genesis 1 explains that Adam and Eve are created “in the image of God.” The traditional argument suggests that this male-female binary is essential to humanity’s reflection of God’s image. However, the grammar of the sentence does not directly tie the two: the first two clauses of the verse are separated by a comma, and then the male and female dichotomy is separated with a semicolon. Regardless, Colossians 1 tells us that Christ is the truest and fullest image of God. When we ask ourselves what it means to be image bearers of God, we find the best understanding by looking at the incarnation of Jesus Christ—the one through whom all things at creation were made.

Third, the traditionalist argument suggests that husband and wife ought to model the relationship between Christ and the church. We find here yet another image revealed to us in Christ. Traditionalist Christopher Roberts writes: “The sexes were created for the purpose of responding to their prototype, Christ and the church.”^[38] But does the Christ-church relationship point us toward normative husband-wife relations? Or did Paul’s understanding of husband-wife relations point his readers toward a better understanding of the brand new Christ-church relationship? Now that Christ has been revealed to the church, and is still present with the church in the Holy Spirit, sexual distinction in marriage is no longer necessary to point us to the reality in which we are already living. Indeed, Paul himself communicates that reality to us when he writes: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”^[39]

The Belgic Confession states that: “We believe that the ceremonies and symbols of the law have ended with the coming of Christ, and that all foreshadowings have come to an end, so that the use of them ought to be abolished among Christians. Yet the truth and substance of these things remain for us in Jesus Christ, in whom they have been fulfilled.”^[40] The foreshadowings have come to an end. The truth and substance remain.

—

Romans 1 is the lone apparent theological condemnation of same-sex relationships. CRC Synodical reports lead us to three main components of Biblical interpretation: the grammatical-literary dimension, the historical dimension and the theological dimension.^[41] As Cooper writes, “The issue is not whether the Bible is normative or which parts are normative, but how it is normative for us today.”^[42] Much of my analysis will be in conversation with New Testament ethicist Richard Hays, who wrote a 1996 landmark exegesis of Romans 1 that is widely accepted and cited by traditionalists today.

First, the grammatical-literary component of Reformed interpretation points us toward an observation of what Romans 1 is not: Romans 1 is not a rule against same-sex relationships. It is not, in the view of Hays, primarily even about providing moral instruction for Christians.^[43] Instead, the verses regarding same-sex relationships are “of a secondary and illustrative character.”^[44] Hays calls it an “image” of “humanity’s primal rejection of the sovereignty of God the creator”^[45] and a “sign” of “humanity’s confusion and rebellion against God.” Further, same-sex relationships are not listed here as a reason for God’s wrath, but rather as an image or manifestation. Hays writes: “When human beings engage in homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality: the rejection of the Creator’s design.”^[46]

(As a side note, Romans 1 also creates problems for the moderate traditional position. Is attraction to the same sex “shameful?” Are they “lusts?” Are they “sinful desires of their hearts?” If so, how do we hold the position that sexual orientation is not sin? The Presbyterian Church in America recently determined that same-sex attraction “is not morally neutral” and “must be repented of and put to death.”^[47] John Calvin goes so far as to call “unnatural lust” a “dreadful crime.”^[48] Superimposing our modern ethic here—ultimately a compassionate approach meant to absolve individuals of guilt over sexual orientations that they cannot control—prompts its own exegetical problems in Romans 1.)

The second core Reformed hermeneutic is an exploration of the historical culture.^[49] Classics scholar Sarah Ruden writes this riveting description:

Perhaps, in the matter of homosexuality, what he saw as a boy influenced him more than his tradition did…. Flagrant pedophiles might have pestered him and his friends on the way to and from school… As he preached what Jesus meant for human society, he wasn’t going to let anyone believe that it included any of this.”^[50] ”I picture Paul, flushed and sweating in his rage as he writes that everyone is responsible for what pederasty has made of society… All this leads to a feeling of mountainous irony. Paul takes a bold and effective swipe at the power structure. He challenges centuries of execrable practice in seeking a more just, more loving society. And he gets called a bigot.^[51]

Traditionalists dispute whether ancient authors were familiar with any consensual, committed same-sex relationships approximating marriage. Comprehensive work by progressive scholar Matthew Vines ticks through a lengthy list of proposed counterexamples to demonstrate that nearly all ultimately stem from pederasty, come from fiction, or just plain don’t fit.^{[52] [53]} Even traditionalist Preston Sprinkle ultimately admits: “It is unlikely that Paul has monogamous same-sex marriages in view when he pens Romans 1. Consensual same-sex relations existed in Paul’s time, but they were rare.”^[54]

Likewise, Paul likely believed that same-sex relationships stem from excessive lust or a lack of self-control. Sprinkle says this point is “one of the strongest arguments” for an affirming view—admitting that “no one can deny with any historical credibility that homosexual behavior was often believed to result from excessive lust and uncontrollable sexual desire.”^[55] Hays writes that “there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world” of the idea of sexual orientation.^[56] (A line from Sprinkle in the Human Sexuality Report about ancient writers who “explored” an idea that “could be” considered a “version” of same-sex orientation ultimately references an approach that rooted sexual preference in astrology, age, and wealth.^[57])

John Chrysostom, a key fourth century theologian, can help us shed some light on how Paul might have been thinking about Romans 1:

No one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfill their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession… That which is contrary to nature has in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure.^[58]

What a stunningly different understanding of same-sex intimacy than we have today! Plus, he’s indeed correct that “the changing implies possession”—why would Paul symbolize the universal fall of all humankind with an “exchange” that literally no LGBTQ individual actually demonstrates? Let me be clear: These two very different understandings of homosexual orientation and practice do not render the passage non-authoritative. But it should prompt us to ask how we ought to interpret the passage for real LGBTQ individuals today.

(Further, I have little original thought to add about the meanings of the words “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. I find it noteworthy that Martin Luther’s first 1534 translation translates it as “boy molester.”^[59] And in the end, Hays suggests he chooses to focus so heavily on Romans 1, as I do, because he has found that “there is room for reasonable doubt” about their meanings.^[60])

Third, the theological dimension of Reformed hermeneutics asks how Romans 1 fits into the overall message of Scripture. My hope is that my analysis on the one-flesh motif, the image of God, Christ and the church, procreation, and headship largely contribute to this section’s purpose. Still, traditionalist scholars rightly make the distinction that, contrary to other contemporary issues like women in leadership, no biblical texts explicitly endorse same-sex intimacy,^[61] or give examples of Christians who are in same-sex partnerships.^{[62] [63]}

Still, just as the Human Sexuality Report rejects the argument that Jesus’ silence on same-sex relationships ought to be taken as a sign of approval^[64] (agreed!), the Bible’s lack of examples of Christian same-sex relationships ought not be taken as a sign of disapproval either. We should also note, along with Hays, that “the New Testament contains no passages that clearly articulate a rule against homosexual practices.”^[65]

Finally, we also must recognize that this short passage on same-sex intimacy lands in the “fall” section in Paul’s creation-fall-redemption analysis. We have not gotten to the gospel yet! As Hays later writes: “The wrath of God—manifested in God’s ‘giving up’ of rebellious humanity to follow their own devices and desires—is not the last word.”^[66] “Neither the word of judgment against homosexuality nor the hope of transformation to a new life should be read apart from the eschatological framework of Romans.”^[67]

—

I do ultimately agree with traditionalists who say that Paul is talking about all same-sex relationships in Romans 1. The Human Sexuality Report says: “The problem that the apostle identifies involves not one of wrong degree (excessive behavior) but of wrong object.”^[68] Indeed, the thrust of Paul’s entire argument hangs on the sameness of the sexes. This presents the progressive case with a dilemma. Hays arrives at this exact same point and writes: “Does that settle the contemporary issue? By no means. This is precisely the point at which genuinely fruitful reflection must begin.”^[69] We will attempt that here:

The hermeneutical study committee report to the CRC Synod of 1978 implores us to consider the possibility that “that which looks like a moral principle and has long been considered such by the church is in fact no more than an application of a moral principle.”^[70] Some examples might be greeting each other with a holy kiss, raising hands in prayer, or abstaining from meat with blood.^[71] This interpretive hermeneutic applies even when Paul explicitly roots his command in creation order.^[72] 1 Corinthians 11:5 requires that women must pray with their heads covered. Just two verses later, Paul explicitly references Genesis 2. Later, Paul references “nature”—the same word he uses in Romans 1—to insist that men have short hair and women have long hair.^[73]

The Synod 1978 panel points to John Calvin’s approach to this passage—that nature here simply means “the custom that prevailed in Paul’s day” and it is “a far cry from taking it to be a reference to something that is embedded in the fabric of nature itself.”^[74] This is also how Cooper approaches the 1 Timothy injunction for women not to speak in worship: “His appeal to the creation and fall of Adam and Eve does not automatically make Paul’s prohibitions in [1 Timothy 2:12] universally binding creational norms.”^[75]

In short, our hermeneutic does not require direct, literal compliance with these creation-rooted directives even when the New Testament explicitly lays them out as rules to follow. This brings us back to our note that, in Romans 1, we do not even find an explicit rule against same-sex relationships, but rather a symbolic image of idolatry. Hays calls this idea the “symbolic world” or “mythico-historical” representation of a Creation-to-Fall dynamic.^[76] But the intellectual leap from this representative world—Paul’s “image,” “sign” and “symbol”—to normative mandatory lifelong celibacy for all same-sex oriented people—is not clear.

In fact, Hays himself admits that “Romans 1:26-27 cannot be read as an account of how individuals become homosexuals.”^[77] So if Romans 1 does not articulate why individuals are gay—though that is a main thrust of the entire passage—then how can it tell us anything about how LGBTQ individuals ought to behave?

Hays suggests that individuals who search for a principle behind an application of a principle here are left with only vague platitudes about love or analogies about the Gentiles. I agree that is not enough. But then he asserts that a “principle that human actions ought to acknowledge and honor God as creator” is also “too general.”^[78] Why? That, Hays himself says, is the entire point of Romans 1!

Dare I venture to say, in today’s culture, the image or sign of same-sex relationships in Romans 1 actually confuses rather than clarifies our understanding of idolatry. Perhaps we can take the words of our 1978 synodical report—”the symbol was abrogated, the principle was not”^[79]—and declare them for our modern question about Paul’s representation of humankind’s idolatry in Romans 1.

—

For decades, Christian Reformed scholars have been wary of using Galatians 3:28 as any kind of determinative proof text for women in office. However, this passage cannot be ignored—and it must, in my view, weigh heavily on our discussion. Importantly, Paul does not write “neither male nor female,” as one might expect from the parallelism of the verse. Paul changes his sentence structure to write—nor is there male and female—clearly referencing Genesis 1:27. (In fact, the sentence is so grammatically clunky that there is no other logical understanding.)

Hays goes so far as to say: “The formula alludes to the creation story and says ‘no more.’”^[80] He continues: “The question we have to ask ourselves is this: How shall we order the life of our community in such a way that we retell the story of God’s new creation in Christ, in whom there is no male and female?”^[81]

Traditionalist John Cooper, in his argument for women in office, writes this:

Unity within the body of Christ is the most basic thing about our lives. It is more fundamental than the husband-wife relation, the parent-child relation, the master-slave relation (Eph. 5:21), or any other human relationship … Equality in Christ is the operative relationship between Christian men and women unless it is modified by some other legitimate role or relationship of authority.^[82]

In its celibacy section, the traditionalist Human Sexuality Report agrees: “Our identity in Christ transcends all other identities, whether those that are consequences of the fall (such as slave and free, gay and straight) or those that are gifts of creation and redemption (such as male and female, married and celibate).^[83] The implications of that statement ought to apply to marriage, as well.

—

What is the alternative? We cannot view this as simply a choice between endorsing same-sex marriage or maintaining the status quo. Instead, it is a choice between endorsing same-sex marriage or endorsing the new idea of mandatory lifelong celibacy.

Calvin Theological Seminary professor Jeffrey Weima says: “Those today who find themselves beset by same-sex attraction are ultimately in the same position as heterosexuals who face inclinations to act outside of God’s revealed intention for humanity.”^[84] As someone who has personally seriously grappled with the idea of lifelong celibacy at just 20 years of age, this is stunningly wrong.

Put yourself in a gay child’s shoes: Two-thirds of LGBTQ individuals first felt they might not be straight when they were 14 years old or younger.^[85] That child, under the traditional ethic, might come out and fully know, at that moment, that he or she must be single for the rest of the next seven decades. On the contrary, straight individuals may enter multiple dating relationships and, at any time in the future, from their 20s to their 80s, choose to marry.^[86] In short, the difference is the hope of a future relationship. While the end result might be the same—a single life—these are wildly different practical realities over the course of a lifetime.^[87]

So what should we make of the Biblical ethic of celibacy and why we might or might not adopt it as mandatory for all LGBTQ individuals?

In Matthew 19, Jesus suggests that celibacy is voluntary in two ways: He suggests that celibacy is “given” and “not everyone can accept” it.^[88] Indeed, “accepting” lifelong celibacy requires an action by the individual; it’s not simply something forced upon them with no discernment of call. Jesus also outlines three types of eunuchs—including those who “choose” so for the sake of the kingdom. These individuals, in Martin Luther’s words, “are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God.”^[89]

Paul says unmarried individuals should try to stay single—but “if they cannot control themselves, they should marry.”^[90] As Lewis Smedes writes:“If Paul thought that most heterosexual people lacked the gift of celibacy, would he not have thought that at least some homosexuals lack it?”^[91] Traditionalists assert this is only the gift of self-control.^[92] But as we’ve noted, mandatory lifelong celibacy is a far different reality.

In the Reformation, Martin Luther mocks the idea that it’s possible to “possess virginity as we do shoes and clothing.” He also suggests that mandatory celibacy is “simply impossible”— and “they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication.”^[93]Calvin’s assessment of forced celibacy vows for priests: “It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity.”^[94]

Importantly, Snyder Belousek goes so far as to call such a celibacy mandate  an “innovation”^[95]—using the exact same word he uses throughout the book for supporters of same-sex marriage! He ultimately proposes an alternative: mixed-orientation couples. But this would be a fraught, irresponsible path forward for pastoral care. Elsewhere, Snyder Belousek rejects an accommodation argument for same-sex couples to marry. But if anything is an accommodation, it is an LGBTQ individual marrying a straight individual and insisting it meets God’s creational vision for marriage.

(Finally, I hope it goes without saying that advocating for orientation change is repugnant. Every major ex-gay organization has shuttered and apologized. Our 2016 synodical study committee unanimously recommended rejecting it.^[96] The Human Sexuality Report’s suggestion that LGBTQ people should “pray that God will allow them to be drawn to a partner of the opposite sex” is an absolute disgrace.^[97])

In other words, there is no “safe” option. The choice is between endorsing marriage without sexual difference or endorsing mandatory lifelong celibacy imposed on millions of LGBTQ individuals. Whether you support or oppose same-sex marriage, you must endorse overturning 2,000 years of church history regardless of where you fall.

—

Former Calvin Theological Seminary President James De Jong used what he called an “‘inverse test of systematic correlation” to tease out the implications of women in office: “When one asks what of confessional Reformed orthodoxy unravels when one approves the ordination of women as pastors, elders, and evangelists, the answer is, ‘Nothing.’” “None of this redefines by implication the entire fabric of Reformed faith.”^[98]

Nothing I’ve written here redefines our faith either. The Augustinian marriage ethic remains intact. The meanings of the Biblical images of the one-flesh motif, the image of God, and Christ and the Church are revealed to us in Christ in the same way. This argument doesn’t dismiss Paul as out-of-touch. It doesn’t overgeneralize about love. It doesn’t rewrite the creation account or push a potpourri of negative arguments and hope one lands. This is a cohesive, positive, theological argument, rooted in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and exegeted with a Reformed hermeneutic.

It can be scary to open ourselves up to an understanding of Scripture that steps away from church tradition—especially a position that has been perceived for so long as such a flagrant departure from sound doctrine. But it’s not. It’s time to consider it. And it’s time to realize that our Reformed theology and hermeneutic are not barriers to supporting same-sex marriage, but our greatest strength in discovering how God calls us to live in our chapter of Christ’s redemptive work.

---

^[1] Wright, N.T. “How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? The Laing Lecture 1989.” Vox Evangelica, vol. 21, 1991, p. 25.

^[2] Bavinck, Herman. “Our Reasonable Faith,” 1909, p. 144, quoted in Veenhof, Jan, “Nature and Grace in Bavinck,” Pro Rege: Vol. 34: No. 4, 2006, p. 22.

^[3] Bavinck, Herman. “Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation.” 1899, p. 719.

^[4] Bavinck, Herman. “De algemeene genade,” 1894, p. 43, quoted in Veenhof, Jan, “Nature and Grace in Bavinck,” Pro Rege: Vol. 34: No. 4, 2006, p. 22.

^[5] Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Academic, 2021, pp. 60, 81, 154.

^[6] Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Academic, 2021, p. 113.

^[7] Joustra, Jessica. Jesus the Law Restorer: Law and the Imitation of Christ in Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics, Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, Vol. 6 Iss. 2, p. 328.

^[8] Matthew 5:31-32

^[9] Matthew 22:30

^[10] Matthew 5:27-28

^[11] Christian Reformed Church in North America.”Committee to Examine Life Issues Raised by Bioscience and

Genetic Engineering.” Agenda for Synod 2003, p. 283.

^[12] Song, Robert. “Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships.” SCM Press, 2014, p. 18.

^[13] Song, Robert. “Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships.” SCM Press, 2014, p. 71.

^[14]  Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Academic, 2021, p. 160.

^[15] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Article 56. Acts of Synod 2003, p. 648.

^[16] Keller, Timothy. “The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Marriage with the Wisdom of God.” Hodder & Stoughton, 2011, p. 195.

^[17] Genesis 2:23

^[18] For much, much more detail, see also Report 33, Agenda for Synod 1984, p. 282-376; Report 26, Agenda for Synod 1990, p. 309-330; Report 31, Agenda for Synod 1992, p. 359-383; Committee to Review the Decision re Women in Office for Synod 2000; Agenda for Synod 2000, p. 351-407.

^[19] Boomsma, Clarence. “Male and Female, One in Christ: New Testament Teaching on Women in Office”. Baker Book House, 1993, p. 86.

^[20] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Article 96. Acts of Synod, 1990, p. 657.

^[21] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Report 33: Committee to Study Headship.” Agenda for Synod, 1984, p. 330.

^[22] Piper, John, and Wayne A. Grudem, editors. “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism”. Crossway, 1991, p. 36. quoted in Rivera, Bridget Eileen. “Heavy Burdens: Seven Ways LGBTQ Christians Experience Harm in the Church.” Brazos Press, 2021, p. 128.

^[23]  Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Report 33: Committee to Study Headship.” Agenda for Synod, 1984, p. 322.

^[24] Roberts, Christopher C. “Creation & Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage.” 2007, p. 181.

^[25] Barth, Karl, “Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, III.4, p. 153, quoted in Roberts, Christopher C. “Creation & Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage.” 2007, p. 146.

^[26] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 42.

^[27] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Report 26, Committee to Study Headship.” Agenda for Synod, 1990, p. 327.

^[28] This section relies heavily on a synopsis of Barth’s views in “Creation and Covenant” by Christopher Roberts. His book is extremely helpful for understanding the traditional views on sexual difference in the last two millennia.

^[29] Barth, Karl, “Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, III.4, p. 169, quoted in Roberts, Christopher C. “Creation & Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage.” 2007, p. 160-161.

^[30] Barth, Karl, “Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, III.2, p. 287, quoted in Roberts, Christopher C. “Creation & Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage.” 2007, p. 145.

^[31] Calvin, John. New Testament Commentaries, Commentary on I Timothy, 1561, p. 217, quoted in Boomsma, Clarence. “Male and Female, One in Christ: New Testament Teaching on Women in Office”. Baker Book House, 1993, p. 56.

^[32] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Report 42: Committee to Study Homosexuality.” Agenda for Synod 1973, Supplement, p. 615.

^[33] Gangon, Robert A.J. “The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics,” Abingdon, 2001, p. 60, quoted in Classis Grand Rapids East Study Report on Biblical and Theological Support Currently Offered by Christian Proponents of Same-Sex Marriage, January 2016, p. 60-61.

^[34] See 1 Corinthians 6:16-17.

^[35] Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Academic, 2021, p. 152.

^[36] Sprinkle, Preston. People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue. Zondervan, 2015, p. 35-36, quoted in Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Baker Academic, 2021, p. 61.

^[37] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 15

^[38] Roberts, Christopher C. “Creation & Covenant: The Significance of Sexual Difference in the Moral Theology of Marriage.” 2007, p. 154.

^[39] Ephesians 5:21

^[40] Belgic Confession, Article 25

^[41] See also, “Report 24: Infallibility and Inspiration in Light of Scripture and the Creeds,” Agenda for Synod 1961; “Report 44: Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority,” Agenda for Synod 1972; Report 31: Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office,” Agenda for Synod 1978, quoted in Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 17,

^[42] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 26.

^[43] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 195.

^[44] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 191.

^[45] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 191.

^[46] Hays, Richard B. “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.” HarperCollins, 1996, p. 386.

^[47] Presbyterian Church in America. “Forty-Seventh General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality,” 2020, p. 8

^[48] Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. 1540, p. 79.

^[49] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 20.

^[50] Ruden, Sarah. “Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time.” Image Books, 2010, p. 48.

^[51] Ruden, Sarah. “Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time.” Image Books, 2010, p. 71.

^[52] Vines, Matthew. “Did Same-Sex Marriage Exist in the Biblical World? A Response to N.T. Wright and Preston Sprinkle,” The Reformation Project.

^[53] Sprinkle, Preston. “Paul and Homosexual Behavior: A Critical Evaluation of the Excessive-Lust Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 4, 2015, p. 501.

^[54] Sprinkle, Preston. “Paul and Homosexual Behavior: A Critical Evaluation of the Excessive-Lust Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 4, 2015, p. 516 .

^[55] Sprinkle, Preston. “Paul and Homosexual Behavior: A Critical Evaluation of the Excessive-Lust Interpretation of Romans 1:26-27.” Bulletin for Biblical Research, vol. 25, no. 4, 2015, p. 500.

^[56] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 200.

^[57] Brooten, Bernadette J., “Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism,” University of Chicago Press, 1996, p. 140, quoted in Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 109.

^[58] Chrysostom, John. “Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.” Homily 4.

^[59] Oxford, Eric, “Has ‘Homosexual’ Always Been in the Bible?” Forge Online, March 21, 2019.

^[60] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 184.

^[61] Cooper, John W. “Not Like Women in Office: Scripture, Hermeneutics, and Same-Sex Relations.” Calvin Theological Seminary Forum, vol. 22, no. 3, Fall 2015, p. 5.

^[62] Cooper, John W. “Not Like Women in Office: Scripture, Hermeneutics, and Same-Sex Relations.” Calvin Theological Seminary Forum, vol. 22, no. 3, Fall 2015, p. 5.

^[63] Hays, Richard B. “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.” HarperCollins, 1996, p. 395.

^[64] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 101.

^[65] Hays, Richard B. “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.” HarperCollins, 1996, p. 394.

^[66] Hays, Richard B. “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.” HarperCollins, 1996, p. 392.

^[67] Hays, Richard B. “The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics.” HarperCollins, 1996, p. 393.

^[68] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 106.

^[69] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 205.

^[70] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Agenda for Synod 1978, p. 345.

^[71] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 27.

^[72] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Report 42: Committee to Study Homosexuality. Agenda for Synod 1973, Supplement, p. 622.

^[73] 1 Corinthians 11

^[74] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Agenda for Synod 1978, p. 516.

^[75] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 51.

^[76] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 189.

^[77] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 209.

^[78] Hays, Richard B. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 14, no. 1, Apr. 1986, p. 208.

^[79] Christian Reformed Church in North America. “Hermeneutical Principles Concerning Women in Ecclesiastical Office.” Agenda for Synod 1978, p. 498.

^[80] Hays, Richard B. “New Testament Ethics: The Story Retold.” (The 1997 J.J. Thiessen lectures) CMBC Publications, 1998, p. 72.

^[81] Hays, Richard B. “New Testament Ethics: The Story Retold.” (The 1997 J.J. Thiessen lectures) CMBC Publications, 1998, p. 80.

^[82] Cooper, John W. “A Cause for Division? Women in Office and the Unity of the Church.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1991, p. 43.

^[83] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 27.

^[84] Weima, Jeffrey A. “Same-Sex Activity: What Does the New Testament Say?” Calvin Theological Seminary Forum, vol. 22, no. 3, Oct. 2015, p. 12.

^[85] Pew Research Center, A Survey of LGBT Americans, June 13, 2013. n=1,197. MOE +/-4.1% pts.

^[86] See “The Significance of Singleness” by Christina Hitchcock for an example of this.

^[87] To be clear, none of this should be misconstrued to suggest that I think marriage ought to be elevated over singleness. In fact, I agree with the observation of virtually every theological traditionalist that our evangelical culture has elevated marriage to an unacceptable and idolatrous expectation.

^[88] Matthew 19:11

^[89] Luther, Martin. “The Estate of Marriage.” 1522.

^[90] 1 Corinthians 7:9

^[91] Smedes, Lewis B. “Like the Wideness of the Sea?” Perspectives, May 1999.

^[92]  Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 27.

^[93] Luther, Martin. “The Estate of Marriage.” 1522.

^[94] Calvin, John. “Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Chapter 12.” 1536.

^[95] Snyder Belousek, Darrin W. “Marriage, Scripture and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.” Grand Rapids, Mich., Baker Academic, 2021, 179-180.

^[96] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage

(majority report). Agenda for Synod 2016, p. 44.

^[97] Christian Reformed Church in North America. Committee to Articulate a Foundation-laying Biblical Theology of Human Sexuality. Agenda for Synod 2021, p. 125.

^[98] De Jong, James A. “Freeing the Conscience: Approaching the Women’s Ordination Issue by Means of Theological Correlation.” Calvin Theological Seminary, 1995, p. 23.