"The Message" Author Eugene Peterson's Retraction of Same-sex Marriage Support: Where do we go from here?

Eugene Peterson is the author of "The Message" paraphrase of the Bible, who recently stirred controversy due to his support of same-sex marriage, which he retracted one day later.

 

 

Interview and retraction

In an interview with Jonathan Merritt of Religion News Service published on 12 July 2017, "Best-selling author Eugene Peterson changes his mind on gay marriage", Peterson stated that he would perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.

 

After recounting experiences with "several women who were lesbians" in churches where he was associate pastor, and the employment of man who applied and was employed as a music director that identified as being gay, he added:

I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.

 

Meritt asked Peterson as a follow-up, "If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?" Peterson replied with a one-word answer, "Yes."

 

A day after the publication of the interview with Merritt, Peterson retracted his views, stating, "To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything."

 

Peterson said, "I’ve never performed a same-sex wedding. I’ve never been asked and, frankly, I hope I never am asked."

 

He apparently blamed Merritt for asking the question in a hypothetical, and then claimed that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt: "When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that. That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage. That said, I would still love such a couple as their pastor. They’d be welcome at my table, along with everybody else."

 

"I regret the confusion and bombast that this interview has fostered," he said. "It has never been my intention to participate in the kind of lightless heat that such abstract, hypothetical comments and conversations generate."

 

Merritt responded to Peterson's allegations, that his questions were pointed, "as any serious journalist’s should be. They were respectful and in no way pushy." He added, "It is possible Peterson felt he had been placed on the spot and offered an answer that doesn’t reflect his true conviction. But it is also important to note that in the week prior to the publication, there was no attempt to clarify or change his answer to these questions." ("Eugene Peterson backtracks on same-sex marriage", 13 July 2017)

 

Was Peterson's retraction genuine?

In thinking about Peterson's position on same-sex relationships, I have found Russell Moore's reflection on World Vision's 2014 change of course on same-sex marriage quite instructive.

 

For one, I find that Peterson's claim that he was "put on the spot" by Merritt to be an irresponsible act of blaming another person for his own error (if he does truly believe it to be an error), in an act of self-justification, quite similar to many of the public (partial) apologies that we see these days. It is part of the sinful human condition.

 

We have seen such examples in the Bible. Adam infamously pointed the finger at "the woman [God] put here with [him]" when God confronted him about his sin (Genesis 3:12). When Moses confronted Aaron about the golden calf, Aaron blamed the people instead, "You know how prone these people are to evil." (Exodus 32:22)

 

Secondly, in his response, Merritt suggested that Peterson retracted his views due to pressure from "conservatives":

The condemnations from conservatives were swift. LifeWay, America’s largest Christian book chain, threatened to ban his books if he didn’t affirm a traditional view of marriage. The heat rose quickly, and then Peterson retracted his remarks, claiming he was put on the spot. While he said a same-sex couple would be welcome in his church today, he would not perform a same-sex wedding “out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching.”

I find there to be quite some merit to this view (no pun intended). 

 

Despite Peterson claiming to affirm a "biblical view of marriage" and a "biblical view of everything", this seems to be based less on the authority of the Bible per se, but out of mere deference to "the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic biblical Christian view and teaching".

 

Entire congregations can fall into error, the larger church body can be mistaken, and Christian view and teaching however historic or historical are no substitutes for the actual Word of God. As Christians, we are taught to obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). Quite regardless of whatever people may say, our conscience and duty are owed to God, and God alone.

 

It would follow that, if God approved of or is neutral towards same-sex relationships or marriage, Christians ought to stand for these regardless of what people think. The same is true otherwise. And on this point, the Bible is amply clear in its affirmation of marriage between a man and a woman, and disapproval of all other forms of sexual behaviours outside that union, including homosexual behaviour.

 

Unfortunately, therefore, Peterson's retraction does not appear to be a genuine, Biblically-based retraction, but one made out of mere deference to the wider Christian body at large.

 

Where do we go from here?

Peterson's departure from the truth of marriage probably began way before the interview, and this interview was merely a symptom or a culmination of that earlier departure. (See Jonathan Merritt's article on "Eugene Peterson had this to say about same-sex issues in 2014", 13 July 2017)

 

It is important to recognise that Church (not just any denomination or congregation, but the wider body of Christ) is meant to be a place of accountability. Leaders and ministers are not exempt. Indeed, those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1).

 

Russell Moore's reflections on World Vision’s change of course in 2014 are equally applicable here:

We need to watch and to hold every Christian organization and ministry accountable. That’s what the Bereans did when they judged everything that the apostles were saying according to the word of God. They searched the scriptures to see if these things were so. We need to do that all of the time because every human authority is fallible, and every human authority can make mistakes. And so we need to be constantly watching that.

 

Especially on issues as controversial as sexuality in our modern age, we may find not just many churchgoers, but also pastors, leaders and ministers being swayed by the spirit of this age to fall into error. On this, James' exhorts us:

My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins. (James 5:19-20)

 

Since Peterson's retraction was apparently made merely out of deference to the wider Christian body at large, it would be an error to merely take his retraction at face value and assume that he has turned from error. To do so, would merely enforce conformity with doctrine without genuine conversion to a Biblically-centred faith or, worse, the fear of man rather than God. 

 

It would also be wrong to accept his self-justification and blaming of his interviewer for putting him in a spot, since such denial of personal responsibility stands in the way of true faith and repentance.

 

Instead, the wider Body of Christ should actively reach out to Peterson to bring him back not only to a sound Biblical understanding of marriage, sexuality and human nature, but also and ultimately, a renewed relationship with the Creator Himself.

Gospel Witness in an Age of Outrage

In the lead up to, during and after the recent Pink Dot event that has been taking place annually at Hong Lim Park around this time of the year, I found a good number of Christians around me reacting with sheer outrage.

 

There were many reasons for their outrage, much of which was quite understandable. They were outraged at the fact that some people who professed to be Christians supported Pink Dot and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) movement. They were outraged that people, groups and companies had been enlisted or characterised (sometimes falsely) as supporting Pink Dot. They were outraged at the fact that other people who professed to be Christians were utterly indifferent or nonchalant about Pink Dot as well as its supporters. They were outraged at Pink Dot itself.

 

This reminded me of a 2015 message by Russell Moore, titled "Marriage On The Line - Preparing Your Church For A Same-Sex Marriage Culture", where he recounted an incident which he witnessed during the US Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage:

I was walking around the corner the day of the Supreme Court arguments over same-sex marriage. On my way there to be at the Supreme Court, as I was coming around the corner from my office, I heard somebody on a bullhorn yelling angrily. And I immediately turned to some friends who were with me and said, "Please don't let that be one of us."

And as I came around the corner, I saw someone standing there with Bible verses on placards and with the bullhorn screaming at the protesters on the other side and the people who were gathered on the other side. This person was yelling, "You're condemned. You're self-condemned. You're going to hell."

And as he was yelling this through the bullhorn a group of men dressed as Catholic nuns with all sorts of garish makeup calling themselves the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" were dancing along in front laughing about the message that's coming over the bullhorn.

And I winced when I heard this man on the bullhorn acting as though he were speaking for Jesus Christ, saying, "You're going to go to hell and don't expect me to cry for you when you do."

That is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But we live in a world right now in all of the fractures that are going on, especially around issues of sexuality, where it seems so often in many of our communities and neighborhoods that we have the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" versus the "Brothers of Perpetual Outrage".  

And yet we have been called to be a people of the Gospel. And we have been called to be a people of both truth and grace, of both conviction and kindness, in a world that is often fearful and angry.

 

In an issue as controversial and politicised as sexuality in our modern times, it is easy to lose sight of what we are ultimately warring against. It is tempting to see only the political agenda and thereby perceive the activists or their supporters as enemies, or to see only the behaviours of the people involved and see them as villains. 

 

But Paul reminds us in his letter to the Ephesians that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Ephesians 6:12).

 

The real battle, then, is spiritual in nature. It is a war against sin. And our weapons are not carnal.

 

The victory, as a result, is neither necessarily political nor necessarily moral; these are only consequences or outflows of the real victory. The real victory is when sin and death are conquered, and the sinner is restored to life. It is a victory already won at the cross of Jesus Christ.

 

The call is a call to the Gospel, a call to faith and repentance, a call to leave a life of sin and follow Jesus Christ. And the Bible teaches that it is God's kindness that leads us to repentance (Romans 2:4). It is not a "kindness" that turns a blind eye to sin or distorts the truth. Indeed, even as Paul wrote that "love is kind" and "is not easily angered", he also wrote that love "does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth" (1 Corinthians 13:6).

 

Certainly, there is room for righteous anger, as Jesus displayed most vividly when He cleared the Temple (John 2:12-22). But James the earthly brother of our Lord also warned that "man's anger des not bring about the righteous life that God desires" (James 1:20). The difference lies in being outraged at the right things. Just as the peddlers were corrupting the Temple by making it a marketplace, it is sin that corrupts every human heart, for Jesus said:

"For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly." (Mark 7:21-22)

 

The Gospel witness is a gentle witness, a ministry of reconciliation seeking ultimately the reconciliation of all things to God in Jesus Christ. It is not a witness that blares out with bullhorns, much less one that seeks in anger to condemn others to hell, but one which is "quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" (James 1:19). In an age of outrage, it is our kindness that will ultimately point people to the place where love won: the cross of Jesus Christ.