"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.

God and Caesar: Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

The Separation of Church and State is a concept rooted in Christianity. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ:

Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God the things that are God's.
(Matthew 22:21, KJV)

There are Two Kingdoms which God has ordained: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of "Caesar", or the World. Martin Luther laid down a general theory of secular government in his treatise, "Secular Authority: To what extent it should be obeyed", which was published in 1523.

Among the important implications that flow from this are freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters.

Institutional autonomy of the Church
Freedom of religion and the non-interference of secular government with spiritual matters mandate that secular government should respect the autonomy of the Church.

The Catholic Church has since embraced a model which separates Church and State, and in its Note on the Catholic Church’s freedom and institutional autonomy, laid down one of the most articulate expositions on the autonomy of the Church:

1. The distinction between the Church and the political community

The Church recognizes the distinction between the Church and the political community, each of which has distinct ends; the Church is in no way confused with the political community and is not bound to any political system...

This distinction is based on the words of the Lord Jesus (Christ): "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" (Mt 22:21). In their own areas, the political community and the Church are independent of each other and autonomous. When it is a question of areas which have both temporal and spiritual ends, such as marriage or the education of children, the Church is of the view that the civil power should exercise its authority while making sure not to damage the spiritual good of the faithful. The Church and the political community, however, cannot ignore one another; from different points of view they are at the service of the same people. They exercise this service all the more effectively for the good of all the more they strive for healthy mutual cooperation, as the Second Vatican Council expressed it (cf. Gaudium et spes, n. 76).

The distinction between the Church and the political community is ensured by respecting their reciprocal autonomy, which conditions their mutual freedom. The limits of this freedom are, for the State, to refrain from adopting measures which could do harm to the eternal salvation of the faithful, and, for the Church, to respect the public order of the State.

Therefore, the Church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy", the "exercise of her Magisterium" and "pastoral care":

2. Freedom with respect to the State

The Church claims no privilege but asks that her freedom to carry out her mission in a pluralist society be fully respected and protected. The Church received this mission and this freedom from Jesus Christ, not from the State. The civil power should thus respect and protect the freedom and autonomy of the Church and in no way prevent her from fully carrying out her mission, which consists in leading the faithful, by her teaching, sacraments, prayers and laws, to their eternal end.

The Church’s freedom should be recognized by the civil power with regard to all that concerns her mission, whether it is a matter of the institutional organization of the Church (choice and formation of her co-workers and of the clergy, choice of bishops, internal communication between the Holy See, the bishops and faithful, the founding and governing of institutes of religious life, the publication and distribution of written texts, the possession and administration of temporal goods …), or the fulfilment of her mission towards the faithful (especially by the exercise of her Magisterium, the celebration of public worship, the administration of the sacraments and pastoral care).

Separation of Church and State under the Singapore Constitution
Is the Separation of Church and State found in the Singapore Constitution?
 
The secular nature of the Singapore Constitution is implied by the fact that the State does not discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion (Article 12(2)). In contrast with the Malaysian Federal Constitution, which declares that "Islam is the religion of the Federation" (Article 3(1)), Singapore does not declare any religion to be the "official religion". In fact, the Constitutional Commission of 1966, led by then-Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, referred to Singapore as a "democratic secular state" in which it would be inappropriate to "[single] out a particular religion for special treatment".

However, the Singapore State is not anti-religious, since religious freedom is protected as a fundamental right under Article 15 of the Constitution. The government also places a very strong emphasis on the importance of religious harmony.

Institutional autonomy of religious groups, including churches, is guaranteed under the Singapore Constitution. Article 15(3)(a) guarantees the right to every religious group "to manage its own religious affairs", subject to "any general law relating to public order, public health or morality":

Freedom of religion 

15.—...

(3)  Every religious group has the right —

(a) to manage its own religious affairs; 

...

(4)  This Article does not authorise any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Further, in order to preserve the autonomy of religious groups, an express exemption from the right to equal protection of the laws is provided for under Article 12(3)(a), by allowing "any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion." Hence, for example, a church may choose to employ only Christians, even though this essentially discriminates against non-Christians on the basis of religion.

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

The Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) case involved a woman in her late 30s who was a member and also employed as a worker in the church. She handled administrative and coordination work for the church, and was involved in the Marriage Preparation Course. She had an extra-marital relationship with a fellow colleague and became pregnant. 

She refused to confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter. The church fired her from her job on the basis of her adultery.

The woman complained to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM), which directed the church to pay her about $7,000, including maternity benefits. The church refused, on the basis that its employees and members were expected to adhere to certain moral standards.

Eventually, the church compensated the woman, but made it clear to the ministry that it will not concede that the dismissal was unjust. According to Pastor Lawrence Khong, "We are a church. If we concede that the dismissal was unjust, it means we are condoning adultery and it will weaken our moral and spiritual authority in the organisation."

Has Caesar crossed a line in the Faith Community Baptist Church adultery case?

Has the Singapore government crossed a line here by ordering FCBC to compensate the woman it fired for adultery?

The answer is yes.

Church discipline is an important part of the church's mission. A church which is dedicated to the consistent preaching of God's Word must exercise church discipline to preserve the purity of the Gospel message.

Since the Bible is clear that adultery is sin (John 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9), the church was correct to have called upon her to confess and repent from her sins. It was when she remained unrepentant that the church sacked her from her job. FCBC's actions are entirely justified on the basis of the Bible.

In such matters, the church must be free from state interference in its internal affairs, including the "choice and formation of her co-workers" and "pastoral care", as discussed earlier. MOM had overstepped the limits of its secular authority.

In early October, FCBC petitioned the Singapore Courts for judicial review of MOM's order, arguing on the basis of Article 15(3)(a) of the Singapore Constitution that FCBC has the right "to manage its own religious affairs".

Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong made the following statement on his Facebook page:

Further to my statement of 26 August 2013 (officially announced through Faith Community Baptist Church’s (FCBC) corporate website and various electronic platforms), after much deliberation, FCBC has appealed to the Supreme Court with respect to Minister's decision ordering the Church to pay the requisite compensation as reported in the media.

FCBC has always been respectful of the governmental authorities. We are constantly praying for and interacting with them as they lead the nation. This continues to be so. The fact that we have paid the compensation amount as ordered after consideration bears testament to our stand.

Having said that, whilst we respect the authorities and believe that they have been established by God over us, in light of Minister's decision, we are concerned about any far-reaching repercussions this decision has on FCBC as a church or for that matter all religious organisations, in our continuous attempts to uphold the values of our faith as we lead and watch over our flock.

Specifically, we sincerely hope that the Courts can give guidance on where we stand with reference to the constitutional rights of religious bodies in the management of their religious affairs, which we believe include the hiring and dismissal of staff, the moral standards expected of staff at a level that reflects the ethos and values of the organisation. We also hope to stand guided in terms of understanding the process involved in any dismissal scenario, should a similar incident unfortunately happen again.

We are mindful of the gravity of this application, and we recognise any outcome may have a bearing beyond our own organisation and affect the religious community at large - Christian or otherwise. We therefore trust and pray that the Courts will be able to help us move forward as an organisation that seeks to uphold the values of God - yet coexisting with all in our secular society that thrives on democracy and religious freedom.

Continue to pray for the church, the government and religious freedom in Singapore.

Church Discipline and the Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

Church discipline is a difficult issue which is rarely, if ever, discussed in church. It is often unpleasant and deeply saddening.

But it exists, and the Bible teaches it. A church which is dedicated to the consistent preaching of God's Word must exercise church discipline to preserve the purity of the Gospel message.

Church Discipline

Church discipline was part of Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught His disciples how they should deal with fellow believers who sin against them. In Matthew 18:15-17, Jesus said:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Here, Jesus was teaching His disciples to deal patiently with those who sin, first by speaking to the person privately, then by getting a few more fellow believers, and finally handing the matter to the church. If the person did not listen, then they were to treat that person like "a pagan or a tax collector". This is known as excommunication.

However, though Jesus told His disciples to treat the brother who sins like "a pagan or a tax collector", Jesus Himself loved sinners and tax collectors (Matthew 9:9-13). Excommunication is not meant to destroy the person who is in sin.

Wayne Grudem explains the purposes of church discipline in Systematic Theology:

1. Restoration and reconciliation of the believer who is going astray
2. To keep the sin from spreading to others
3. To protect the purity of the church and the honour of Christ

In Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, we read of one instance of church discipline. There was a case of sexual immorality within the Corinthian church, where a man was sleeping with his father's wife. The Corinthian church was in fact "proud" of it. Paul rebuked them harshly in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

Paul instructed them, "Expel the wicked man from among you" (1 Corinthians 5:13). Paul himself exercised church discipline on Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom he "handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20).

Those who teach will be judged more strictly (James 3:1). In fact, "[those] who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning" (1 Timothy 5:20).

Faith Community Baptist Church Adultery Case

 

Faith Community Baptist Church (FCBC) gripped the Singapore headlines recently. 

A woman in her late 30s was a member who was also employed as a worker in the church. She handled administrative and coordination work for the church, and was involved in the Marriage Preparation Course. 

She was married, and she had a relationship with a fellow colleague even though her divorce proceedings were not final. The church's suspicions about the relationship were confirmed when she became pregnant. According to Senior Pastor Lawrence Khong on his Facebook page, eight sessions of counselling were held. However:

Even after explaining to her why her relationship was wrong and unacceptable - based on the context and culture of the Church, as well as in the eyes of the Lord, she continued the relationship with the ex-colleague who himself was dismissed four months earlier in a separate case of misconduct involving a breach of confidentiality while working as a staff of FCBC.

She refused to confess and repent, to cease her sexual misconduct, and to come under the discipline of the pastors to assist her throughout the term of her pregnancy thereafter. The church fired her from her job on the basis of her adultery. She was about seven months pregnant when she was sacked. Nevertheless, Khong explained that while the church "could not offer her severance pay as she was being terminated on just grounds, [they church] encouraged her to apply for the LoveSingapore fund, knowing she would need financial assistance and emotional support".

The woman complained to the Ministry of Manpower, which directed the church to pay her about $7,000, including maternity benefits. The church refused, on the basis that its employees and members were expected to adhere to certain moral standards.

Eventually, the church compensated the woman, but made it clear to the ministry that it will not concede that the dismissal was unjust. According to Pastor Lawrence Khong, "We are a church. If we concede that the dismissal was unjust, it means we are condoning adultery and it will weaken our moral and spiritual authority in the organisation."

Was Faith Community Baptist Church right? 

The FCBC case was a case of church discipline. The Bible is clear that adultery is sin (John 8:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9). The church was correct to have called upon her to confess and repent from her sins. It was when she remained unrepentant that the church sacked her from her job. 

On the basis of these facts, FCBC's actions are entirely justified.