DARRIN W. SNYDER BELOUSEK. Marriage, Scripture, and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2021. 330 pages. ($US 29.99)
The questions Belousek wrestle with lie in deep waters. Attitudes on all sides of the issue of same-sex unions have hardened such that any openness to them is seen as betrayal of the scriptures by traditionalists and anything other than whole-hearted embrace of a progressive position is seen as homophobic by innovators.1 The issue, however, is central to life in North America today. Belousek has done a great service to traditionalists and innovators alike.2
He begins (part one) by defining terms and stating his presuppositions—such basics as the universal Christian understanding of marriage through the centuries, his reliance on the primacy and relevance of Scripture, acknowledgement of the value of experience but noting its subordination to Scripture, and so on. These lead Belousek to suggest that, given the traditional understanding of marriage throughout the Christian world since the first church, the burden of proof lies on innovators to show how reinterpreting Scripture can make space for new understandings, including the status of same sex unions as marriage.
Belousek then examines the scriptural data in three further sections (parts two to four). Part Two frames the question within a theology of marriage. He observes that we (Anabaptists and Evangelicals) have not developed a robust theology of marriage. As a result, he draws extensively on sources throughout the history of the church to remedy this lack. Although this section may seem basic, it is essential to the task of evaluating new approaches.
Part Three assesses arguments for “marriage innovation,” which brings us directly to the question of same-sex unions. He summarizes a variety of arguments from Scripture making space for marriage innovation. Although he finds each of them lacking, he presents them with enough clarity that one can feel their force. This section especially is of great value to those who really want to wrestle with the issues.
Part Four examines how we might seek a way forward. Issues do not disappear because one fails to find adequate reason in Scripture to accept them, so what do we do? Belousek suggests that the early church’s wrestling over Gentile inclusion in Acts 15 provides a model: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Rather than lobbing verbal grenades at our opponents, we seek to find a way forward in community.
An excellent Afterword by Wesley Hill (a celibate gay New Testament scholar) concludes the book. This final section is worth reading on its own, with Hill’s call to the church to confess our sin against gays and lesbians.3 even as he invites all of us into a celebration of marriage and of celibacy. The invitation is for all, because all in our society are sexually broken.
I appreciate Belousek’s work for several reasons. His care in presenting innovationist positions makes clear their strength and encourages us to examine those arguments more deeply. The way that the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) undid Old Testament restrictions on eunuchs, for example, may serve as a model for including gays and lesbians as full partners in the church. Although, in the end, he assesses these arguments as lacking, his presentations show that we must take them seriously. This is a far cry from decrying innovators as betraying Scripture.
More significantly, developing a clear theology of marriage helps us see the purpose of marriage. He uses a three-part formula from Augustine: marriage is for procreation, fidelity, and sacrament. This formula leads to the way that marriage provides us with our image of God. By changing the way we understand marriage, innovation in marriage may unintentionally change our understanding of who God is, a possibility rarely addressed in these discussions.
The issue involves culture as well as theology. Culture (as understood in the discipline of anthropology) is made up of more or less integrated ideas, rituals, and themes. Changing one practice (marriage) has the potential to change other apparently unrelated elements in our culture. Or the reverse may happen: innovation in marriage may flow from apparently unrelated changes in other areas of our cultural life. I suspect that such is the case today.
When I was a student in the 1960s, there was a consensus in society concerning homosexuality. Today’s societal consensus from where I sit is 180 degrees different from fifty years ago.4 Why? What has changed within the culture, leading to this innovation in the marriage relationship? That question lies beyond Belousek’s thesis, but his work illustrates the kinds of questions we need to ask, beyond the question of whether or not we should innovate in our understanding of marriage.
In the end, Belousek does not compel us to stand on one side or the other. He models an approach that takes Scripture and takes his interlocutors seriously. He calls us to consider matters prayerfully, within community, led by God’s Spirit, committed to obedience and open to change. Such consideration refuses to label those with whom we disagree. Commitment to obedience includes commitment to community. We are indebted to Belousek for modelling a way forward in the deep waters of same sex unions and related issues.
- Belousek uses the term “innovationists”; I prefer the simpler “innovators.” This preference illustrates a small complaint with Belousek: the use of complex words where simpler ones will do. For example, referring to marriage as “sexuate” to mean between people who are sexually different. [↩]
- Darrin Snyder Belousek teaches philosophy and religion at Ohio Northern University. He is a member of Mennonite Church USA. [↩]
- In this connection, a group could read the book edited by Helena Cicero, Eric A Seibert, and Julie Weatherford, Invitation to Conversation: Becoming More Inclusive of LGBTQ+ People in the Brethren in Christ Church (SacraSage, 2024), which tells the stories of LGBTQ+ individuals in the Brethren in Christ Church. [↩]
- I write in the context of Canada, where same sex unions have the same legal status as traditional marriage. [↩]