A Response to George Hunsinger’s ‘There is a Third Way…’

While I find myself in agreement with many of the 78 theses of my colleague, I think his argument as a whole fails because of two serious flaws. The first flaw is the failure to clarify why the “plain sense” of a scriptural text is a necessary but insufficient basis of scriptural authority. The second flaw is logical. Since G-6.0106b simply will not bear the “generous” and “limited” interpretation Hunsinger seeks to give it, his theses lead logically to the conclusion that Amendment A should be supported with appropriate reservations rather than defeated as he recommends.

Hunsinger is surely right on many counts. We do need a more comprehensive theology of human sexuality than is evident in our current debates (Thesis 5). Such a theology will uphold fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness as standards of church teaching (Theses 10-11). It will maintain the “privileged” or paradigmatic status of a faithful marriage between a man and a woman in a Christian understanding of sexual practice (Thesis 65). It will seek to interpret “chastity” — which remains undefined in G-6.0106b — in a responsible way that applies to all church members, to the married and the single, and to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals (Theses 12-13). It will confront and reject all valorization of “casual, promiscuous or exploitative” sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual (Thesis 22). It will not only combat negative stereotyping of homosexuals (Theses 54-56) but will acknowledge Christian homosexual partnerships as relationships in which the partners are called, together with married Christians, to proclaim the sanctity of responsible and abiding love and partnership and to attest it in their lives (Theses 71-72). It will affirm that there are unambiguous standards of sexual practice in the Christian community which must be met by all candidates for ordination whether heterosexuals or homosexuals (Thesis 74) and that the decision whether a candidate meets these standards is best left to congregations and presbyteries, and decided on a case by case basis (Thesis 68-69).

But despite my agreement with a number of Hunsinger’s theses, I am surprised by what he fails to say after acknowledging that determining the “plain sense” of a scriptural text is a necessary but insufficient part of the interpretive process. Hunsinger rightly reminds us that it is essential to determine what a biblical text means today (Thesis 17). What is missing, however, is any mention of the central role of Scripture’s integrating narrative or “salvation history” in which the individual texts of Scripture are embedded and which they serve in various ways. The “plain sense” of Scripture is not definitively contained in any single text, but in the biblical narrative taken as a whole, i.e., its overarching story of God’s covenant with Israel and the decisive realization of the covenant in the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The church’s credo or “rule of faith” has always served to direct readers of Scripture to this central narrative of the God of Israel who has acted in Jesus Christ for the reconciliation and salvation of the world. I say I am surprised that Hunsinger does not take his argument in this direction for the obvious reason that, guided by his mentor Hans Frei, Hunsinger has elsewhere written eloquently of the crucial significance of biblical narrative in any responsible theological hermeneutic.

If the overarching biblical narrative centered in Jesus Christ is our hermeneutical key, a Christian theology of sexuality will be based not on a few isolated texts of Scripture but on the scriptural witness to the character and work of the God of the covenant, the God of steadfast and faithful love, who calls the people of God to faithfulness in all of their relationships, including their sexual relationships. Within this perspective, the central principle of a Christian understanding of sexuality is fidelity in self-giving and other-affirming love. As I am sure Hunsinger would agree, a Christian theology of sexuality is not to be grounded in what at any given time may be assumed to be “natural” or “unnatural,” but rather in the biblical witness to the free grace and faithfulness of God that motivates and directs all Christian life. In their relationships of sexual intimacy Christians are called to live in responsible correspondence to the fidelity of the God of the covenant. Their manner of life and all their relationships are to be a witness to, or as Amendment A states, a “demonstration” of the Christian gospel in the church and in the world.

Compounding this omission of a basic hermeneutical principle in Hunsinger’s essay is the logical flaw in his argument. Hunsinger apparently does not see that G-6.0106b will not bear the “generous” interpretation that he wishes to give it. It is true that G-6.0106b affirms “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman” as a standard that must be met by all married church officers, and “chastity in singleness” as a standard for all single church officers (Theses 10-11). However, Hunsinger overlooks the fact that these two affirmations are components of the mandate that constitutes the point of G-6.0106b. The clearly stated requirement is that church officers are to live either in fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman or in chastity in singleness. This either/or constitutes an exclusive alternative, and the text requires that we choose between them in considering candidates for church office. There is simply no place here for a third alternative in the form of a committed, life-long, faithful homosexual partnership. While it is clear that Hunsinger’s argument wants to make room for such a third alternative, the language of the text of G-6.0106b, its syntax, its “plain sense,” so to speak, simply will not allow it. No presbytery or permanent judicial commission of the church would be able to give the text the “generous” interpretation Hunsinger offers without running into serious difficulty.

All this leads me to say that I support the passage of Amendment A for many of the reasons that Hunsinger himself has stated. At the same time, it is clear that whether A is passed or defeated, the matter of an adequate Christian theology of sexuality will remain an urgent and unfulfilled task of the church. Recognition of this fact is the reservation with which I support Amendment A. More than new legislation is needed. Our crisis is the lack of a comprehensive theology of sexuality that is biblically rooted, Christocentrically focused, confessionally responsible and pastorally sensitive. Addressing that crisis under the guidance of the Word and Spirit of God would indeed be a “third way.” Journeying on this way, congregations, sessions and presbyteries might come to exercise not an arbitrary but a well-grounded freedom, courage to recognize and welcome faithful gay partnerships in the life of the church and might acquire the mature wisdom needed to discern whether a particular candidate, heterosexual or homosexual, meets the standards of the church for ordination to the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Daniel L. Migliore is Charles Hodge Professor of Systematic Theology, Princeton Seminary.