Dear Jeff,
I write this letter in the spirit of brotherhood as someone who regards you as a friend. I will always be grateful for the ways you came alongside me and supported me as I was navigating church struggles as a new pastor and then later as I was navigating personal struggles. On several occasions I have watched as you were moved to tears while preaching about the beauty and power of the gospel to transform lives. I have always experienced you as thoughtful, compassionate, and pastoral. That is precisely why I was profoundly disappointed and hurt by your recent public response to the statement published on chogaffirm.com.
My goal with this letter is not to move you to a fully affirming position. I would, however, like to challenge a few things you said in your response and appeal to you to lower the temperature and make room for faithful, even if spirited, debate among siblings in Christ.
In your response, you make a cursory reference to the five of the six passages in the Bible where same-sex relations are mentioned and condemned. As I’m sure you’re aware, these passages have been nicknamed “the clobber passages” because of the way some Christians have wielded them as a cudgel against LGBTQ+ people. Regarding these passages you state, “Some progressive theologians assert that these passages don’t apply to modern same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages, but they must contort themselves into an exegetical pretzel to make the attempt. And they must hold that the vital sexual difference of male and female in marriage—as defined in Genesis 1-2 and affirmed by Jesus—is irrelevant.” This is, to be frank, both an uncharitable and unhelpful characterization of the progressive side. I can see how someone could read New Testament scholar James Brownson’s book Bible, Gender, and Sexuality and find his conclusions ultimately unpersuasive, but I think his exegetical methods are consistent with the principles of sound exegesis I was taught at the Church of God’s very own Anderson University School of Theology. The truth is, progressive scholars and theologians who make those claims have valid historical and exegetical reasons for doing so, even if you disagree with the conclusions.
I find your callous dismissal and misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint especially disappointing because it’s precisely the same tactic used by more conservative denominations in the debate over women in ministry. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen our sisters in ministry mocked and dismissed for “capitulating to culture” and “ignoring the clear teaching of scripture and the historical tradition and practice of the church.” They similarly reject attempts to situate passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 within a historical and cultural context as “exegetical gymnastics.” I’m confident that you would regard such accusations as both uncharitable and inaccurate. I recognize these topics are not entirely identical, but there are enough similarities to warrant comparison. I’m simply asking that you’d extend the same grace toward those of us who challenge the traditional position on sexuality as you’d hope to receive as you challenge the traditional position on women in ministry.
As you note in your response, there are a host of theological and ethical issues on which faithful Christians can disagree and remain in fellowship. I believe you’re familiar with my own story of finding refuge in the Church of God after leaving a fundamentalist denomination that disallowed theological disagreement. It was refreshing to my soul to find a home where we could agree on the centrality of Jesus and disagree on other aspects of theology and practice. I regarded that central tenet of the Church of God to be one of its greatest strengths. In recent years, however, I noticed some trends I interpreted as movement away from that commitment. As my own views on human sexuality evolved as a result of both further study and interaction with LBGTQ+ people, I became afraid that my standing as clergy with the Church of God would be in jeopardy, so I made the painful decision to transfer my credentials to a different denomination. The final paragraph of your response, which is difficult for me to interpret in any way other than a thinly veiled threat, has confirmed that decision. I suspect, based on some of the comments I’ve already seen to your response, that other young clergy may feel pressured to do the same. This is, coincidentally, what the architects of chogaffirm.com are trying to prevent. Is it really too much for you to believe that those of us who hold an affirming stance might actually do so because of our desire to love God, love our neighbors, and be faithful to Christ?
In your response, you mention research from Andrew Marin regarding the departure of LGBTQ+ people from the church. I have not read Marin’s research, but I’d like to reference a couple other recent articles that might expand the conversation. This 2021 article from Religion News Service indicates that LGBTQ+ bias might be one of the leading causes of the exodus of young evangelicals from the church. Similarly, this recent article from Baptist News contains survey data that corroborates those findings. I’m sure we’d both agree that alone isn’t enough of a reason to change viewpoints, but I’d hope we’d agree that it’s enough to at least give us some pause for reflection.
In your response you refer to the work of the Spirit and assert that “the Spirit is always aligned with Scripture.” I’m reminded of the record in Acts where Peter is given the vision of unclean animals coming down to the earth and he’s commanded to “kill and eat.” Peter, believing that Spirit would never contradict Scripture, refused the command. God responded by telling Peter not to call unclean what God has cleansed. This vision prepared Peter for what was coming next: the Spirit falling on Gentiles for the very first time. This event, as you know, led to a theological and ethical crisis in the early church. Would these Gentiles be required to be circumcised and keep the law? For many of the believers, the Bible was clear. The Jerusalem Council, however, came to a conclusion that the traditionalist side would certainly have regarded exegetical contortions, all because the undeniable activity of the Spirit created conditions that made reconsideration necessary. Many of us on the affirming side find in this story parallels to our own. We have come to know LGBTQ+ people who profess love for God and exhibit what Paul tells us is the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control, even in the face of terrible mistreatment at the hands of of other professing Christians. These folks faithfully attend and even lead churches. They have a high regard for scripture. They serve their communities. They faithfully and sacrificially love their spouses and children. These undeniable experiences of the Spirit’s work have caused many of us to go back and re-examine scripture. In the process of digging deeper into the historical and cultural context, we have come to believe that, just as 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal prohibition on women preaching, the “clobber verses” are not universal prohibitions on all forms of same-sex relations.
I’d like to close by reflecting on one final passage from the Book of Acts that I think might speak to this conversation. When the fledgling church was disrupting the religious status quo, the religious leaders sought to quash it. A Pharisee named Gamaliel offered the following wise counsel: “In the present case, I tell you, keep away from these people and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”
I hope that you’ll receive this letter as an appeal from a brother in Christ to slow down, lower the temperature, and create space for faithful dialogue and freedom of conscience.
With great love,
Thomas
Thank you for writing this very thoughtful missive. I read Rev. Matas’s “response” this morning, and was honestly deeply shaken. I told my wife (an ordained CHOG minister) that if this had been the first thing I had ever seen from the denomination I would have headed for the hills. Thankfully, I’ve been a member of Park Place Church of God for more than a decade, so I know that this screed is not indicative of the entire organization. I’m sorry you felt like you had to walk away from the CHOG, but based on what I saw this morning I understand why you did. Park Place is the first church I have ever wholeheartedly called home, and I was cheered to see how many people I know from there who signed on Chogaffirm. Thanks again for your rebuttal. And BTW I love your podcast!
Thomas thank you for modeling Christ-like discourse. Appreciate your time, attention and spirit of love in this important conversation.