One of the primary goals of the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood was to define the complementary roles of men and women. In the evangelical gender debate this statement has delineated a defensible complementarian position based on biblical authority. Twenty years later, people on both sides of the issue at least recognize that the battle lines are clearly drawn.
Dr. Luke Timothy Johnson is a distinguished New Testament scholar and explained his position in an article on homosexuality and the Church. He teaches at Emory University, a theological school of the United Methodist Church, which has the mission to train church leaders "grounded in the Christian faith and shaped by the Wesleyan tradition of evangelical piety, ecumenical openness, and social concern." Unfortunately, Emory rejects biblical authority, supports the ordination of women, and seeks to be at the forefront of institutions valuing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students.
In the article, it is clear that Dr. Johnson understands his opponents, "For them, the authority of Scripture and tradition resides in a set of commands, and loyalty as a matter of obedience. If the Church has always taught that same-sex relations are wrong, and the Bible consistently forbids it, then the question is closed." He clearly understands the biblical text, "Accepting covenanted love between persons of the same sex represents the same downward spiral with respect to Scripture, since the Bible nowhere speaks positively or even neutrally about same-sex love."
Dr. Johnson is straightforward about why he supports same-sex marriage:
I think it is important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.
He is also realistic about the basis for his position, "We are fully aware of the weight of Scriptural evidence for pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts."
I respect Dr. Johnson for his specificity in articulating the foundation of his position in favor of same-sex marriage, but I fundamentally disagree with his conclusion. I am grieved for the Church and am alarmed by the deteriorating definition of marriage in our culture. Nevertheless, I am grateful for God's sovereign control over history, for the pastors and scholars who labored to provide the Danvers statement to the church, and for the partners who are standing with CBMW for biblical manhood and womanhood.