Hello, Jeffrey, I am one of the main researchers on the 1946 project. As would be expected, I do not agree with your theological interpretations on this issue. Perhaps when my second book comes out on this topic, you will consider reading it. Until then, my first book may be helpful in trying to understand a POV unlike yours. You interpretation and understanding of the affirming POV is skewed.
What I DO care about in this short message to you is corrected two general facts.
1946 is NOT a "Hollywood" film, whatever that is. As is true with most documentaries, one person or a small group, decide to undertake a project. In this case, it was one person, Rocky Roggio. The film was supported by THOUSANDS of individual contributors. It might be better termed as a "grassroots" film.
Next, I was not raised in a conservative home or community. You wrote, "All three were born into conservative Christian communities but experienced such hurtful responses from their family and local church that they felt compelled to reject the historic, orthodox understanding of human sexuality and embrace an affirming position on LBGTQIA+ issues."
No, I was raised in a minimally Catholic home in NYC in the 1960s and became a born-again Christian at 27. I have NOT rejected "the historic, orthodox understanding of human sexuality" because of some experiences rooted in my faith community. I started exploring other ways to understand Scripture when I encountered LGBTQ+ people in friendships. (This is clear in the doc.)
Calling the doc "Hollywood" and positioning my re-negotiation of some passages of Scripture might better nuance the project as something it is not, but facts are facts. Not Hollywood and I do not do the work from a place of pain.
I do this work because I see it as just, equal, and resembling the Savior I choose to emulate.
Consider my first and next book. They may be helpful.
Thank you, Dr. Weima. This is a great article showing the false teaching that we all lament as it causes great harm to all members of the CRCNA. May God continue to bless you, your studies, your teaching and your ministry.
Thank you for excellent exposition of scripture and lesson on hermeneutics. This is certainly not the first time that people trapped in sin have tried to redefine God's word in an effort to excuse it. Sin is sin but grace is the example God gives us in the New Covenant for delivering people out of it. The only hope for sin is Christ.
I found this quote to be especially pertinent to our current discussions:
"It is also true that the word “homosexual” is not the best way to translate the key Greek term in 1 Cor. 6:9. This is because it is a modern word that refers to a class of people—who people are, whereas the ancient Greek word refers to conduct—what people do."
While the difference between conduct and class/identity has this temporal aspect, it also informs our conversation. I suspect for many, "homosexual" (and perhaps the spectrum of LBTGQIA+) is understood as some combination both of class/identity and of conduct, where we give differing weights between one and the other. And this presents a task for those favoring a strong focus on conduct: how will one speak faithfully into what is also a class or identity location? This is not a heart-failure, as if conservatives do not care or love their neighbor, but rather, I take it, as something like an invitation for further intellectual, theological and social engagement; a growth area.
Thank you for a clear, concise and compelling response to what is clearly a propaganda piece designed as "fake news" to sway those on the fence. I recently attended a venue, and true to form the presenter who affirmed the practise of same-sex marriage had to take his swipe at the 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage. Rather than affirming its clear intent, he affirmed "we just don't have enough cultural information" to understand the term arsenokoitai. He had already dismissed the clear intent of the Leviticus passages with saying, that they were "troublesome at best." In comparison to your straightforward exegesis, this person appealed to the "we just don't know" argument, or what others have called the "cultural distance" argument---i.e. what happened then, is different today.
I am glad that you also addressed the abusive sex argument as that is standard stock and trade and was used both by the presenter at the venue I attended and also by Duane Kelderman at his Neland Avenue CRC presentation. The unoriginality is striking.
As I read the 'pushbacks' to your piece, I see that they are stock arguments from a repertoire that have been marshalled against the clear intention of Scripture, not to mention their appeal to their go-to theologians. I see this as a tactic to win the hearts, minds and souls of those who are wobbly. Thank you once again for your efforts.
One of the panelists is Dr. Sylvia Keesmaat, a biblical scholar with expertise in biblical hermeneutics and New Testament, studying at Oxford with Dr. N. T. Wright (as I understand it).
In that panel discussion, Dr. Keesmaat critiques the work of Dr. Weima and the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) itself when that report engages with her own scholarship (i.e. "Romans Disarmed") as well as other biblical scholarship, suggesting that the HSR "cherry-picks", "misinterprets", takes quotes "out of context", and generally avoids a fullsome engagement with the major arguments made by other biblical scholars.
Abide Project leadership - I would love if you could organize a fair and open dialogue between Dr. Weima and Dr. Keesmaat (who was on that panel). I would imagine hosting a civil dialogue between Dr. Keesmaat and Dr. Weima might be a good gift to the conversation on the topic, if such a dialogue is possible.
Dr. Weima, The film is not a Hollywood-concocted story. It is a documentary filmed by Christians, both Affirming and LGBTQ+, who are involved in the search to understand scripture they love and live by. Your title, using the idea that Hollywood gets it wrong again and then continuing to sprinkle the word Hollywood throughout your opinion piece seems to me an attempt to smear the film and sway your audience to not view it. Add to that the fact that you call the people who made the film and those promoting it “fools,”discredits you and Calvin Theological Seminary.
You leave out any mention of the fact that the producer of the film is shown repeatedly with her father, who is a minister who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage, her own acceptance of herself as LGBTQ+, as well as disagreeing with what the film says about the translation of the Bible. I appreciated that the film included his opinions so we weren’t hearing only one viewpoint and showed how he and his daughter continued to love and respect each other while deeply disagreeing.
You also failed to mention the fact that when the mis- translation was printed by the RSV publishers, it was quickly used by the Good News Bible, which Billy Graham liked and passed out to masses of people. It also influenced other translators, including the NIV. So most of us grew up, only hearing what resulted from a translation that the head of the RSV team agreed was incorrect and in a culture that acted in accordance with what seemed to be a Biblical condemnation of homosexuals. It’s only been since 1973 that the churches in the CRC were told to act with love toward LGBTQ+ individuals. And year after year we, at best, ignore them and now and then apologize for it at Synod.
I hope everyone in the CRC sees the movie. I don’t think your review did it justice.
Hello, Jeffrey, I am one of the main researchers on the 1946 project. As would be expected, I do not agree with your theological interpretations on this issue. Perhaps when my second book comes out on this topic, you will consider reading it. Until then, my first book may be helpful in trying to understand a POV unlike yours. You interpretation and understanding of the affirming POV is skewed.
What I DO care about in this short message to you is corrected two general facts.
1946 is NOT a "Hollywood" film, whatever that is. As is true with most documentaries, one person or a small group, decide to undertake a project. In this case, it was one person, Rocky Roggio. The film was supported by THOUSANDS of individual contributors. It might be better termed as a "grassroots" film.
Next, I was not raised in a conservative home or community. You wrote, "All three were born into conservative Christian communities but experienced such hurtful responses from their family and local church that they felt compelled to reject the historic, orthodox understanding of human sexuality and embrace an affirming position on LBGTQIA+ issues."
No, I was raised in a minimally Catholic home in NYC in the 1960s and became a born-again Christian at 27. I have NOT rejected "the historic, orthodox understanding of human sexuality" because of some experiences rooted in my faith community. I started exploring other ways to understand Scripture when I encountered LGBTQ+ people in friendships. (This is clear in the doc.)
Calling the doc "Hollywood" and positioning my re-negotiation of some passages of Scripture might better nuance the project as something it is not, but facts are facts. Not Hollywood and I do not do the work from a place of pain.
I do this work because I see it as just, equal, and resembling the Savior I choose to emulate.
Consider my first and next book. They may be helpful.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1951136012
Thank you, Dr. Weima. This is a great article showing the false teaching that we all lament as it causes great harm to all members of the CRCNA. May God continue to bless you, your studies, your teaching and your ministry.
Thank you for excellent exposition of scripture and lesson on hermeneutics. This is certainly not the first time that people trapped in sin have tried to redefine God's word in an effort to excuse it. Sin is sin but grace is the example God gives us in the New Covenant for delivering people out of it. The only hope for sin is Christ.
I found this quote to be especially pertinent to our current discussions:
"It is also true that the word “homosexual” is not the best way to translate the key Greek term in 1 Cor. 6:9. This is because it is a modern word that refers to a class of people—who people are, whereas the ancient Greek word refers to conduct—what people do."
While the difference between conduct and class/identity has this temporal aspect, it also informs our conversation. I suspect for many, "homosexual" (and perhaps the spectrum of LBTGQIA+) is understood as some combination both of class/identity and of conduct, where we give differing weights between one and the other. And this presents a task for those favoring a strong focus on conduct: how will one speak faithfully into what is also a class or identity location? This is not a heart-failure, as if conservatives do not care or love their neighbor, but rather, I take it, as something like an invitation for further intellectual, theological and social engagement; a growth area.
Dear Dr. Weima:
Thank you for a clear, concise and compelling response to what is clearly a propaganda piece designed as "fake news" to sway those on the fence. I recently attended a venue, and true to form the presenter who affirmed the practise of same-sex marriage had to take his swipe at the 1 Corinthians 6:9 passage. Rather than affirming its clear intent, he affirmed "we just don't have enough cultural information" to understand the term arsenokoitai. He had already dismissed the clear intent of the Leviticus passages with saying, that they were "troublesome at best." In comparison to your straightforward exegesis, this person appealed to the "we just don't know" argument, or what others have called the "cultural distance" argument---i.e. what happened then, is different today.
I am glad that you also addressed the abusive sex argument as that is standard stock and trade and was used both by the presenter at the venue I attended and also by Duane Kelderman at his Neland Avenue CRC presentation. The unoriginality is striking.
As I read the 'pushbacks' to your piece, I see that they are stock arguments from a repertoire that have been marshalled against the clear intention of Scripture, not to mention their appeal to their go-to theologians. I see this as a tactic to win the hearts, minds and souls of those who are wobbly. Thank you once again for your efforts.
Blessings in Christ
JS
Thank you, Dr. Weima, for sharing your perspective on the film "1946."
In the above, you refer to the "online panel discussion" organized by Hesed. For those interested, that panel discussion can be found here: https://www.hesedprojectcrc.org/learn/#a13lightbox-work-13044
One of the panelists is Dr. Sylvia Keesmaat, a biblical scholar with expertise in biblical hermeneutics and New Testament, studying at Oxford with Dr. N. T. Wright (as I understand it).
In that panel discussion, Dr. Keesmaat critiques the work of Dr. Weima and the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) itself when that report engages with her own scholarship (i.e. "Romans Disarmed") as well as other biblical scholarship, suggesting that the HSR "cherry-picks", "misinterprets", takes quotes "out of context", and generally avoids a fullsome engagement with the major arguments made by other biblical scholars.
Abide Project leadership - I would love if you could organize a fair and open dialogue between Dr. Weima and Dr. Keesmaat (who was on that panel). I would imagine hosting a civil dialogue between Dr. Keesmaat and Dr. Weima might be a good gift to the conversation on the topic, if such a dialogue is possible.
Dr. Weima, The film is not a Hollywood-concocted story. It is a documentary filmed by Christians, both Affirming and LGBTQ+, who are involved in the search to understand scripture they love and live by. Your title, using the idea that Hollywood gets it wrong again and then continuing to sprinkle the word Hollywood throughout your opinion piece seems to me an attempt to smear the film and sway your audience to not view it. Add to that the fact that you call the people who made the film and those promoting it “fools,”discredits you and Calvin Theological Seminary.
You leave out any mention of the fact that the producer of the film is shown repeatedly with her father, who is a minister who doesn’t agree with same-sex marriage, her own acceptance of herself as LGBTQ+, as well as disagreeing with what the film says about the translation of the Bible. I appreciated that the film included his opinions so we weren’t hearing only one viewpoint and showed how he and his daughter continued to love and respect each other while deeply disagreeing.
You also failed to mention the fact that when the mis- translation was printed by the RSV publishers, it was quickly used by the Good News Bible, which Billy Graham liked and passed out to masses of people. It also influenced other translators, including the NIV. So most of us grew up, only hearing what resulted from a translation that the head of the RSV team agreed was incorrect and in a culture that acted in accordance with what seemed to be a Biblical condemnation of homosexuals. It’s only been since 1973 that the churches in the CRC were told to act with love toward LGBTQ+ individuals. And year after year we, at best, ignore them and now and then apologize for it at Synod.
I hope everyone in the CRC sees the movie. I don’t think your review did it justice.