Marriage, Scripture, and the Church:Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union

A book review by Dr Stephen Burnhope of Darrin W. Snyder Belousek's Marriage, Scripture, and the Church: Theological Discernment on the Question of Same-Sex Union.

Marriage, Scripture, and the Church has been widely praised in conservative circles as a

compelling defence of a traditional doctrine of exclusively male–female marriage. Its

endorsers have welcomed the author’s decision to move beyond the familiar debate about the so-called “clobber texts” and to reframe the discussion around the meaning of marriage itself as timelessly understood through Scripture and ecclesial tradition.

This framing signals both the method and objective of the book. Snyder Belousek is not

arguing about a handful of disputed texts. He wants to show that Scripture and the church together testify to a single, unchanging doctrine of marriage - one that has been defined, always and everywhere, as the exclusive union of one man and one woman. On this account, he argues, the doctrine of marriage cannot be revised to include same-sex union without abandoning biblical faithfulness to the essence and meaning of marriage. At first glance, the argument sounds compelling. Yet it rests on a prior framework that constructs the continuity it claims to demonstrate and does not withstand close scrutiny.

Pastoral Sensitivity and the Limits of Selective Listening

Snyder Belousek begins by insisting—rightly—that when we speak of same-sex attraction and sexual minorities, these are not simply issues to be debated but the lives of human beings made in the image of God.1 This pastoral sensitivity is commendable. He also emphasises that theological discernment should include listening to the lived experiences of gay and lesbian Christians, their families and communities. The book acknowledges the reality of the harm inflicted by both the church and wider society and calls for lament over that mistreatment. 2

These commitments, however, sit uneasily with their execution in the book. The voices

permitted to shape the argument are disappointingly selective. The testimonies Snyder

Belousek engages are exclusively those of celibate gay and lesbian Christians who already accept his ethical conclusions.3 Entirely absent are the experiences of Christians in committed same-sex relationships whose lives most directly challenge the framework he presupposes. As a result, the book’s claim to be engaged in genuinely open-ended theological discernment is seriously undermined.

‘The testimonies Snyder Belousek engages are exclusively those of celibate gay and lesbian Christians who already accept his ethical conclusions. Entirely absent are the experiences of Christians in committed same-sex relationships whose lives most directly challenge the framework he presupposes.

As a result, the book’s claim to be engaged in genuinely open-ended theological discernment is seriously undermined.’

Biblical Diversity Versus the Claim to a Single, Unified Biblical Model

At the heart of Snyder Belousek’s proposal are two closely related concepts: biblical marriage and ecclesial tradition. 4 Together, these are made to bear a great deal of weight. The author repeatedly asserts that Scripture presents a single, unified picture of Marriage - a clear and unchanging “one-man, one-woman” pattern that has been consistently affirmed by the church throughout its history.

'The author repeatedly asserts that Scripture presents a single, unified picture of Marriage. Yet this presupposition does not withstand closer examination. Even a cursory survey of the biblical texts reveals a wide range of marital forms and practices, many of which differ markedly from the contemporary Western understanding.'

Yet this presupposition does not withstand closer examination. Even a cursory survey

of the biblical texts reveals a wide range of marital forms and practices, many of which

differ markedly from the contemporary Western understanding. Polygyny, concubinage,

levirate marriage, arranged marriage, transactional marriage, and even forms of forced

marriage are all present in Scripture, typically described without moral condemnation and with implied approval.5 These forms and practices sit within Scripture’s broader patriarchal assumptions concerning male and female.

Snyder Belousek responds to these variants by classifying them as deviations from a

creational norm.6 However, this interpretive framework is assumed, rather than

demonstrated. He defines in advance what counts as normative, against which all else must then be discounted as aberrations attributable to human failings.

However, these are not marginal anomalies that can be dismissed as incidental; they are

structurally embedded in the social world of the biblical writers. When such forms of

marriage are brought to light and examined in contemporary terms, they sit uncomfortably not only with secular social sensibilities but with the moral convictions of most Christians, thereby undermining the assertion that Scripture presents a single, unchanging model of marriage corresponding in all material respects to modern features.

The disparity between the forms and practices of marriage in the biblical world and

today’s taken-for-granted romantic and egalitarian model already calls into question the

claim that Scripture offers a single, culture-free, unchanging template. A supposedly

timeless “biblical” model shaped around contemporary assumptions can only be

constructed by selectively privileging certain texts while quietly disregarding others that do not fit the narrative, and the ancient social realities in which those texts are embedded.7

Ecclesial Tradition and Doctrinal Continuity

The same problem is evident with appeals to ecclesial tradition. The church’s

understanding of marriage has not been static. Significant development has taken place,

particularly in the modern era, as cultural assumptions concerning gender hierarchy,

marital roles, family planning, sexual consent, domestic abuse, and the indissolubility of

marriage—once deeply embedded—have been called into question and then revised. Many features that are now taken to be self-evidently fundamental to marriage, at least in the West, such as romantic mutuality, a partnership between equals, and each partner’s personal fulfilment, are relatively recent developments. It is difficult to avoid the charge of anachronism when these modern features are retroactively anointed as timelessly and biblically normative.

This exposes a central weakness in Snyder Belousek’s thesis. He follows a circular

reasoning in which a contemporary traditionalist understanding of marriage is read back into Scripture, construed to be an unchanging biblical doctrine, and then appealed to as scriptural validation for what it has already assumed. If such a move is inherently flawed, then scriptural authority cannot be straightforwardly said to sit behind it.

‘He follows a circular reasoning …. contemporary traditionalist understanding of marriage is read back into Scripture, construed to be an unchanging biblical doctrine, and then appealed to as scriptural validation for what it has already assumed.’

The rhetorical force of Snyder Belousek’s argument depends almost entirely on an

assumption of historical continuity. If the doctrine of marriage has indeed remained

unchanged in the manner he supposes, then any proposal to revise it would face a very

significant burden of justification. But that continuity is asserted, rather than demonstrated.

The author appeals to the Vincentian Canon to support his case: that which has been

believed everywhere, always, and by all. Yet this criterion, even if it may be validly applied to creedal affirmations, cannot readily be extended to matters of marriage and sexual ethics. Neither Scripture nor church history supports such a claim.

Snyder Belousek submits that marriage is categorically different from other doctrines

that have undergone revision, such as those concerning slavery, patriarchy, or women’s

roles. But similar assertions of categorical difference were made in those cases as well. Over time, the church came to recognise that certain inherited interpretations of Scripture had been shaped more by prevailing cultural assumptions than by timeless biblical truth, and they were causing harm; pastoral concern served as a catalyst for doctrinal reconsideration.

When a traditionally accepted doctrine is recognised as aligning more closely with

practices that diminish human flourishing than with the life-enhancing mission of Jesus

reflected in John 10:10, the church has shown a willingness to re-examine it—not least

when a sustained moral challenge from secular society has highlighted an uncomfortable dissonance.

Snyder Belousek insists that affirming same-sex union would require revising the

church’s doctrine of marriage. That may be so. But doctrines are theological constructs

formulated by the church in response to its best understanding of Scripture at any given

time; they are not timelessly identical with Scripture itself. Second - and third-tier doctrines, 8 in particular, are subject to ongoing development, not least in keeping with the Reformation’s principle of semper reformanda (always reforming).

Consistency and Selectivity in Conservative Appropriation

Snyder Belousek is to be commended for his consistency as a traditionalist conservative.

He rejects not only same-sex union but also divorce and remarriage, habitual contraception, intentional non-procreation within marriage, and assisted reproduction (though not, perhaps surprisingly, women in ministry 9 ).10 He rightly criticises conservatives who cite his work selectively - appealing to it as authoritative against same-sex marriage while quietly ignoring the rest of his conclusions grounded in the same theological framework. He does not merely note this inconsistency but names it as hypocrisy.11

‘Snyder Belousek is to be commended for his consistency as a traditionalist conservative. He rejects not only same-sex union but also divorce and remarriage, habitual contraception, intentional non-procreation within marriage, and assisted reproduction.’

Those who invoke Marriage, Scripture, and the Church as persuasive in relation to same-sex union would therefore do well to consider how they propose to avoid this charge. That said, consistency is no guarantee of correctness. A framework may be applied consistently, yet remain flawed.

Sexual Orientation, Science, and Human Experience

At this point, the assumption of continuity encounters a further difficulty - one that cannot be resolved within the framework of appeals to Scripture and tradition alone. A process of open-ended theological discernment cannot responsibly set aside what is now known about sexual orientation.

For more than a century, scientific research has understood same-sex orientation as an

unchosen feature of human experience, rather than the wilful moral deviation historically assumed; this has significant implications for how human behaviour described in Scripture is to be understood. Snyder Belousek acknowledges this research, but treats it as unproven 12 - and in any event, morally irrelevant. He insists that Christian sexual ethics concern voluntary conduct rather than involuntary attraction, and therefore the church need not take a position on the science.

This dismissal is difficult to sustain. If same-sex orientation is plausibly understood as

an unchosen feature of some people’s humanity, this has profound pastoral implications. It means that the biblical writers, who lacked any concept of orientation, were responding to phenomena understood very differently from today. The prohibitive texts were addressing behaviour interpreted through their assumptions: lustful and compulsive sexual excesses, by men assumed to be by nature opposite-sex attracted, often within exploitative and abusive contexts. This behaviour does not correspond to the faithful, monogamous, formally committed same-sex relationships for which inclusive voices advocate today.

To privilege an ancient worldview over modern scientific knowledge in this way is a

theological decision that requires strong justification, especially when it results in imposing uniquely heavy burdens on a particular minority of believers.

Human experience, too, demands serious consideration. Many Christians have come to

affirm same-sex union not because they have abandoned the authority of Scripture but

because they recognise same-sex orientation as an unchosen feature in the lives of people they know. Whatever the precise combination of prenatal and postnatal influences in individual cases, sexual orientation cannot be universally reduced to sinful behavioural choices from which individuals should simply desist—as the biblical writers appear to have assumed, and some traditionalists continue to imply. Once it is acknowledged that the category of sexual orientation was unknown for the vast majority of Christian history, the persuasive force of long-standing condemnation is significantly diminished.13

Defining Marriage: “Form, Function, and Figure”?

A central component of Snyder Belousek’s argument is his definition of marriage in terms of “form, function, and figure.” Form refers to male–female union; function to procreation; and figure to a symbolic correspondence between Christ and the church. Together, these are said to define marriage as God established it.14 The problem is that Snyder Belousek’s reasoning is once again circular. Marriage is defined in advance in a way that only opposite-sex union can satisfy, and same-sex union is then excluded because it fails to meet the definition.

Yet if procreation is truly constitutive of marriage, then infertile marriages, or couples

who choose not to have children, would also fall short. If, on the other hand, procreation

is merely typical rather than essential, the framework loses its normative force.

Snyder Belousek anticipates this challenge by differentiating between cannot procreate

and will not procreate. Practices that intentionally divert sex within marriage away from its procreative end are morally flawed.15 The conceptual and pastoral distinctions are not so neatly delineated in practice; however, he recognises the implications of the underlying point for same-sex marriage.

'Christians cannot, consistently, affirm childless-by-choice marriage and then

oppose same-sex union on the ground that God designed marriage for the sake

of procreation. Accepting habitual use of contraception, to the point of

intentionally rendering sexual union non-procreative for preferential reasons,

approves severing marriage from procreation and thus points toward affirming

same-sex union. Because intentionally non-procreative male-female couples are

procreative counterparts of same-sex couples, therefore, justifying childless-by-

choice marriage gives ground to sanctioning same-sex union'.16

Once allowance is made for variations in Snyder Belousek’s triad, it begins to collapse into a description of customary practice rather than a binding moral definition. At that point, it becomes difficult to identify a principled reason to exclude same-sex marital union that exhibits the same ethical features of permanence, fidelity, and mutual commitment.

The appeal to marriage as a figure of Christ and the church does not rescue Snyder

Belousek’s triad. The correspondence is metaphorical rather than ontological: it illuminates relational qualities such as covenantal faithfulness and self-giving love, not biological sex difference or procreative capacity. The difficulty is not that the metaphor lacks meaning, but that Snyder Belousek asks it to bear too much theological weight.

More problematic still, the image of Christ and the church fails to cohere with the

contemporary Western understanding of the marriage relationship - particularly its

emphasis on mutuality and equality. Instead, the image depends on the patriarchal

assumptions that prevailed in the biblical world (which would need to be reintroduced to sustain the metaphor today).

A more compelling account of marriage can be framed in terms of three reimagined

values, still corresponding to Snyder Belousek’s categories: intimate companionship, rather than sexuate correspondence; the creation of family, understood in a broader sense than biological reproduction alone; and covenantal relationship centred in God, rather than a narrow appeal to a Christ–Church marital analogy.17 This account is more relational and less sex-centric, while cohering with the creation narrative’s portrayal of marriage as God’s covenantal response to human loneliness, expressed through shared life and the formation of family.

Jesus, Genesis, and the Question in Context

A final difficulty arises when Snyder Belousek turns to the teaching of Jesus. He places

considerable weight on Jesus’ citation of Gen 1:27 and 2:24 in Mark 10 and Matt 19, arguing that these texts function prescriptively to establish opposite-sex marriage as normative. Yet the context is clear: Jesus is responding to a question about the permissibility of divorce,18 not offering a comprehensive theology of marriage, and still less pronouncing on same-sex union.

It may appear curious that Jesus would cite the “one flesh” language of Gen 2:24 in

response to a question about divorce—unless, of course, it is understood as not being

primarily concerned with sex or sexual correspondence. His appeal to Genesis functions

most naturally as a theological affirmation of marital permanence intended by God “from the beginning” rather than an otherwise superfluous reminder that sexual behaviour must be exclusively male–female.

Snyder Belousek’s conclusion - that Jesus’ reading of Genesis “may speak to the same-sex union question as much as to the divorce question” 19 - is difficult to reconcile with fundamental principles of biblical interpretation. The move requires extending Jesus’ words beyond that immediate context in a way that the text itself does not clearly warrant. It is overreaching to suggest, as Snyder Belousek does, that “Jesus shifts the question” from divorce to “the theology of marriage,”20 as if that permits Jesus’ words to be read as an implied authorisation of a wider theology of marriage that Snyder Belousek wishes to assert.

Conclusion

Marriage, Scripture, and the Church offers a thoughtful defence of a traditional doctrine of

marriage. Yet its persuasive force depends on a series of contested assumptions: that

Scripture presents a single, unified marital model corresponding in all material respects to contemporary heterosexual norms; that the church’s teaching on marriage has remained historically unchanged; that ecclesial tradition should be granted decisive authority in this particular matter; and that Jesus’ words may be taken beyond their contextual meaning to answer a question he was not addressing.

'"Marriage, Scripture, and the Church" offers a thoughtful defence of a traditional doctrine of marriage. Yet its persuasive force depends on a series of contested assumptions …. Faithful theological discernment on a matter so significant for human life not only requires more but deserves more.'

When the book’s core assertions concerning marriage are examined in the light of

biblical diversity, historical development, and modern scientific knowledge, they prove

increasingly difficult to sustain—particularly given the human cost borne by gay and lesbian believers in fulfilling conservative demands for lifelong singleness and celibacy that follow directly from those assertions (a cost the book largely fails to consider).

Taken together, these difficulties reflect a consistent underlying problem: the argument

depends on a prior framework that constructs the very continuity it claims to discover.

The rebuttal of same-sex union offered by Marriage, Scripture, and the Church does not rest straightforwardly on either a clear biblical warrant or sacrosanct authority offered by ecclesial tradition, but rather on the constraints imposed by its prior definitional framing. Faithful theological discernment on a matter so significant for human life not only requires more but deserves more.

Dr Stephen Burnhope

1 Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, xiii.

2 Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, xii.

3 “. . . testimonies of gay believers who, by God’s grace and the Spirit’s help, have committed themselves and their lives to obedience, celibacy, and service to Christ.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 281. On multiple occasions, Snyder Belousek makes (exclusive) reference to “The Spirit’s working among gay celibate believers.” See e.g., 282–288.

4 “Scripture, consistently, presents a single picture of marriage and approves a single pattern of sexual relations: male-female union. Jesus summarizes this witness: ‘the two’ of ‘male and female’ joined into ‘one flesh.’ The Holy Spirit has woven this pattern of holy union throughout Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, in the form, function, and figure of marriage.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 284.

5 Deuteronomy 21:10–13; Judges 21:16–23; Numbers 31:15–18.

6 The book is supplemented by an online Supplement (available at academia.edu—

https://tinyurl.com/3cm37mta). See 55–56.

7 It may perhaps be argued that whatever their moral shortcomings, none of these marital forms involve same-sex relationships. Yet this rests on a questionable moral prioritisation, in which the biology of male–female pairing is treated as morally decisive even where such arrangements are characterised by abuses of power, the absence of meaningful consent, and exploitation—features that the biblical texts themselves often record without explicit censure.

8 Notably, all have been in the modern era. If we are to credit these doctrinal changes to the dynamic, ongoing work of the Holy Spirit, it is hard to see why that should not in principle continue.

9 Snyder Belousek is accepting of women in ministry (his wife is an ordained minister). Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 141. He explains at some length why “that one is different” (207–217).

10 “If we argue that same-sex marriage alters or changes the biblical ideal of marriage, but allow divorce and remarriage in any circumstance, we violate clear biblical teaching and the clear biblical ideal of marriage.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 60–61. Emphasis added.

11 “Congregations reluctant to extend accommodation to same-sex couples must ask themselves why they should accommodate some situations that deviate from the creational ideal, such as divorced-remarried couples and never-married parents, but not accommodate other situations that also deviate from the creational ideal, such as same-sex couples … Expecting sexual discipline of gay believers while accommodating the sexual sins of straight and married believers is simply hypocrisy.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 252. Emphasis added.

12 “Despite the popular slogan ‘born this way’, whether any persons are simply born with same-sex

orientations is scientifically questionable. Scientific research indicates that, probably, a mix of prenatal biological factors and postnatal environmental factors influence same-sex orientation, with a variable combination of factors operative in individual cases.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 69. “There is no conclusive evidence and no scientific consensus concerning the causes of same-sex orientation.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 194. However, the absence of consensus regarding causation does not justify theological or pastoral approaches that treat same-sex sexual orientation as effectively unproven.

13 Appeals to two millennia of consistent ecclesial condemnation derive much of their persuasive force from the assumption that the same phenomenon has been in view throughout. Once that assumption is questioned, the force of the appeal is significantly weakened. Yet the terminology and conceptual framework associated with sexual orientation developed only in the late nineteenth century when terms such as ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ were introduced. While earlier cultures recognised same-sex desires and behaviours, these were not interpreted within a framework directly comparable to contemporary discussions.

14 “Marriage is founded on the God-created sexuate correspondence of human embodiment—male and female, man and woman—which is the fundamental feature that underlies the form, function, and figure of marriage.” Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 35.

15 Appendix C of the online Supplement discusses a complex lattice of acceptable and unacceptable circumstances and intentions, drawing authority from (in particular) Augustine and Clement.

16 Supplement, 65.

17 I am indebted to Messianic Jewish theologian Russ Resnik for the framing of this alternative triad, in “The two shall become one flesh”—The Beginning and End of Marriage. Kesher Journal (July 2015). https://www.kesherjournal.com/article/the-two-shall-become-one-flesh-the-beginning-and-end-of- marriage/ (accessed December 23, 2025). Resnik’s three-fold account reflects a Jewish theological reading of marriage grounded directly in the creation narrative. While he makes no explicit reference to same-sex union (and may, indeed, not affirm such union), the conceptual framework surpasses sexuate correspondence and hence invites a broader application.

18 In the Markan account, the conversation about divorce continues between Jesus and the disciples, now extending to remarriage (vv. 10–12).

19 Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 59.

20 Marriage, Scripture, and the Church, 59.

There is a longer version of this review available.  Click here to see it.

Steve is part of a group of theologians who are developing a theology hub for the Inclusive Evangelicals network. This review was one of the papers discussed at their first meeting.