Anglican Mainstream

…So when the Gospel Jesus expanded the adultery commandment to cover fornication he made it clear that the problem with adultery was not simply that of infidelity to a spouse. For the Gospel Jesus sexual purity was itself of vital concern. And there can be no doubt about the scope of the sexual purity concern expressed by Jesus. In the context of our present discussion the point is that this scope includes same-sex sexual relations.

Towards the end of his address the bishop asks this rhetorical question, ‘If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be?’ At least part of the answer is clear from the material reviewed above. They will have been found to be promoting a kind of sexual impurity that the Gospel Jesus places on the same level as adultery.

By Professor John Nolland 

The Bishop of Liverpool has used his Presidential Address this weekend to the Diocesan Synod to argue a position in relation to the homosexuality debate that has proved so divisive within the Anglican Communion.The position adopted is not a new one for the bishop, but he has stated it more clearly in this present reiteration and offered a fresh justification. A single sentence from his address can capture the thrust of the bishop’s position.

Just as Christian pacifists and Christian soldiers profoundly disagree with one another yet in their disagreement continue to drink from the same cup because they share in the one body so too I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.

What is clever about the argument is not that it identifies an area of major Christian conflict in relation to which we have decided as Christians to agree to disagree. What is clever about the argument is that it links pacifism and just war advocacy to one of the Ten Commandments: ‘Thou shalt not kill’.

The problem with the argument is, however, that there is no valid parallel between the issues being compared. Not even the most ardent Christian pacifists will argue that in its Old Testament framework the Commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’ represents a pacifist stance. The commandment precluded neither capital punishment nor military action. Contrariwise not even the most enthusiastic Christian supporters of a just war approach wants to commend military imposition of Christian faith, by threat of death. As well, pacifists and other Christians accept the need for the use of force by the state, if necessary, in maintaining order and defending the weak. The core argument is about roles Christians may take in relation to the state, given such statements by Jesus as ‘those who take the sword will perish by the sword’, ‘turn the other cheek’ and ‘love your enemies’. Is Jesus’ way of love compatible with Christian engagement in legalised violence? Given the quasi-proverbial form of Jesus’ relevant teaching and the culturally marginal position of the early Christians it is not easy to decide. And it is not surprising that Christians, while agreeing on the core Christian values involved, have not been able to agree about the scope of application.

What is in dispute between Christian pacifists and others is a very serious matter, in part because issues of life and death are involved. But it should not be represented as a fundamental disagreement about one of the Ten Commandments.

What is in dispute between Christians who see no problem with same-sex sexual relations and those who do is, as well, not in the first instance a fundamental disagreement about one of the Ten Commandments. (But this is a statement that will in a moment need to be qualified.) If all those who protest same-sex sexual relations were basing themselves on was a claimed implication of ‘Though shalt not commit adultery’, there would indeed be room for difference of opinion. In the case of same-sex relations there is clear and consistent biblical teaching that addresses the matter as something of very serious concern. On this see my piece, ‘The Bible and sex: Is sex that important’, on the Anglican Mainstream site. From that piece it is, however, worth drawing attention to one matter, which will offer here in an much expanded form. It has to do with the lists that the Jesus in Matthew and the Jesus in Mark have which start ‘out of the human heart come evil intentions etc.’.

When Jesus wants to make the point that evil proceeds from the heart, two of the six items on the list we find in Matthew (Mt 15:19) have to do with sexual behaviour (murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander—‘evil inclinations’ at the head of the list is best taken as foundational for each of the evil acts that follow). Matthew has abbreviated and reordered the Markan material to correlate with the Ten Commandments. As in Mark, Matthew has expanded the scope of the adultery commandment to cover other forms of illicit sex, much as he has expanded the false witness commandment to embrace acts of slander. All the items on his list relate to the Ten Commandments and are dealt with in Ten-Commandment order from murder to false witness—the previous Commandment, honour of parents, has been dealt with in the preceding verses.

Mark’s version here has a longer list of twelve items (Mk 7:21-22). The first four are concrete acts (‘fornication, theft, murder, adultery’) and the following eight are orientations of the heart (‘avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly’)—which no doubt are seen as manifested in and producing specific acts of wickedness. Among the concrete acts Mark’s version highlights the sexual by placing fornication at the beginning of the list of four and adultery at its end. In Mark’s version fully half of the list of concrete acts (two of the four) are sexual acts. Again it is Ten-Commandment order (but this time the order of the Greek Old Testament and not the Hebrew Old Testament). As in Matthew the scope of the adultery commandment has been expanded. The wider expansion (fornication) gets first place, while adultery itself takes its Ten-Commandment position.

The important thing for us here is the Gospel Jesus’ expansion of the adultery Commandment to cover fornication. Two things are important about this. First, the expansion makes it clear that the problem with adultery is not just that of infidelity to one’s spouse. Such infidelity is profoundly problematic, but for the Gospel Jesus fornication between two unmarrieds, despite being free of any infidelity, still falls foul of Jesus’ understanding of the adultery commandment. To identify the second important implication something needs to be said about fornication.

The word fornication tends to obscures a simple fact: in the Jewish context of Jesus’ day, and in the Christian context that grew out of it, the Greek term here, porneia, would have been automatically seen as embracing a much wider sweep of practices that we are accustomed to automatically seeing as fornication. We need to add in rape, prostitution, the various forms of incest, also sex with animals, and finally same-sex sexual engagement. For Jesus’ word usage we need to be guided by the Old Testament background.

The most common form of porneia would be heterosexual intercourse, whether this involved married people with a partner other than their spouse, including with a prostitute, or whether it involved those who were not married.[1] When one or both parties were married to somebody else porneia was also adultery. If porneia involved an unmarried man and unmarried woman then the prospect of having the illicit sexual activity retrospectively regularised was offered: the man was obliged to marry the woman, unless (given the prevailing patriarchal framework) the woman’s father was absolutely opposed to the match (Ex 22:16-17).

Incest would also be porneia, indeed porneia of a particularly serious kind (Lev 18:6-18; 20:11-12, 14, 17, 19-21).[2] There appear to be two orders of incest in Lev 20. The death penalty is involved for the first order (vv 10-16, which covers sex with one’s father’s wife, one’s daughter-in-law and sex with both a woman and her mother). Such porneia is put on the same level as adultery. Lesser or unspecified punishment is involved for the second order of porneia (vv 17-22, which covers sex with a step-sister, an aunt, the wife of an uncle or the wife of a brother). [3]

Sexual engagement with an animal would also be porneia (Lev 20:15-16). Male homosexual sex belongs here as well, actually being treated (Lev 20:13) in the middle of a set of kinds of first order incest (vv 10-16)). In Lev 18:20-23 male homosexual sex is preceded by incestual sex and child sacrifice and followed by sex with animals.[4]

To speak of porneia without further specification in the world of the Gospels would be to refer collectively to all of these kinds of illicit sexual activity.[5]

So when the Gospel Jesus expanded the adultery commandment to cover fornication he made it clear that the problem with adultery was not simply that of infidelity to a spouse. For the Gospel Jesus sexual purity was itself of vital concern. And there can be no doubt about the scope of the sexual purity concern expressed by Jesus. In the context of our present discussion the point is that this scope includes same-sex sexual relations.

Towards the end of his address the bishop asks this rhetorical question, ‘If on this subject of sexuality the traditionalists are ultimately right and those who advocate the acceptance of stable and faithful gay relationships are wrong what will their sin be?’ At least part of the answer is clear from the material reviewed above. They will have been found to be promoting a kind of sexual impurity that the Gospel Jesus places on the same level as adultery. 

The bishop’s address is not without its insight into aspects of the situation we currently face, and is strikingly for its attempt to respect a traditional Christian viewpoint. But its timing in relation to the impending confirmation of the appointment of a second practicing homosexual bishop in TEC is unfortunate.

Appended here is an earlier piece posted on Anglican Mainstream in the aftermath of a press piece on the views of the bishop of Liverpool in this area, written by Professor Gordon Wenham and myself. It addresses some of the wider issues and gives an outline Biblical case for the traditional Christian understanding. Response to James Jones: Beyond the Guardian caricature

September 8th, 2008

Professor Gordon Wenham & Professor John Nolland, Trinity College, Bristol

The Press

Many were shocked and saddened to read in the Guardian a few months back that James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, had written that ‘the Bible sanctions same-sex relationships’ (Guardian, 5/2/08). They were saddened that a bishop who had promised ‘to banish all erroneous doctrine contrary to God’s word’ was failing to live up to his episcopal duty, and shocked that one known for his eco-friendly orthodox evangelicalism should have seceded to the liberals. Others reacted differently: gay rights groups welcomed it, and doubtless many struggling with their own sexuality hoped he was right. (The personal agony of many in the homosexual community must never be forgotten.)

The Facts

But have the religious journalists understood the bishop correctly? The bishop’s own words on the Liverpool diocesan website are much more circumspect.  He sums up some of the gestures that marked David and Jonathan’s affection and then says: ’I know that at this point some will ask, “Was the friendship sexual?” “ Were they gay?”… I want to resist these questions at least initially. Immediately you start using such words you conjure up stereotypes and prejudices.’

So it is evident that the bishop does not actually say that he thinks the relationships between David and Jonathan and between Jesus and John the beloved disciple involved sexual activity, but they are ‘authoritative Biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender’.

So it would be clearly wrong to accuse the bishop of saying that Jesus and John and David and Jonathan enjoyed homosexual relations. However there are enough hints in this article to lead religious journalists to that conclusion (though it is not likely to be his own personal conclusion). He now regrets having written a letter opposing Jeffrey John’s consecration. He opposes the Windsor process, which is designed to tie down Anglican teaching more securely to Scripture. He evidently sees no problem with continued communion with the American episcopal church, and distances himself from the view that homosexual intercourse is a sin like adultery. All these remarks indicate a marked shift in his views; and the bishop seems, subsequently, to have made no effort to disabuse the Guardian readers.

What has led him to this change of heart? He ascribes it to the dialogue between the diocese of Liverpool and the dioceses of Virginia in the USA and Akure in Nigeria. He says he now sees the African rejection of homosexuality as determined by their context and the American acceptance of homosexuality as determined by theirs. Nigerians oppose homosexual activity because it is illegal and disapproved by Muslims. African Christians do not want to be seen by Muslims as taking the path of Western moral decadence. American Episcopalians however see the question of homosexual rights as a question of civil rights. They do not want their generation to be accused of discriminating against homosexuals as their ancestors discriminated against slaves and blacks.

The Biblical Material

Undoubtedly these are relevant sociological insights, but they do not contribute much to understanding what the Bible says. Traditional Africa is in many ways much closer to the social and thought world of the Bible than is the secular West. So even without the pressures of Islam, their reading of Scripture may well be more in tune with the biblical writers than secularised Americans. But having raised the issue of social context, it is a great pity that Bishop Jones did not apply a similar sociological criticism to the world of the Bible. If he had, he would never, ever, have been open to the possibility that the Bible stories about David and Jonathan or the gospel references to John the beloved disciple are affirming homosexual relations; and he would have found that what the Bible affirmed about homosexual sexual activity was not merely determined by its larger social context. The idea that David and Jonathan’s relationship should be seen in homosexual terms is completely foreign to the biblical world view and to the conventions of biblical story-telling.

The opening chapters of the Bible are most important for setting out its theological and ethical assumptions. They provide us with the spectacles for reading the rest of Scripture. Genesis 1 tells us that God created man in two sexes, and told them, ‘be fruitful and multiply’. The procreation of children demands two sexes, not one. Genesis 2 tells how God made Eve out of Adam’s rib. Why did he not solve the problem of Adam’s loneliness by creating another Adam or two, or several Eves? The answer is plain: God’s design for mankind is heterosexual monogamy, not polygamy or homosexuality. It is striking how Jesus appeals to these two passages in Genesis 1 and 2 in affirming his doctrine of marriage ( Matthew 19: 4-6).

Reading further in the Old Testament the same principles are consistently reaffirmed: heterosexual marriage, love of children, and rejection of homosexual acts (Ps 127; Song of Songs; Gen 9:20-27; 19:1-26; Lev 18:22; 20:10, 13; etc.).

This is not to say that homosexuality was unknown in ancient Israel: it was condoned by Israel’s neighbours, and the book of Kings mentions that male cult prostitutes had to cleared from the temple more than once. But the official view of the Old Testament is clear from Genesis 1 onwards: the God-approved lifestyle is heterosexual marriage. Sexual activity that is disapproved of is described very tersely, e.g. Ham’s incest with Noah, so the fact that David and Jonathan’s relationship is described so fully is a sure sign that it was seen as quite innocent by the writers. It is only the hermeneutic of suspicion, with its profound suspicions about the motives of the writers, that can prompt any other conclusion.

The same is true of the New Testament situation. We have already noted Jesus’ appeal to Genesis 1 and 2 as demonstrating God’s design of heterosexual monogamous marriage. By implication this is not just a critique of divorce, but other sub-ideal sexual relationships too. Nowhere does Jesus himself explicitly condemn homosexual acts: but silence does not imply approval. Five times Jesus refers to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of the most wicked cities in the Old Testament. This suggests that homosexual behaviour was not an issue among first-century Jews. All brought up on the Old Testament knew it was wrong. To quote the most thorough exegetical study of the biblical material: ‘the idea that Jesus was, or might have been, personally affirming of homosexual conduct is revisionist history at its worst.’(Gagnon p. 228)

In contrast first-century Jews living in the Greek-speaking world, where homosexual activity was often approved, are fierce in condemning it. Aristeas, the Testament of Levi, Philo and Josephus are some of the Jewish writers who express their strong opposition to homosexual practice. In describing homosexual practices as ‘contrary to nature’ (Romans 1:26; see also 1 Cor 6:9-10) Paul is simply expressing the standard Jewish attitude. Peter and Jude and the book of Revelation think similarly (Jude 7; 2 Peter 2: 6-10; Rev 22:15).

All this evidence points in the same direction, that the biblical writers cannot be affirming the legitimacy of homosexual practice when they describe same-sex friendship. They clearly approved of the latter, while rejecting the former. It is a pity that Bishop Jones did not pay as much attention to the context in which the Bible was written as he did to that of the contemporary American and Nigerian churches. Would-be preachers are often told that ‘a text out of context is a pretext’. It seems to us that Bishop Jones has by ignoring the context of the biblical writers found a way to keep on the table views that are quite contrary to Scripture.

Keeping All Views on the Table

The bishop’s article purports not to take sides in the dispute that is threatening to split the Anglican Communion. But such ‘neutrality’ is not what it seems. What the Guardian has done with the piece is not fair, but nor is it entirely scurrilous. It represents the kind of over-simplification that nonetheless identifies the main ‘cash value’ of what is being said. The 1991 report Issues in Human Sexuality essentially reaffirmed traditional Christian teaching, but it allowed for a freedom-of-conscience exception for lay-people who sincerely believe that it is God’s call to them to be in a homosexual sexual relationship. The press had no interest in the reaffirmation of traditional Christian teaching: the ‘cash value’ of this was that the Church of England was giving approval to homosexual sexual relationships. The 2005 pastoral statement from the House of Bishops of the Church of England on Civil Partnerships, while on the surface of it much more restrictive, has in the public perception – and arguably in actual practice – done for the clergy what Issues in Human Sexuality did for the laity.

The attempt to keep the opposed views all at the table together in the name of the higher value of unity is admirable when the matters in dispute are not of core importance, or when it is not yet clear whether they are of core importance. But in relation to ethical matters the attempt to keep the conversation going over an extended period is to give victory to the most libertarian of the options under consideration, and especially so when the forces of political correctness in the wider culture are all aligned with the most libertarian view. We would not countenance a protracted period of consultation – with its implicit weakening of the force of existing guidelines – if the issue at stake was, say, compulsory euthanasia of the over-sixties in view of the effect of population growth on the ecology of the planet. While there is always an important place for debate about how ethical principles are to be applied in practice to complex situations, there is no weight of moral conviction behind views that need to be endlessly questioned.

There is always a danger that Christian groups are only reflecting the values of their contexts; and there is always a need for Christian groups to clarify their values in relation to their contexts. In relation to questions of homosexual sexual practice the Bible both engages with and transcends its larger social context. Its guidance in this area is clear and it is equally clear that it treats the matter as one of profound importance. Listening to the experience of gays and lesbians, Christians or not, will always be important. So will valuing them as people, drawing close to them, extending compassion to and giving all practical support. But we do no kindness to anyone (homosexuals included) or to our society at large, if we allow ourselves to drift away from traditional Christian sexual morality.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.