Let us consider the logic
of the outgoing Archbishop of Wales, Barry Morgan’s, recent defense of
homosexual relationships.[1]
The
First Argument in Two Parts
The bulk of his argument—over
half—is this: Since there are ‘different perspectives’ and ‘shifts in
perspective’ within Scripture on several matters—parts of the Bible are at
variance with other parts—‘there is no one settled understanding of what the
Bible says about a number of subjects and … reading it as a whole can alter one’s
total perspective.’ This argument has
two parts—apart from any assessment of the examples of ‘variance’ that the
Archbishop gives. First, it commits the fallacy
of claiming that, because Scripture has different perspectives on several other topics, it also has different
perspectives on the topic at hand. Must one really have to respond to this sort
of argument? Surely one should simply
look at the topic itself to determine whether there is any shift in perspective
rather than examine possible shifts in other perspectives. One can imagine an analogous argument for,
say, adultery in Scripture. The
Archbishop’s logic might suggest that, because Scripture offers different
perspectives on certain other issues, it therefore must have different
perspectives on adultery, or bestiality, or incest. As it happens, Scripture uniformly condemns
all these as well as homosexual acts. Or it might suggest that, because Scripture offers different perspectives on certain other issues, it must not be allowed to speak to concrete issues of any sort but only be read through the large lenses of a value ethic--in which case we must ask, 'Whose understanding of values?', as post-liberal, narrative ethicists already did in the 1970s and since.
The second part of the
Archbishops first argument is that we need to interpret Biblical texts with
principles rather than follow the teaching of concrete texts. (He might have said this more directly.) He will later in his speech argue in favour
of a particular principle, which will be addressed anon. Here, we simply need to note that his
argument is simply an assertion. How
would one go about arguing the point, though?
Surely one dimension of the discussion should be how the New Testament
handles differences from the Old Testament.
This would amount to coming to an understanding of how the early
Christians in apostolic times interpreted their Scriptures. We might note that (1) the early Church
affirmed the sexual ethic they found in their (Old Testament) Scriptures rather
than reform it as they did some other issues (like circumcision, Jewish holy
days, food laws, and sacrificial practices); (2) they appealed to specific
Scriptures of the Old Testament on the issue of homosexuality rather than apply
a general principle to them. On this
second point, note that Jude 7 mentions Sodom’s sexual sin—not, by the way,
inhospitality or failing to care for the poor and needy—in Gen. 19; Paul coins
a compound word for homosexuality (arsenokoites
in 1 Cor. 6.9 and 1 Tim. 1.10) that can only come from the Greek version of
Lev. 20.13’s use of two words side by side (hence he was affirming Mosaic Law
on the issue); and Jesus and Paul both appeal to Gen. 2.24 to affirm that the
ground for sex and marriage is the ‘one flesh’ union of a male and female.
The
Second Argument
A second of his arguments
is that slavery is nowhere condemned in Scripture. There is ‘overwhelming biblical support for
slavery,’ he claims, and ‘as an institution it is regarded [in Scripture] as
being a good thing.’ Yet Christians have
come to oppose slavery because, the Archbishop claims, Scripture stands against
‘oppression, domination and abuse.’ We see
that ‘the Scriptures as a whole and the ministry of Jesus in particular … is
about freedom from all that diminishes and dehumanizes people.’ There are several problems with this argument,
however. First, the claims that slavery
is nowhere condemned in Scripture and that the institution is regarded as a
good thing are far too simplistic and are not accurate. Would the fact that the slave trade is
condemned in the New Testament pose a problem for the Archbishop’s case (cf.
Rev. 18.13 and 1 Tim. 1.10)? Would Paul’s
encouragement to slaves to take advantage of the opportunity to gain their
freedom pose a challenge to his conclusion (1 Cor. 7.21, reading the text as
the ESV translates it in a way consistent with what Paul says in v. 23)? Would knowing a little about Roman slavery—that
is, that manumission was not always as easy as one might wish and may even not
have been possible in certain cases—not shed light on how unhelpful this
comparison to homosexuality is? Would it
be important to note how Paul’s reconfiguring the master-slave relationship (e.g.,
Philemon, Eph. 6.5-9; Col. 3.22-4.1) amounts to a challenge to the institution
of slavery in fundamental ways? One does
not have to appeal to a liberationist reading of Scripture in order to read against specific texts, for there
are specific texts that raise
questions about slavery. The matter is
far more complicated than the Archbishop allows. Furthermore, there are no qualifications of
homosexuality in Scripture, such as saying that it is to be approved in one
form and not in another. Same-sex acts
are out and out condemned as sinful. If
the issue of slavery proves anything for Biblical interpretation, it is that
one should guard against the pressure to read Scripture in service of the reigning
culture—whether in service of slavery in the 19th century or
homosexuality in the 21st century.
The
Third Argument
The Archbishop then goes
for checkmate. ‘So taking the Bible as a
whole and taking what it says very seriously may lead us into a very different
view of same-sex relationships than the one traditionally upheld by the Church.’ The key move he wishes to make is the claim
that Biblical passages addressing the issue of same-sex relationships ‘are not
about committed, loving, faithful monogamous relationships with persons of the
same sex but about something totally different.’ Thinking to illustrate the point, the
Archbishop reserves three entire sentences in his speech to deal with the
Biblical data. In actual fact, he
mentions but one passage, Gen. 19’s story of Sodom, which he takes to be about
God’s destroying a city over improper hospitality or, more generally, failing
to care for the poor and needy. He then asserts that the New Testament texts
are really addressing pederasty and prostitution.
Let us suppose that the
Archbishop has correctly interpreted the Biblical texts, even though no member
of his audience has any reason to do so.
But he apparently thinks that he has understood the Biblical texts and,
incredibly, he believes that the texts actually were speaking about bad things
that we should continue to oppose—bad
hospitality, not caring for the poor and needy, pederasty, and prostitution. Why, then, does he spend the bulk of his
argument trying to show that the Bible shifts perspectives and sometimes condones
bad things like slavery? If he agrees with
what he believes these texts say, why undercut his own argument by insisting
that the Bible has various perspectives and sometimes needs to be interpreted
by principles that speak against what specific texts say? One might have
thought that he would argue that condemnation of homosexuality is a similar error
to approval of slavery from a past, inferior culture, and we, a now evolved and
morally superior race, need to reject those Biblical texts and the Church’s
teaching in the past. But he instead
argues that those texts actually were speaking about bad things that we should
continue to oppose. So, which is
it? Do we move on from inferior Biblical
practices and views, or do we continue to affirm these Biblical texts because
we like them?
To answer such a
question, one would have to do more than what the Archbishop does. One would have to argue not that there is diversity in Scripture or that there are practices the Church no
longer endorses but why the Church
might take a particular interpretation.
There are indications within the Archbishop’s talk that indicate how he
would come to a conclusion, although he might have given real attention to
these rather than develop contradictory arguments. One has already been stated: Scripture stands
against ‘oppression, domination and abuse.’
Relatedly, he avers, ‘taking Holy Scripture seriously means paying
attention to Jesus’ ministry of inclusivity’ and his affirmation of a ‘freedom
from all that diminishes and dehumanizes people.’ Thus, what we have is an indication of his
hermeneutic: read Scripture from the perspective of the values of inclusivity and liberation from abusive power, and reject
reading Scripture for its concrete
commandments unless they relate to these values.
The Archbishop adds an
additional argument, or, shall we rather say, makes an additional claim: ‘for
past generations, homosexual practice was seen as a moral failure because
people had no understanding of human sexuality and how humans are formed
biologically, psychologically and socially.
For them, it was a disorder. We
now know that sexual orientation is not a matter of personal choice but of how
people are….’ This essay is concerned with
the Archbishop’s logic, so a response that would actually examine the claim in
light of ancient texts or the various currents of psychology on the issue needs
to be addressed elsewhere.[2] What might be said here is that he gives no
proof of this statement and actually shows no awareness of the issues. Were he actually to investigate the matter,
he would need to acknowledge that there was considerable discussion before and
after the 1st century over whether same-sex attraction was a matter
of nature or nurture. That is, writers
in New Testament times were very much interested in the question of sexual
orientation. Without any attempt to
address the matter textually or historically, the Archbishop’s argument simply
stands as an unsubstantiated claim. His
claim that the New Testament authors did not have the concept of ‘committed,
loving, faithful monogamous relationships with persons of the same sex’ also
remains unsubstantiated. Does his view
that such relationships are natural not
conflict with his belief that people in antiquity did not engage in this? (If natural, why only today?) Would knowing that some ancient texts spoke
of same-sex couples living together and even marrying affect his perspective
that we have an advanced understanding in our day?
Could it possibly be that
the reason for the Church’s interpretation through the centuries on the issue
of homosexuality is that it has faithfully interpreted the Scriptures, that the
authors of Scripture were of one mind on this issue and did speak directly to
it, and that the basic conviction within Scripture about all sexual ethics is
that the place for sex is within the marital union of a male and female?
[1] Barry
Morgan, Presidential Address of the Archbishop of Wales to the Governing
Body meeting at the University of Trinity Saint David, Lampeter, on 14 Sept
2016. Online: http://www.anglican.ink/article/archbishop-wales-declares-scriptural-support-same-sex-marriage (accessed 15 September,
2016).
[2]
See S. Donald Fortson and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging
Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and
Tradition (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016).
No comments:
Post a Comment