Biblical Teaching on Sexual Immorality in 16th Century Anglicanism (Homily XI) and Its Relevance for Today

 

Introduction

One aspect of the reformation of the Church in the 16th century had to do with reforming the beliefs and practices of the culture regarding sexual immorality.  A homily that became one of the fundamental teachings for the Anglican Church, written in 1543, aimed to correct the loose morals of the times.[1]  It was titled ‘Homily Against Whoredom and Adultery,’ but it has in view every form of sexual immorality: adultery (breaking wedlock), whoredom, fornication, and uncleanness.  This essay will provide an outline of the teaching, with the intention of pointing out how it remains relevant.

Culture

First, the homily points out that it is timely.  Sexual immorality was considered by many as no sin at all.  The context of the time was permissive and needed correction.  The sin in this day reigned above other sins.  The immorality of the time was not limited to one culture or region but appeared to be worldwide.  We see in this point that the homily was arguing from Scripture against the stream of culture.  Instead of accepting that culture might reform Christian practice, the Reformation insisted that Scripture should challenge the culture.

Scripture[2]

Second, the beginning of a reform based on Scripture regarding this matter is found in the Ten Commandments.  The seventh commandment states, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Exodus 20.14).  ‘Adultery’ specifically means a married person having sex with another outside marriage, but the homily argues that the commandment covers all sexual immorality.  It does not point out that this broad understanding has a very long history as the Ten Commandments were taken as headings for related sins.  Some have argued that Deuteronomy in part is an expansion on the Ten Commandments.  Paul offers an example of applying the Ten Commandments to related sins in 1 Timothy 2.8-10.  In the same century, the Jewish author, Philo, wrote a longer work expanding the Ten Commandments to other sins (see Special Laws).  So, this homily is in good company in its broad reading of the Seventh Commandment.  This point receives further proof from Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus’ expands the teaching to include lust (Matthew 5.27-28). 

Acts and Desires

Third, still in reference to Jesus’ teaching, the homily says that sexual immorality is not to be understood only in terms of outward adultery—that is, acts—but also to filthy desires and impure lusts.  We are to be concerned not only to keep our bodies undefiled; we must also keep our hearts pure and free from ‘evil thoughts, carnal desires, and fleshly consents.’  Christ is our Master, whom we are to obey, and He calls on us to ‘forsake all uncleanness and filthiness both in body and spirit.’  In further proof of this point, the homily points to Jesus' teaching in Matthew 15.19-20 (cf. Mark 7.21): what defiles a man comes from the heart—it is not just external actions.

Consistent Teaching in Scripture

Fourth, the first part of the sermon overall makes the point that Scripture consistently teaches that sexual immorality is sinful, and sin is punished by God.  Abstention from ‘whoredom’ (sexual immorality) is necessary for salvation.  The Old Testament agrees with the New Testament—there is no development in Scripture of views on what is immoral or not.  Jesus’ teaching agrees with the teaching of the Church at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15.28-29).  What we read in John’s Gospel is consistent with Paul.  In the second part of the homily, further New Testament texts are brought into the argument to prove the seriousness of the sin of sexual immorality.  Scripture gives warnings against adultery and exhortations to embrace cleanliness of life, by which a person is made a member of Christ.

Relation to Other Sins and Social Corruption

Fifth, also in the second part of the homily, the point is made that sexual immorality is a sin that encourages and produces other sins.  Some particular examples are given.  The sin is not only serious in its own right but also produces in a person other sinful pursuits and corrupts society as well.

Divine Punishment

Sixth, the third part of the homily drills down further on the point that God punishes sexual immorality.  Noah is called by Peter the ‘preacher [ESV, 'herald'] of righteousness’ (2 Peter 2.5), and God punished people in Noah's day for their sin with the flood.  The sin given focus in this passage is sexual immorality, but Genesis 6.1-5 offers support for this point in saying that the crest of the wave of human sin was the sexual comingling of the ‘sons of God’ with the ‘daughters of men’ (Genesis 6.4).  The homily next mentions the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, which God punished with utter destruction (Genesis 19).  While some interpreters have attempted to identify the sin of these cities in other ways than sexual immorality (and they were sinful in many ways), this homily offers it as an example of sexual sin—homosexuality (‘sodomy’)—as do 2 Peter 2 and Jude.  The homily offers other Biblical examples of God’s punishment of sexual immorality.

Universal Law

Seventh, the homily offers examples of pre-Christian cultures that punished fornication and adultery.  These examples not only make the point that there is a general revelation about this—a more universal agreement than just Christian teaching.  They also make the point that the immorality of the culture in the 16th century had even surpassed that of non-Christian peoples.  In this argument, the homily quotes Paul’s list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, which includes the sexual sins of adulterers, effeminate persons, and Sodomites.  These shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Remedies Against Sexual Immorality

Eighth, the homily ends with remedies to avoid fornication and adultery.  First, when tempted to commit sexual immorality by Satan, we should resist him by saying, ‘It is written, “Thou shalt not commit whoredom”.’  Second, we should live in the fear of God.  Third, we should set ourselves to avoid certain practices of intemperance, unclean conversation, filthy company, and idleness.  Fourth, we should practice other things like reading holy Scripture, protracted prayer, virtuous meditation, and godly ‘travails’ (not just works but ones that require something of ourselves).  In particular, marriage itself—and singular devotion to one another in marriage—is a prescription against sexual immorality.  All masters and rulers should ensure that their servants not practice uncleanness.  That is, there is a role for all with authority to make this a matter of their concern and not leave people to do as they please.

Conclusion

This summary of the content of the 11th Homily captures most of what was said as Scripture was used to encourage cultural reform in the 16th century.  It offers a challenge in the 21st century even more so, point by point. 

(1) The culture needs to hear from the Church that sexual immorality is a sin.  For that matter, many in the Church need this message too, including entire denominations that have sought to revise Christian teaching on the subject. 

(2) Arguments in the Church about these matters need to be Scriptural from beginning to end.

(3) Furthermore, sexual immorality is not merely a matter of outward behavior but also of the heart or desires.  Especially in the confusions over homosexuality that have undermined the Church in our day, this point has been put forward by distinguishing acts from orientation.  The homily concerns itself with this wrongful argument in some detail. 

(4) Scripture is consistent in its opposition to sexual immorality of every kind, including cohabitation among the unmarried, adultery among the married—including serial adultery by divorce—and homosexuality. 

(5) As was clear in the 16th century, the corruption of the whole person and the whole of society is abundantly clear. 

(6) In the 21st century, too little is heard of God’s warnings and punishments.  We might do well to consider with this homily how thoroughly Scripture challenges a witness that only attempts to woe people to a good life without warning them of the consequences of a bad life. 

(7) On the seventh point of the homily, offering examples of other cultures that have agreed with Christian teaching seems a rather weak argument.  From other research done by this author, however, one can argue that opposition to adultery in antiquity was, indeed, the norm across various cultures of the day.  The point needs qualification, but it will not challenge relativism.  This makes Christian witness more challenging in the 21st century than in the 16th century. 

(8) Spiritual disciplines do need teaching today.  For many, there is little to the Christian life than prayers of repentance and the assurance of God’s grace—an important start.  In fact, more might have been said in this homily about how spiritual disciplines following from Divine grace in Christ Jesus for sinners—all of us.  Reformation Anglicanism was and is firm on this conviction, however.

The topic of spiritual disciplines is also relevant for the present discussion about ‘conversion therapy.’  Some governments have or are trying to pass legislation against counsellors or the Church encouraging and helping people with same sex attraction to change.  Some therapies may well be inappropriate or inadequate, but the Church does not offer therapy.  Pastoral guidance is a spiritual matter, and corrections to behavior are also spiritual disciplines.  Yet more needs to be said, and it is only hinted at in this homily.  The Church’s teaching on conversion applies to all: we all need to turn from one path to walk in another.  Moreover, this turning is not something that can be done in our own strength—it is not, again, a therapy.  It is something that requires the empowering presence of God.  While we can speak about things that we can do to change our lives—acts, habits, and virtues of character—we must recognize the need for God’s forgiving and transforming grace in our lives.  The world not only does not want to convert; it wants to make the call to conversion illegal.  Some within the shells of what were once vibrant, orthodox churches also want to outlaw any discussion of changing homosexual desires.  They either affirm homosexuality itself or allow homosexual desires while counselling people to avoid homosexual acts. 

Finally, one thing that the homily does not address that is a challenge facing the Church today is the claim that there are more than two genders, male and female.  The Church needs to avoid using language like ‘LGBTQ+’ or ‘transgender’ if by doing so it allows people to think that Christians in any way affirm the notion that gender is distinct from biological sex.  The errors that Homily XI has in mind are ones of discounting the seriousness of sexual immorality, not an outright attack on God the Creator: ‘male and female he created them’ (Genesis 1.27).

---

[1] Homily XI may be read online: http://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom11.htm.

[2] My previous blog presented some key texts in Scripture on sexual immorality: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/02/an-apostolic-roundtable-on-christian.html.

An Apostolic Roundtable on Christian Sexuality and Culture

Imagine a roundtable discussion in the early Church with the apostles in attendance that addressed questions about sexuality and culture.  This 1st century discussion would not have been very different from a discussion in our day.  There were some teachers who approached the culture from Scripture, and others who approached Scripture from the influence of the culture.  The Christian apostles had to respond: would they maintain the sexual ethics of the Old Testament, an ethic from Judaism, even in a Gentile world, or would they accommodate their theology to the Graeco-Roman practices of their day?  This imaginary meeting that follows did, in fact, take place (Acts 15)—we just do not have details of the discussion.  Yet we do have the writings of the apostles in the New Testament, which are presented here.

In attendance of the imaginary meeting were Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and an unknown apostle who was writing a detailed work to a Hebrew church in the diaspora.  All agreed that sexual issues were not peripheral teaching in the Church, nor were they to be accommodated to the culture.  While some not part of the meeting apparently were suggesting that Christians could hold different views and still walk together, was this really true?  Could Christians really entertain a variety of views?  These were questions that could divide the Church—as they have done today.  What did the apostolic Church—authors of Scripture—conclude?

Paul spoke first, saying ‘“Flee sexual immorality.  Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?  You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.  So glorify God in your body”’ (1 Corinthians 6.18-20).  He looked around, adding, ‘Sexual immorality, impurity, and sensuality are works of the flesh.  “Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5.19, 21; cf. Ephesians 5.5). 

Matthew agreed, ‘I recall Jesus saying that out of the heart come various sins, including sexual immorality’ (15.19).  ‘Yes,’ said Mark, ‘He said that about sexual immorality, adultery, and sensuality along with other sins like murder, theft, and evil thoughts’ (7.20-23).  ‘He didn’t limit sin to acts, as some are in the habit of doing, but also spoke against sinful thoughts.’  Matthew said, ‘Oh, yes, He warned against lust, not just adultery’ (Matthew 5.27). 

John reflected, ‘“The world is passing away with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever’” (1 John 2.17). 

The rest looked at Peter and asked for his thoughts.  ‘Well,’ he said, ‘we have the classic example of Sodom and Gomorrah when we ask whether sexual ethics is a crucial concern for God.  Whatever their lawless deeds—deeds that God so dramatically punished—they especially included those who “indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority”’ (2 Peter 2.10).  Jude nodded.  ‘We must “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints,” and this faith includes understanding that God’s grace is not a license for sensuality.  I mean the sort of indulging in sexual immorality and unnatural desire that was found in Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 3-7). 

Paul added, ‘There is also the case of when the Israelites committed sexual immorality with Moabites and God turned His anger on them.  Some twenty-three thousand were killed by a plague’ (1 Corinthians 10.8; cf. Numbers 25.1-9). 

The unknown apostle agreed.  ‘Look, none of us are against sexuality, just immorality.  The proper place for sex is within the marriage between a husband and wife—“The marriage bed is undefiled.”  But “God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous”’ (Hebrews 13.4). 

“Frankly,” Luke said, “We’ve addressed this issue before in Jerusalem, and I’m glad to say that the same position was reached there.  Paul, Peter—you remember; you were there.  So was James, the brother of our Lord, as well as His disciples.  We even wrote a letter to the Gentile believers because we needed to decide what from the Old Testament law applied to them.  We said that they were to abstain from sexual immorality’ (Acts 15.20, 29; 21.25). 

‘I suppose,’ one of them reflected, ‘some people will say we are simply all about judgement and not very pastoral.’  ‘They will say that, for sure,’ said Paul.  ‘But the will of God is our sanctification’ (1 Thessalonians 4.3).  ‘I can’t imagine anything more pastoral than that.”  Peter nodded.  ‘Look, we know that those who do not know God think we are quite weird because we do not do what they do, “living in sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies,” and so on—living in a “flood of debauchery” (1 Peter 4.2-3). But we have Jesus Christ, the chief Shepherd” (5.4).  He suffered in the flesh, and we should too, ceasing from sin and no longer living for human passions but God’s will’ (4.1-2).

 Paul said, “God’s grace is not just about forgiveness; it is also about the transformation of unhealthy hearts and activities.  Pastoral care is the outworking of a life in Christ.  We could call it a kind of “conversion therapy,” as long as we mean by that that God’s power is at work within us (Ephesians 3.20; 1 Thessalonians 2.13). We are no longer to present our “members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness leading to more lawlessness” but to “righteousness leading to sanctification”’ (Romans 6.19).  ‘Yes,’ added the unknown apostle, ‘God is at work within us, equipping us “with everything good” so that we can do His will.  He works in us what is “pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ”’ (Hebrews 13.21).

Peter stood up.  'Good,' he said.  'We are at one on this crucial issue—everyone, everywhere, always.^[1] It is not a peripheral issue.  It is not one on which we can agree to disagree.  It is about continuing in Scriptural teaching and not following the culture, which opposes God's design for human sexuality.  Moreover, the Gospel itself is at stake here, for we believe that God has called us to holiness, forgiven our sins, and empowers us to live according to His good will.'  'And what if this splits the Church?' someone asked.  John stood up, '“If some go out from us, then we know that “they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us."  But if they go out, that only makes it "plain that they all are not of us"' (1 John 2.19).  Jude stood up, '"Certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designed for this condemnation, ungodly people who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality” (v. 4).  “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.  It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit" (18-19).

In an amazing twist to the event, a whirlwind and shaking took place in the room.  The apostles looked over to a corner of the room, expecting to see the Lord.  Instead, a red call box had arrived.  The door opened, and out stepped several mainline denomination leaders.  'Time machine,' one of them explained, with a wave of his hand to the call box.  'Twenty-first century,' another said, with a proud smile.  The apostles blinked in astonishment.  'So,' said another of the new arrivals, 'sorry we’re a little late.  Have we missed anything in your proceedings?  Never mind.  Hope we can move quickly to find a way to bless cohabitation and same-sex marriages.  Even when we disagree, the main thing is walking together: unity in community, not bothering with the fine print, right?  Must stay relevant to culture--especially Western culture--if we're to be liked by everyone, everywhere, and always.'

---

[1] This reference is to St. Vincent of Lérins’ understanding of orthodoxy as what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.  See The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins (2.6).  Vincent is not arguing that these criteria stand alone, giving final authority to the Church, but regard the interpretation of Scripture, which is itself sufficient for everything (2.5), were it not for disagreement over interpretation.  Church tradition has to do with interpretation, not a second authority independent from Scripture.