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.
Comments