Introduction
The
promotion of prayers and blessings for same sex unions in the Church of England
continues to rely on old arguments that have often been shown to be faulty over
the past sixty years. This is certainly
true of arguments in a recent article by Savitri Hensman in the Church of England Newspaper entitled,
‘Why Synod should say yes to prayers of love and faith.’ Her article is brief but raises several
points worth a response as long as debates continue and view of the upcoming
synod discussing prayers for same sex unions.
The present essay responds to twelve points (by my arrangement) raised
by Hensman and offers a Biblically informed, theological and logical response.
Point 1: Progressive Enlightenment or
Ecclesial Enculturation?
Hensman
claims that there ‘has been a major shift in Christian thinking about same sex
love and partnerships.’ More accurately,
only mainline denominations in the West, which have seen dramatic and
consistent shrinkage in size and influence over the past sixty years, have seen
a major shift in thinking about same sex partnerships. These same denominations also express support
for abortion, and both of these issues represent changes in values in a
post-Christian, Western society. In
other words, any shift in Christian thinking within these denominations about
moral issues arises out of syncretism with post-Christian culture rather than
any serious theological argument.
Implied
in the progressive argument that there is a major shift to a desired new position
on sexuality is the Enlightenment notion that Western culture is the vanguard
of civilisation. Even the post-Christian
culture of postmodernity is viewed as evolutionary progress. The long march through the West’s social
institutions, including the Church, is welcomed. Progressivism first requires deconstruction,
and deconstruction requires a break from old authorities—like the Bible and
orthodoxy—and old voices. What revisionist
has ever cited the Church Fathers or Reformers?
The voices cited in the progressive arguments are only from the past
several decades and mostly from the West.
The much applauded, progressive enlightenment of revisionists in the
Church is nothing other than ecclesial enculturation.
Point 2: Is the Unity Claimed by Revisionists
Unity in Theological Arguments or in Political Objectives?
Hensman
further makes the false assumption that the revisionist view on sexuality is
unified. One might expect that a march
through the institutions of the Church is a unified march, but this is one of
the great ironies. Two approaches on the
part of scholars advocating same sex unions need to be identified and discussed
separately. One has to do with the
interpretation of the texts in Scripture (exegesis), the other has to do with how
to use Scripture in theological and ethical arguments (hermeneutics).
Revisionist
arguments about how to interpret Biblical passages contradict one another—there
is no unity. What they have in common is
their political objective—that the Church should approve of same sex
partnerships. Exegetical arguments serve
their purpose for a day, only to be tossed aside when they are proven to have
no legitimacy and were sheer speculation.
These arguments serve like foot soldiers falling moments after going
over the top of their trenches to charge the enemy—orthodox Christianity.
Examples of Exegetical Diversity, not
Unity, Among Revisionists
For
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13, some have suggested, perhaps we can limit the
meaning of this apodictic law to purity—but in what sense? Is the context purity in the sense of simply
being different from the surrounding nations, the Canaanites and Egyptians? Or is it purity in the sense of not
participating in fertility cults? Or is
it purity from an unclean practice like anal sex? If one finds this limitation of the text
wanting, perhaps the argument that these texts are opposing the spilling of
seed (and have nothing to do with lesbianism), as Jacob Milgrom proposed. If the argument fails that sins listed in
Leviticus 18 were merely purity laws, not moral laws per se, then how about sending another argument over the top that
they were sins only because they were sexual practices in Canaanite fertility
religions? Or maybe one could say that Leviticus
18.22 is not about homosexuality but about men acting like women and playing a
female role in a patriarchal society? A related but different suggestion tossed
into the mix was proposed by Dan Via: perhaps the prohibition is against
heterosexual males engaging in homosexual sex.
If
the argument fails that Paul was condemning pederasty in Romans 1.26-27,
then perhaps another argument could be sent over the top that Paul was merely scoring
a point with sexually abused, Christian slaves? I have discussed six, different revisionist
interpretations of just Romans 1.26-27 in Unchanging
Witness. If
one admits that Biblical texts really are united in opposing homosexuality, perhaps the way to approve of them can be
found in a potentially opposing, vague a principle like ‘justice for the marginilised’. Of
interest is how the battle is progressing, not whether arguments are consistent
or stand. Yet contradictory arguments do
not a consistent argument make. Let us
not pretend that we have seen a ‘major shift in Christian thinking’ on the
issue if consistency in argumentation is needed. Instead, we have seen major confusion on the
disunited side of revisionists agreed only in their desire to oppose orthodox
Christian teaching on sexuality. That
some Biblical scholars and theologians have participated in this confusion
hardly represents a ‘powerful case’ for revision.
Revisionist Consistency in Rejecting
Biblical Authority
As
already noted, consistency does appear in the conclusion revisionists wish to affirm, no matter the
arguments. Any route is considered valid
if it leads to the top of the hill, and the top of the hill is affirmation of
same sex unions. Despite their different
arguments, revisionists are united on one point: the rejection of Biblical
authority. When Presbyterian scholar Robin
Scroggs abandoned his argument that Paul was opposing pederasty, all he had
left was to say that we should abandon Scriptural authority. When Evangelical Lutheran Church of America
scholar Arland Hultgren, opposing the orthodox view, entertained the thought
that his exegetical arguments might be wrong, his response was that his
denomination had already opposed Scripture on the issue of divorce. When Methodist scholar Walter Wink argued
that the Bible had no consistent sexual ethic, his conclusion was that we are
in the position of approving or disapproving of the collection of unreflective
mores we find in it. As New Testament scholar (former Jesuit) Luke
Timothy Johnson admitted,
I think it important that to state clearly that we do,
in fact, reject the straight-forward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead
to another authority when we declare that same sex unions can be holy and good.
More
recently, Presbyterian scholar, now involved in a Methodist communion, Walter
Brueggemann has made his case for same sex unions despite the clear teaching of Scripture passages mentioning the
subject by appealing to what readers can
do with the Bible to suit their contemporary interests.
While
I address exegetical and hermeneutical matters in much greater depth in Unchanging Witness, the examples
presented here make the case that Hensman is quite wrong to suggest that there
is a unity in arguments, including exegetical arguments, for same sex unions by
Biblical scholars. Rather, Biblical
scholars who have supported same sex unions have propped their view up by a
whole variety of arguments at odds with one another. Where there is unity is not in the arguments
but in the commitment to the conclusion.
One way or another, they have attempted to find a path to the view that
they wish to hold, and not a few have done so simply by admitting that they do
not believe in Biblical authority. To quote Jesus, 'You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!' (Mark 7.9).
Points 3-9: Faulty Arguments
Hensman
further claims that
numerous biblical scholars and other theologians have
made a powerful case that the handful of Bible passages sometimes quoted in
discussions on sexuality cannot be applied to lifelong, faithful, self-giving
relationships.
This statement is fraught with errors (points
3-7).
Point
3: Is the Number of Scholars and Texts Significant?
‘We
do not count witnesses, we weigh them,’ goes the saying in textual criticism,
and this applies to the law court as well.
If we really believe that a large number of scholars holding to the same
conclusion (whatever their arguments) proves something to be true, then we
would have sided with the scribes and Pharisees against Jesus Himself. Neither the number of scholars nor the
conclusions of scholars but the arguments of scholars count.
Nor
is the number of texts in Scripture relevant: ‘all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching,
for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness’ (2 Timothy
3.16). The texts directly addressing the issue of homosexuality are: Genesis
1.27; 2.21-25; 19; Leviticus 18.22; 20.13; Romans 1.26-27; 1 Corinthians 6.9; 1
Timothy 1.10; 2 Peter 2.2, 6-10, 18; Jude 7-8.
These are not a ‘few passages,’ but more importantly they provide
different kinds of consistent witness: testimony from different genre
(narrative, law, theological argument in epistles), different contexts (the
Ancient Near East, Jewish, Graeco-Roman), both Old and New Testaments,
different authors, and different time periods over centuries. There is also
intertextual support: Genesis 19 needs to be read in light of Genesis 1 and 2
and Judges 19, Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 need to be read in light of Genesis 1
and 2, Romans 2 alludes to the Genesis creation accounts, 1 Corinthians 6.9 to
Leviticus 20.13, 1 Timothy 1.10 to Exodus 20.14/Deuteronomy 5.18 (the 7th
Commandment), and either Jude 7 or 2 Peter 2 is in agreement with the other
(they are literarily related). One might
say that the texts on homosexuality are interlocked. Moreover, the consistent view taken that
homosexuality is a sin coheres with the sexual ethics of Scripture, and so the
‘few texts’ of Scripture addressing homosexuality becomes the full witness of Scripture. The consistent teaching in Scripture that
homosexuality is a sin was also the understanding of the early Church and the
Church throughout subsequent centuries.
The
analogy with textual criticism is further helpful. Two key reasons that more manuscript copies have
the wrong witness to the original reading of Biblical texts are that (1) some
significant break occurred in the textual tradition (like Islam overtaking
Christianity in North Africa and Turkey) and (2) later manuscripts are more
numerous. In the same way, the current
ecclesiastical crisis in the Church over sexuality and marriage is firstly due
to a significant break from Church teaching.
A Western, post-Christian culture has invaded the Western Church,
breaking historical continuity with orthodoxy.
Secondly, our theological dialogue depends too heavily on very recent
voices. For an historical Church to ignore
its rich theological history and rely on arguments by recent, inventive
activists (even ones with no theological education) is indicative of a failure
of theological discourse in the Church itself lying at the heart of our current
crisis.
Point
4: Is the Evidence from Numerous Other Scholars and the Convictions of Orthodox
Theologians to be Ignored?
Even
supposing for argument’s sake that it is true that, among these revisionists
are ‘numerous biblical scholars,’ it is also true that numerous other biblical scholars have demonstrated that the
Church’s 2,000 year old interpretation about sexuality and marriage is sound. Some Biblical scholars in favour of same sex
unions have, nevertheless, stated that the Bible itself opposes this. That is, their academic work leads to a
different conclusion from their convictions.
Indeed, the evidence has been thoroughly evaluated and written up for
all to read, and it is incontrovertibly clear that Scripture consistently
opposes same sex unions, as has the Church throughout its history until the
past few decades. Anyone presenting the ‘handful of texts’
argument not only seems to have a faulty interpretation of particular texts but
also appears to have a faulty doctrine of Scripture, a faulty hermeneutic, a
faulty approach to Biblical theology and the canon, and a faulty view of
Biblical sexuality and ethics.
Those
who recognise that the Biblical texts consistently oppose same sex unions but
who are in favour of them hold the further view that the Bible is wrong and not
authoritative on this matter. Thus, the
question turns from one of exegesis to whether (or how) Christianity will
survive in the post-Christian West. Will
it survive as orthodoxy or as some sort of syncretism with a post-Christian
culture? The Church must decide whether
it really believes, as orthodoxy holds, that the Bible is the Word of God, or
that it is just a foundational ‘document’ to be used as it pleases by an
allegedly more authoritative, contemporary Church.
If
the latter, then this syncretistic Church must further define the ‘Church,’ since
the vast majority of Christians today continue to hold that the Bible is the
Word of God and not to be tossed aside as inconvenient or inventively twisted on
a matter like human sexuality. How far
does the revisionist view of Scripture also revise the meaning of ‘the
Church’? Does a majority faction in the
Church of England, partnered with some other, small provinces but constituting
less than 20% of the Anglican Communion get to define the Church’s
teaching? Whether Scripture or the
Church is held to be the authority, the revisionists’ view fails.
Point
5: Are Theology and Ethics Determined by Scripture or by Relationships?
By
their own testimony, a number of these revisionist ‘biblical scholars’ have
stated outrightly that their view changed in favour of same sex relationships
not because of new insight into the meaning of Biblical texts but because of
some close family member who was involved in a same sex relationship. To cite examples would be to come too close
to an unnecessary ad hominem argument,
but those following this debate will know off-hand of a number of such
scholars. The reason for changing their
position is not exegetical but relational. The view that relationships decide
ethical arguments (a type of moral emotivism) carries considerable weight in
the West at this time, while the Biblical witness is often silenced. This was part of the reason for endless
dialogue and listening to others and the language of ‘walking together’ on the
issue of same sex attraction and unions, rather than theological discussion.
Jesus
actually addressed this in His own context, saying that He had not come to
bring peace but division on the earth.
Five people in one household would be divided against each other (Luke
12.51-53; Matthew 10.34-35). The reason
for this division is apparent from Jesus’ allusion to Micah 7: ‘The godly has
perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind’ (v.
2). When the righteousness of the Kingdom
of God arrives in the midst of godlessness, not unity but further division
occurs, even to the dividing of the strongest relational ties of families. Nevertheless, wanting unity, a number of
Biblical scholars and theologians who have weighed in on the side of changing
Church teaching on sexuality have done so not because of their Biblical
scholarship or devotion to God but because of their devotion to
relationships. When this is so, we must
not pretend that what they say has the backing of Biblical scholarship or
theological integrity.
Point
6: How are Moral Acts and Law (Rules) Related to Ethics?
The
claim that Biblical texts condemning same sex acts do not apply to same sex relationships
that are ‘lifelong, faithful, self-giving’ is an unsubstantiated claim that
also harbours a faulty understanding of Biblical ethics. It is unsubstantiated because the Biblical
texts themselves never make a distinction between acts and relationships along
these lines. Scripture begins with an
understanding that certain acts are
sinful, as we see in the Old Testament Law.
Certain relationships are wrong on the grounds that they are defined by
specific, sinful acts—as in the case of same sex relationships.
Moreover,
good law is law that can be applied to different cases, and good case law is
also considered good when it can be applied more broadly to other cases. First Timothy 1.9-10 applies the fifth
through the ninth of the Ten Commandments to additional things. The seventh commandment not to commit
adultery is applied to the sexually immoral and men who practice homosexuality
(with an allusion to Leviticus 20.13 in the wording). Philo the Jew also applied this commandment
to sexual immorality in various forms, including homosexuality (Special Laws 3).
The
‘legalism’ of the Pharisees was not their adherence to law but their holding to
the letter of the law in order to avoid its wider application. Thus, Jesus said, ‘Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5.20). We sometimes witness Jesus confronting the scribes and
Pharisees for their avoiding a law by claiming some circumstantial
qualification, as in the case of korban. This involved dedicating something to God in
order to maintain ownership instead of using assets to care for one’s parents
in need (Mark 7.9-13). As Jesus said to
them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to
establish your tradition’ (v. 9). This
is the same sort of hermeneutical gymnastics sometimes used by revisionists
today. They search for ways to limit the
meaning and application of an apodictic law (one encompassing absolute, general
commandments) like Leviticus 20.13: ‘If
a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.’ They
confine Paul’s words about the sin of lesbianism and homosexuality to some imagined
context when, in fact, Paul is commenting on what is ‘according to nature’ (not
contextually limited) because of God’s creational intent (Romans 1.24-28).
The
revisionist argument involves certain false assumptions about ‘lifelong,
committed, self-giving’ relationships.
What is really meant by these three qualifications? If the relationship ends in ten years, does
one then say that this was long enough to justify or short enough to condemn the
previous ten years of the union? If it
continues for many years but no longer exhibits commitment and self-giving
love, should the pastor counsel the couple to divorce? Just how might we apply these qualifications
to Bishop Gene Robinson, the showcase for Episcopalian revisionism, who
divorced his wife to marry a man, then divorced the man? Or, if a marriage is incestuous while
exhibiting these characteristics, is it made legitimate despite Biblical
teaching against incest?
Point
7: Are There Any False Teachers in the Church or Just Two Legitimate, Though
Opposing, Views?
The
Church needs to be aware that there have always been false teachers and
misleading pastors in its midst, particularly on issues of sexuality (cf. 2
Peter 2; Jude; Revelation 2.14, 20). This is true of the revisionists who ‘draw
iniquity with cords of falsehood’ and ‘call evil good and good evil’ (Isaiah 5.18,
20). From a Biblical perspective,
marriage is the ‘one flesh’ union possible only between a man and a woman
(Genesis 2.24), and it is covenantal. Covenants
are binding and therefore not to be made with sinners (cf. 2 Corinthians
6.14). The problem with marrying foreign
women, for example, was that they introduced idolatry into Israel (Deuteronomy
7.3-4; 1 Kings 11.8; Ezra 10.3, 11, 14, 19).
One does not justify interfaith marriage because it may be a lifelong, committed,
and self-giving relationship. Valuable
as these characteristics are in many relationships, including marriage, they fail
as sufficient criteria for the approval of a marriage (cf. 1 Corinthians 7.39). A marital covenant is not justifiable on the
grounds of it being ‘lifelong, committed, and self-giving’ but on the grounds
that it is firstly a legitimate union and secondly that it does not draw one
into sin. If Scripture calls homosexual acts sinful, one can hardly justify
homosexual relationships, let alone marriages, because they are lifelong,
committed, and self-giving. In fact,
lifelong, committed, and self-giving homosexual unions turn the sin of
homosexual acts into recalcitrant disobedience to God.
Sinful
humanity seeks permanence, acceptability, and praise for its sin so that it
might feel justified. It nurtures a
sinful act into a habit that is, in truth, a disordered passion (a besetting
sin), and then false teachers call it a virtue and applaud others in its
pursuit. Finally, it is blessed and
celebrated by false pastors in the midst of the Church. Referring back in part to homosexuality in
Romans 1.26-27, Paul says, ‘Though they know
God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die [cf.
Leviticus 20.13], they not only do them but give approval to those who practice
them’ (Romans 1.32). James
explained this dynamic of temptation and sin, mentioning also the error of some
in saying that their besetting temptation was from God:
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,”
for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15
Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully
grown brings forth death (1.13-15).
Jeremiah
warns against the shepherds who lead God’s people astray (50.6). He says,
The priests did not say, ‘Where is
the LORD?’
Those who handle the law
did not know me;
the shepherds transgressed against me;
the prophets prophesied
by Baal
and went after things
that do not profit (2.8).
Again, God
says through Jeremiah,
“Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of my
pasture!” declares the LORD. 2 Therefore thus says the LORD, the God
of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered
my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold,
I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the LORD (23.1-2).
In
response, God promises, ‘And I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who
will feed you with knowledge and understanding’ (Jeremiah 3.15). Only one group of shepherds has the heart of
God.
Point 8: Is Pastoral Care Just Situation
Ethics and Rogerian Therapy?
Hensman
claims that this change of ‘thinking’ in the Church is also a ‘more pastoral
approach’. In this, she very likely confuses pastoral care with situation
ethics: ‘do the loving thing.’ The
guidance of ‘doing the loving thing’ in a given situation entails a rejection
of right and wrong acts and an endorsement of existentialist, Rogerian
therapy. The pastoral role becomes one
of helping people to own their choices—an authentic existence—and a warm,
loving acceptance of them as persons, whatever they choose.
Such
a view cannot be held consistently either in ethics or in pastoral care. Would we suggest the same approach to
murderers or pedophiles or—horror of horrors—earth destroying coal miners and
carbon emitters? We might reduce this
argument to absurdity: would a more pastoral approach to care for, say, Josef
Mengele, the ‘Angel of Death’ doctor of Auschwitz, have been to show him
inclusion and acceptance regardless of his use of children for torturous and
lethal drug experiments and surgeries?
The point is that pastoral care cannot be separated from convictions
about what is right and wrong, let alone replace them. Nor should it be construed as affirmation of
one’s choices or actions, or of the person who makes choices and acts. We have come to this point in a world than claims
there is no right or wrong, good or evil, but that cannot live consistently
with its own view.
Point 9: Does Genesis 19 Have to do with
Homosexuality?
Revisionist
exegesis has failed time and again either to disprove orthodox interpretations
of Biblical texts speaking to the issue of same sex acts and relationships or to
offer a unified argument of its own. No
revisionist argument has even momentary legitimacy unless it addresses why other
revisionist and orthodox interpretations of texts are wrong. Revisionist exegesis relies only on floating
a potential interpretation of a text without disproving other interpretations.
Savitri
Hensman chooses to focus on Genesis 19, the story of Sodom’s destruction. She at least pays attention to one of the
relevant Biblical texts. She says that
Abraham’s ‘generous welcome of the [heavenly] visitors brings new life and
abundant blessings’ over against the men of Sodom’s ‘cruel intent’ and lack of
‘consensual love’ (Genesis 18-19). Her
wording refocuses the story on intentions, consensual relationships, and the ‘neglect
of socially vulnerable groups.’ Of
course, the sin of Gomorrah did not involve the three specific sins in the
Sodom visitation narrative of (1) same sex acts, (2) violent rape, and (3) the withholding
of protection under the law for strangers.
These sins are only representative of the many sins of Sodom and
Gomorrah. Genesis earlier stated that
‘the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the LORD’ (Genesis 13.13;
cf. 18.20). Yet, among Sodom’s sins was
sexual immorality, and the greatness of this sin was illustrated in the
unnatural sex of men with men.
When
Sodom’s sins are described in a later Biblical text as ‘pride, excess of food,
and prosperous ease’ instead of aiding the poor and needy (Ezekiel 16.49), this
does not limit our understanding of Genesis 19 to these sins only. Hensman prefers a non-sexual interpretation of
Sodom’s sin, of course, and her argument fails academically in that it presents
a single line of argument without engaging the evidence fully and without
answering other views. In a brief
article, of course, one can hardly do justice to the interpretation of a
specific Biblical text. Still, if her
purpose for writing is merely to persuade an audience and not to make a
credible argument, then readers need to be warned that one is only reading
persuasive rhetoric.
We
might offer a few serious challenges to Hensman’s interpretation in the brief
space available here. Jewish
interpretation of the story of Sodom included the view that homosexuality was
one of its sins. The Testament of Naphtali refers to
homosexuality in Sodom as departing ‘from the order of nature’ (4.5). The Testament
of Jacob similarly applies Sodom’s sin to those who ‘have sexual
intercourse with males,’ and it says that such persons will not inherit the
kingdom of God (7.20)—as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 6.9-10.
In
2 Peter 2, the sin of Sodom is also presented as an example of sexual sin—‘sensuality’ (the vice of sexual
intemperance, aselgeia) (v. 2). God rescued Lot from the ‘sensual conduct’ of
the men of Sodom (v. 7). Thus, ‘the Lord
knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under
punishment until the day of judgement, and especially those who indulge in the
lust of defiling passion and despise authority’ (v. 10). We also find this sexual interpretation of
Sodom’s sin in the parallel passage of Jude 7: ‘… just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding
cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural
desire [lit. ‘other flesh’]….’ Any
limitation of Sodom’s sins to something like pride and not understanding them
to include homosexual sin is a failure in both exegesis and canonical reading.
We
also need to ask revisionist interpreters like Hensman at this late date in the
arguments of the past sixty years why they continue to ignore opposing
exegetical arguments. The important primary
sources have been gone over in detail time and again and lead to a very clear
conclusion that Scripture is, indeed, saying that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, revisionists pay slight attention to
exegesis in part because they find themselves disadvantaged by what these texts
clearly say, in part because they do not view Scripture as either authoritative
or definitive, and in part because they are uncomfortable with objective truth,
especially when their own dogmatic claims are being challenged.
Point 10: Were There Long Term,
Committed, Self-Giving, Marriage-Life Same Sex Unions in Antiquity?
Hensman
dives into the matter of whether same sex relationships in antiquity were ever
long term, committed, self-giving, and marriage-like. She does not explain why she engages with
this argument. She answers ‘no,’ perhaps
because she is concerned that, if there were such relationships, then Biblical
passages opposing homosexuality could not be dismissed merely as referring to abusive relationships. The argument that we now know better than the
ancients did about sexual orientation and can approve of loving, homosexual
marriages that were unknown in antiquity has, after all, been suggested from
time to time.
Thus,
Hensman dismisses certain examples of same sex, adult relationships in
antiquity on the grounds that some examples were abusive, short lived, or
otherwise not ‘faithful lifelong loving partnerships between equals of the same
sex.’ She surmises that, ‘No doubt, then
as now, some people yearned for a lover they could settle down with openly and
faithfully on a basis of equality and mutual care, until parted by death.’ She
assumes that ‘… this was hard to achieve’ because, in antiquity, such
relationships were ‘deeply hierarchical.’
This
argument, such as it is, will not stand in light of what evidence we have. Antiquity did know of people who entered same
sex relationships that were either characterised as marriage-like or that
actually involved nuptials. Both the notion
of same sex marriages and the reality of some such relationships were present
in the Graeco-Roman world. As today,
some were short-lived or abusive, as Hensman says, but not all.
Thus,
we have Aristotle’s comment that an Olympic victor, Philolaus, lived until the
end of life with Diocles, and they were buried close together (Politics 2.96-97). Plutarch tells a similar story of Epaminondas
and Caphisodoros, who were also buried together (Erotikos 761). Interpreters
sometimes claim that Cicero’s allegation about Mark Antony and Curio may have
been polemical, but it does provide an example of the notion of same sex
‘wedlock’ being entertained in antiquity ( Philippics
2.44-45). The same sex union of the
emperor Varro and Zoticus included a nuptial ceremony (Aelius Lampridius, Elagalus 10.5). Nero’s marriage to a male, Sporus, was
undoubtedly one-sided and abusive (Suetonius, Nero 28), but it is another example of the notion of same sex
marriage in antiquity. Martial’s mention
of ‘bearded Callistratus’ marriage to ‘rugged Afer in the usual form in which a
virgin marries a husband’ seems a fine example from antiquity of same sex
marriage (Epigrams 12.42). Martial also mentions Decianus with the
‘rough hair’ (no effeminate, smooth, soft male) who ‘took a husband yesterday’
(Epigrams 1.24). Nor should we dismiss Juvenal’s testimony of
same sex ‘marriage’ as mere satire: he is protesting the commonness of the
practice in Rome even if there may be some hyperbole (Satire II, lines 117-140).
Ptolemy mentions that some lesbians designate their lovers as their
lawful wives (Tetrabiblos III.14.172).
Lucian says that Magilla, a woman, identified and dressed as a male and took
another woman, Demonassa, as a wife (Dialogues
of the Courtesans 5.1-4). Iamblichos
produced a novel in which, apparently, two women married (Babyloniaka). A fantasy
novel by Lucian (2nd c. AD) imagines a trip to the moon where there
were no females; the men married other men and carried children in their legs (Vera Historia 1.22). These examples also cohere with a society in
which ‘soft males’ (cf. 1 Corinthians 6.9) who shaved, dressed, and acted like
women were well known.
In
the Jewish work, Sifre Ahare, the
commentary on Leviticus 18.22—the passage forbidding same sex acts of men—is
related to men marrying men and women marrying women (9.8). Genesis
Rabbah (26.6) and Leviticus Rabbah (23.9)
refer to, and therefore are evidence of, marriage between males. Marriage contracts between males are
forbidden in the Babylonian Talmud (bHullin
92b), thus they must have been known in antiquity. An explicit law against male-male ‘marriage’
was passed in the early Christian era (Theodotian
Code 9.7.3; AD 432). This code also
called for death by burning for men performing a homosexual sex (9.7.6; AD
399). Apparently, the practices were familiar
enough in pre-Christian times.
While
Hensman raises the issue of ‘faithful, committed, self-giving’ homosexual
relationships, even marriage, my expansion of examples known to us in antiquity
takes us to the conclusion she hoped to avoid.
They demonstrate both the existence of such relationships in antiquity
and the opposition expressed by Jews and Christians to them. The examples also demonstrate that statements
against homosexual acts in the New Testament were made with full knowledge of
persons in the Gentile culture who maintained long term and loving same sex
unions, even unions that were, at times, conducted as ‘marriages.’ As antiquity was familiar with what persons
such as Hensman advocate in our day, we should appreciate that her opponents are
in continuity with their orthodox, Christian ancestors.
Point 11: Does Love Eclipse Law?
Hensman
mistakes passages calling for love in the New Testament for antinomianism. She believes that she has latched onto an
understanding of Christian ethics in which love eclipses law, in which there is
a principle to seek ‘greater acceptance’ through love. This, of course, becomes a warrant for contradicting
Scripture, with statements against homosexuality, and approving same sex
unions. She says,
Paul’s anti-legalistic insistence (Rom. 13.8-10; Gal.
5.1-15) should not be ignored. Nor
should Jesus’ emphasis on love of God and neighbour [Mark 12.30-31], treating
others as one would wish to be treated and seeking good fruit (Luke 10.25-37;
Matthew 7.12, 15-20), his outrageous declaration that the Sabbath was made for
humans, not vice versa; or the centrality of love elsewhere in the New
Testament.
Some
response to these references is called for to show that they do not support
same sex acts or relationships. First, one
might begin by noting that Hensman’s position requires assuming that Paul
flipped between a legal ethic in his sin lists and a love ethic in other
places. Also, Paul would have to be read
in opposition to the Old Testament law as Hensman understands it—as would other
‘love ethic’ New Testament figures from Jesus to James. However, Paul’s view on homosexual acts is in
continuity with the Old Testament, as his use of language (‘arsenokoitai’) in 1 Corinthians 6.9 and
1 Timothy 1.10 from Leviticus 22.13 strongly suggests. His understanding of homosexuality as a sin
in Romans 1.26-27 is based on the Genesis creation story. Nor did Paul, or any New Testament author,
ever oppose the sexual ethics of the Old Testament; he took it for granted.
Furthermore,
the ‘love command’ in the New Testament was not a replacement of the Law but a
way of interpreting the Law. ‘Love’
already functions this way in the Old Testament. God gave the Law out of love, and obedience
to the Law was an expression of love to God (e.g., Deuteronomy 6.4-6;
10.12-13). The law to love one’s
neighbour as oneself comes from Leviticus 19.18. The many laws dealing with how to or not to
relate to others are examples of this law of love. Moreover, the emphasis on love in the New
Testament authors is not without their lists of sins. One simply cannot oppose the Old Testament
laws with a New Testament ethic of love.
To do so demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of Old Testament, New
Testament, and Biblical ethics.
The
Ten Commandments included Laws relating to God (Commandments 1-4) and Laws
relating to one’s neighbour (Commandments 5-10). Jesus declared that these two sections of the
Ten Commandments were expressions of love toward God and one’s neighbour. Love was not understood to replace the Law:
on the two Love Commandments hung all the
Law and the prophets (Matthew 22.40).
The Ten Commandments, furthermore, were a way of capturing topical headings
under which other laws could be grouped. The 7th Commandment not to commit
adultery, for example, introduces the more general topic of sexual
immorality. Thus, the Mosaic laws
related to the Ten Commandments, and they themselves were laws of love of God
or laws of love of neighbour. Far from
opposing the Old Testament laws to some new love ethic with ‘greater
acceptance,’ the New Testament follows an Old Testament understanding of law in
relation to love.
Indeed,
Jesus declared that He had not come to abolish the Law or the prophets (Matthew
5.17). Laws against sexual immorality,
including homosexuality, cannot be seen as hindrances to ‘greater acceptance’ in
a new love ethic but are expressions of love toward others. As Paul says in 1 Thessalonians,
For this is the will of God, your
sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that
each one of you know how to control his own body [lit. ‘vessel’] in holiness
and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not
know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this
matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you
(4.3-6).
Sexual
immorality—in whatever form—is understood as a transgression against and
wronging of one’s brother. That is, it
is the opposite of love towards one’s neighbour. Jesus’ challenge to the scribes and Pharisees
was their lawlessness, their finding
ways around the Law with legal arguments—as one finds today with those who
twist the obvious meaning of texts condemning homosexual acts with some
creative interpretation that gives them license to do precisely what the texts
forbid.
In
the context of an article (Hensman’s) in favour of same sex acts and
relationships, an appeal to Jesus’ Great Commandment to do to others as one
might wish they do to oneself is another example of twisting Scripture. One would hardly apply this to religious
pluralism, as though God really wanted us, out of love and the promotion of
diversity and inclusion, to celebrate others’ worship of other gods. Hensman further comment about ‘seeking good
fruit’ is unclear in the essay, but it may have to do with Bishop Croft of Oxford
attempting to apply Matthew 7.15-20 to the issue. Ironically, this passage applies to the false
prophets (interpreters of the Law) who work lawlessness (v. 23) among disciples
of Christ. They are false prophets who
are like ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing who go in among the sheep, or who
are like thornbushes and thistles that grow among the fruit. Jesus’ point is to beware of people who say,
‘Lord, Lord’ but teach falsehood. They
will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7.21).
Hensman
calls Jesus’ declaration that the Sabbath was made for humans ‘outrageous’,
meaning it was a shocking teaching because it opposed the Law. To be sure, it was a challenge to the interpretation given by poor
interpreters of Scripture in Jesus’ day.
Jesus’ teaching, however, was consistent with the Old Testament
understanding of the Sabbath law, as we see in Deuteronomy:
On it [the Sabbath] you shall not do any work, you or your son or
your daughter or your male servant or your female servant, or your ox or your
donkey or any of your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates,
that your male servant and your female servant may rest as well as you (5.14).
Jesus’
understanding of the Sabbath being for humans is precisely what Deuteronomy
states. One cannot say that Jesus is
opposing Old Testament Law as law in favour of ‘greater acceptance.’ He is correcting a misinterpretation of the
Law that made it a burden rather than a blessing. This argument, nonetheless, has nothing to do
with sexual ethics. We might say,
however, that some interpreters have regularly confused New Testament
corrections to misinterpretations of the Law for an opposition to the Law
itself.
Point 12: The Alleged ‘Good’ of
Homosexual Relationships
Hensman
concludes her brief essay with a reference to the ‘good’ of homosexual and
heterosexual relationships. They show,
she claims,
tender and self-giving care for the sick and frail,
mutual support in serving communities, caring for the needy, defending the weak
and creating beauty and sharing in joy which overspills to family and
neighbours.
To
suggest that such examples of friendship, support, care, defense, and
creativity are connected to sexual morality, or that the sexually immoral
cannot exhibit such good qualities, involves a confusion in no small
measure. Hensman appears to have
confused the good that we all do, sinners though we are, with the ethical
notion of ‘internal goods’.
‘Internal
goods’ refers to the good inherent in a thing itself, regardless of external
factors. Binary sexuality and
heterosexuality (Genesis 1.27), for example, have the internal good of
producing children, multiplying upon the earth (v. 28). Marriage has the internal good of reuniting
the male with the female taken from his side that they might again be ‘one
flesh’ (Genesis 2.21-24). While we might
say that friendship also has internal goods, not every type of ‘friendship’ or
relationship has internal goods specific to its kind. Paul as much as states that homosexual
relations involves an ‘internal bad’: ‘men
committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty
for their error’ (Romans 1.27). What
makes a ‘one flesh’ union with a prostitute a sin is not its not being a
lifelong, committed, self-giving relationship (as with courtesans) but its
being a sinful union in itself (1 Corinthians 6.15-16). So, too, same sex unions.
Conclusion
The
real question before the Church of England is whether any arguments really
matter after these many years and divisions over the issue of same sex
unions. The debate is no longer
theological, let alone exegetical; it is wholly political. Articles like Hensman’s seem to provide a
smokescreen to give the appearance that exegesis and theology matter to
revisionists. Still, one may find here
and there some young person getting up to speed with the arguments, and the
hope here is that these responses might supply a helpful orientation to
Biblical, orthodox teaching in the Anglican Communion on this issue where it
can be found—and it is to be found in the vast majority of churches, dioceses,
and provinces despite the present storm in the English teapot.
[1] Savitri
Hensman, ‘Why Synod should say yes to prayers of love and faith,’ Church
of England Newspaper (23 June, 2023).
[2] Cf.
Lesa Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My
Neighbor? A Positive Christian Response, rev. ed. (New York:
HarperCollins, 1994).
[3] Jacob
Milgrom, Leviticus, A Book of Ritual and Ethics, A Continental
Commentary (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2004), pp. 196-197.
[4] My
response to this peculiar suggestion may be found here: Rollin G. Grams,
‘Misinterpreting Scripture: David Runcorn on Leviticus 18.22 and the Need to
Read Scripture in Literary Context,’ Bible and Mission (23 December,
2016); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/12/misinterpreting-scripture-bishop-david.html (accessed
26 June, 2023).
[5] Dan
Via in Dan Otto Via and Robert Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two
Views (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), pp. 6-7.
[6] Robin
Scroggs successfully held the ground for revisionists in the 1980s with this
argument, only to acknowledge later that it was wrong. Even so, other
scholars continued to argue the issue was pederasty in the 1990s—one still
finds this argument mentioned, so popular it was at the beginning of the
revisionists’ argument. Mark Smith put the pederasty argument to rest
academically in 1996. Cf. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and
Homosexuality (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1983), note p. 139
especially. Mark Smith, ‘Ancient Bisexuality and the Interpretation of
Romans 1:26-27,’ Journal of the American Academy of Religion 64
(Summer, 1996): 223-256, esp. 245-247. Scroggs’ recant came in the
article, ‘The Bible as Foundational Document,’ Interpretation 49 no.
1 (1995): 17-30. His new argument was no longer exegetical: we just need
to abandon the idea of Scriptural authority and pass authority on to the
‘church.’ Whose ‘church,’ one might ask, as debates continue.
[7] This
is proposed in Robert Jewett, ‘The Social Context and Implications of
Homoerotic References in Romans 1:26-27,’ in Homosexuality, Science, and the
‘Plain Sense’ of Scripture , ed. D. L. Balch (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2000), p. 223-241. Romans 1.26-27 is very understandable once one
appreciates the philosophical arguments about ‘according to nature’ and
‘against nature,’ as well as the creation argument of Paul in Romans
1.18-28. See Rollin G. Grams, ‘'Nature' and ‘Against Nature’ in Romans
1:26-27: A Study in the Primary Sources,’ Bible and Mission (4
December, 2016); online https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/12/nature-and-against-nature-in-romans-126.html (accessed
26 June, 2023).
[8] S.
Donald Fortson, III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness: The
Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (Nashville,
TN: B&H Academic, 2016), pp. 353-259.
[9] This
is how Walter Brueggemann has proposed to get around Biblical texts on
homosexuality and affirm LGBT-type relationships. See Walter Brueggemann,
‘Walter Brueggemann: How to read the Bible on homosexuality,’ Outreach (4
September, 2022); online: https://outreach.faith/2022/09/walter-brueggemann-how-to-read-the-bible-on-homosexuality/ (accessed
1 July, 2023). See my response, Rollin G. Grams, ‘Responding to Walter
Brueggemann’s Affirmation of LGBT Culture,’ Bible and Mission (3
July, 2023); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2023/07/responding-to-walter-brueggemanns.html (accessed
4 July, 2023).
[10] Cf.
footnote 6, above.
[11] Arland
Hultgren, ‘Being Faithful to the Scriptures: Romans 1:26-27 and a Case in
Point,’ Word and World 14 (1994).
[12] Walter
Wink, ‘Homosexuality and the Bible,’ in Homosexuality and Christian Faith:
Questions of Conscience for the Churches, ed. W. Wink (Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1999).
[13] Luke
Timothy Johnson, ‘Homosexuality and the Church,’ Commonweal (June 11,
2007).
[14] See
footnote 9. I lay out his various arguments in my rebuttal of his
thinking, noted above.
[15] I
have responded to this argument elsewhere. Rollin G. Grams, ‘Doesn’t the
Bible Have Very Little to Say about Homosexuality?—Answers to David
Lamb,’ Bible and Mission (20 June, 2017); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2017/06/doesnt-bible-have-very-little-to-say.html (accessed
26 June, 2023).
[16] For
Anglicans, a good place to start might be the 1543 homily, ‘Homily Against
Whoredom and Adultery.’ See Rollin G. Grams, ‘Biblical Teaching on Sexual
Immorality in 16th Century Anglicanism (Homily XI) and Its Relevance for
Today,’ Bible and Mission (20 February, 2022); online https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/02/biblical-teaching-on-sexual-immorality.html (accessed
26 June, 2023). The historical material is presented and discussed by
Fortson in S. Donald Fortson, III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness.
[17] Two
recommended volumes covering the contextual material in detail are: Robert
Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville: Abingdon Press,
2002); S. Donald Fortson, III and Rollin G. Grams, Unchanging Witness.
[18] The
mixture of idolatry and sex featured in Baal worship, ever drawing Israel away
from God and His commandments. Cf. 2 Kings 23.8.
[19] See
Rollin G. Grams, ‘Loving, Committed, Same-Sex Unions and Marriages in
Antiquity: What Early Christians Knew When Calling Homosexuality Sin,’ Bible
and Mission (29 November, 2016); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/11/loving-committed-same-sex-unions-and.html (accessed
26 June, 2023).
[20] Hensman
does not introduce the arguments about ‘orientation’ that have featured in some
writings. See my discussion: Rollin G. Grams, ‘Sexual Orientation in
Antiquity and Paul,’ Bible and Mission (21 November, 2016);
online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2016/11/christian-mission-to-west-sexual.html (accessed
26 June, 2023); and ‘Observations on Homosexuality in Antiquity,’ Bible
and Mission (27 November, 2016); accessed 26 June, 2023). The former
provides a response to James Brownson, Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing
the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013).
The latter responds to the uninformed view bandied about in the 1980s that
antiquity know nothing about sexual orientation (e.g., Bishop John Shelby Spong
and Victor Paul Furnish). They actually explored a more perceptive
understanding of orientation in discussions of ‘desire.’
[21]The
literature on this is considerable and fit for another essay. I devote a
chapter to this in Unchanging Witness.
[22] This
is a compound word Paul may have coined from two words standing together in
Leviticus 22.13.
[23] Leviticus
19 demonstrates this, although not in an organised manner. We more
clearly see this in 1 Timothy 1.8-10 and Philo, Special Laws.
[24] See
my response to Bishop Croft’s misinterpretation of this passage. Rollin
G. Grams, ‘Oh, That Crafty Bishop Croft of Oxford,’ Bible and
Mission (3 November, 2022); online: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2022/11/oh-that-crafty-bishop-croft-of-oxford.html’
(accessed 27 June, 2023).
[25] Many
ancient Greeks would have claimed pederasty, e.g., had internal goods—though
many opposed this (both views are put forward in Lucian, Erōtes).
The opposing view considers that living against nature cannot be contrived as a
good—and this would equally apply to adult, same sex unions. As Manetho
Ptolemy observes, men who become soft (cf. 1 Corinthians 6.9) live ‘against
nature’ (cf. Romans 1.26-27) (Tetrabiblos III.14.172).
