|
The numbers in the body of this
part of the text refer to the endnotes where Biblical references are given. These are not
intended to be exhaustive, but only illustrative of the matters stated in the text of the
report.
1. Introduction
1.1 Christians who honestly listen for the
Word of God that they may do it, may sometimes disagree amongst themselves. It is not to
be repented of, for it is one of the creative ways by which the Church may be guided into
God’s will. Such periods are fraught with danger, for honesty in searching, the
intention to obey, and respect for those with whom we disagree can be unwittingly laid
aside. It is at such a place of creative danger that the Church stands now. Our report
does not claim to offer a definitive solution to the Church’s puzzlement, but has
tried to suggest a way in which it may be handled to the Church’s growth and peace.
2. Early Days:
2.1 Debate about what God was saying to his
people occurred in the Church in the earliest days of its life. No sooner had God begun to
call Gentiles into its ranks, than some of the existing Jewish members began to feel
uneasy (1). From childhood they had observed the laws of Moses, and their belief in Jesus
as their Messiah had not prompted them to stop. Now Gentiles who had never recognised
their Law brought their nonobservance of it with them into the ranks of the Church. It
became an accepted Church ruling that since the Jewish Law existed to mark out the Jews as
God’s distinct people, Jewish Christians may well wish to continue to observe it.
Gentile Christians, however, were not obliged to do so, but were expected to refrain from
‘the pollution of idols, and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from
blood’ (2). These observances appear to have been recommended as a courtesy to their
Jewish fellow believers, though the first two became matters of firm requirement in later
lists of rules for behaviour in the New Testament (3). Despite the acrimony which the
debate raised, the leaders of the Church strove to assert the unity of all Christians in
Jesus. The debate never questioned the authority of what was taught in the Bible, but only
the manner in which it applied to the radically new circumstances which Easter had ushered
in and which the conversion of Cornelius had made plain (4).
3. Present Days:
3.1 We may ask in what respect the situation
facing all the Church (and not just the URC) is symmetrical with that which faced the NT
Church. The assumptions regarding the high place given to Scripture by both sides in the
NT debate are essentially echoed in at least the United Reformed Church. It is
acknowledged in our Basis of Union that The Word of God in the Old and New Testaments, discerned
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (is) the supreme authority for the faith and
conduct of all God’s people.
It is upon this basis that the Biblical Authority Group has
conducted its discussions. Further we may note that the practical moral teaching given in
the New Testament letters to the young Church, Gentile in part at least, echoes Old
Testament teaching on the same matters and, some argue, may well be drawn from it (5). At
least we may be certain that there was a discernible moral continuity between faithful
Jewish and Christian life. It is likely that the expectations of Acts 15:20 were based on
the actual moral character of the young Church and were not an unrealistic hope.
Nonetheless, the resurrection brought new horizons for moral motivation to the new
Christian Community (6). It need not surprise us that moral debates surface at many parts
of the NT (7). That we should be having our present debate does not alienate us from the
life of the first Church.
3.2 However, there is a point of difference
between the new situation which obtained then, and the new situation which obtains today.
The pressure for change brought upon the expectations of the Christian Jews in the first
century arose from the increase of the Church in those days. This increase brought
Christians of a new outlook and from a different background into the fold. The problems
were the problems of growth and of what constituted a proper lifestyle for people who had
never worshipped the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ before. In our day the
pressure for change within the Church is often stimulated by change outside its ranks.
Society now takes not avowedly Christian grounds for its judgements upon standards of what
is right and wrong. The influence of the Church in the West has declined along with its
size; and influences, insights, and pressures which do not necessarily arise from
Christian faith are making their voices heard among us. This is not in itself to be
resented. Christians are part of society and are not unmarked by it. The question is in
what degree (if at all) the new influences are to be welcomed or to be rejected by those
who would be loyal to Christ.
4. Past experience
4.1
Such questions have been felt and the
teaching to be gained from Scripture has been assessed in various ways over the Christian
centuries. It has generally been changes in society which have forced the matters
concerned upon the attention of the Church. We considered three different matters of this
kind; the change in medical techniques from theories of demon possession to the scientific
techniques of today, to varying and still debated matters of a Christian’s attitude
to an unsympathetic government, and the present day acceptance of lending money at
interest, despite the Biblical prohibitions upon it (8). We agreed that new circumstances,
sociological changes and the development of new technologies gave a new context for
responsible action in these matters, but that the conviction about the nature and purposes
of God which underlie the prescribed action in the Biblical record stand as the moral
criterion by which modern action may be tested.
5. The Central Biblical Witness
This brought us to discuss the central texts in the debate.
These have generally been accepted to be Leviticus 18:22; 20:13, Romans 1:18-32; 1
Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10. Modern scholarship is divided in its understanding of
them, and this division was reflected in our discussion. The details of the often highly
technical debates must be looked for in the scholarly literature rather than within a
short report of this nature.
5.1 Some understand these passages not to be
referring to actions which may arise in intimacy between two loyally loving people of the
same sex, but to other actions such as pederasty or prostitution. From this the conclusion
is drawn that the passages are hardly relevant to our debate. It is further suggested that
in such a passage as Romans 1 Paul is setting up a theological man of straw built of
Jewish anti-Gentile clichés. His portrait of the idolatrous and ungodly man, serves only
to be knocked down again for the sake of rhetorical effect. This is held to imply that the
strictures it contains are not a real condemnation of actions which actually ever went on
among the people addressed but that they are no more than exaggerated sketches of popular
ideas about the way that Gentiles live. Or again, some note that the concept of homosexual
orientation was not known in NT times, and that therefore it is an anachronism to suppose
that the specific NT teaching can have any bearing at all upon the complex behaviour
patterns which we are able to identify today. There are further difficulties about the
precise meaning of such terms (in RSV) as ‘against nature’,
‘adulterers’, ‘homosexuals’, and even ‘immoral’ (9).
5.2 Others of us are of a different opinion,
holding that although the terms employed may be difficult of precise definition, there is
little reason to doubt that they include at least some forms of same-sex erotic behaviour.
It was noted that in delicate matters of this kind every culture uses somewhat ill-defined
and allusive terms for the sake of modesty; we should expect to find the terms difficult
to translate. It was further noted that some of the lists of moral behaviour required of a
Christian appear to be based on Old Testament teaching, and to recall the behaviours in
which the readers were charged with being shamefully involved prior to their conversion,
and maybe since (10). The descriptions of Gentile behaviour found in the New Testament
epistles were not merely general references to the Gentile character, but a specific
reference to what had gone on in the experience of those to whom the letters were
addressed. Some felt no doubt that Paul knew the orientation which could nowadays be
described as homosexual, although he discussed it by referring to the acts which
homosexual people use. They reviewed the arguments which were offered to deny that Paul
had any notion of homosexuality as such, and dismissed them as being unlikely in view of
Paul’s widely travelled knowledge of the world. These observations led them to
conclude that the biblical discussions were of high modern relevance, noting their
unanimity in disapproving same sex erotic practice.
6. Why do we differ?
The difference of view amongst us is complex, and probably
more so than we think. It appears to stem in part from striking a different balance
between the facts which press upon the interpreter. However, the balance we individually
find in each passage is consistent with that which we find in each of the other central
passages. Such individual internal unanimity would be unlikely if it were only the facts
of the matter which were being weighed.
6.1 Some are acutely conscious of the
culture in which the Church stands today, and that it is necessary for Christian
interpreters to bring the light of the gospel to bear upon it by showing how the
Scriptural witness may relate to the needs and the urgencies of the times. Some of our
forebears saw that the cultural shifts of their times made new medical techniques,
political patterns, and economic advances possible; they developed new ways by which the
essence of the old laws could be honourably re-expressed in the new context. In the same
way some feel today that new understanding about homosexuality and new readiness to be
open to the needs of those who perceive themselves to be homosexual call for a new reading
of the Biblical strictures.
6.2 We are of one mind in affirming that God
has addressed us, and that his address is made known to us in the Scriptures of the OT,
supremely in Jesus, and in the writings of the apostles who were sent by him to proclaim
to all the world the word they had heard and seen and touched.
6.3 Some amongst us, however, who though
conscious that many of the good changes of recent centuries were originally opposed by
those who strove to be loyal to the clear teaching of Scripture, see the problem in a
different way. They affirm that, whilst cultural changes may alter the actions which the
moral imperatives of God’s word require of us, the imperatives themselves are God
given, and may not be brushed aside. They see that the express and repeated prohibition
placed upon same-sex sexual activity requires Christians today to shape their style of
living by it, and to regard submission to the pressures upon them from current opinion to
be a denial of loyalty to God. They further note that the complementarity of male and
female is a part of God’s given pattern for creation, and that to seek such
complementarity elsewhere is to live in a way contrary to his purpose. The difference
between the strands of opinion is not so much about the meaning of this or that Hebrew or
Greek expression, but rather about what it means to lead a holy life.
6.4 Our examination of the key texts in
regard to the homosexuality issue has failed to produce a consensus on their implications
for Christians today. This is hardly to be wondered at, bearing in mind that these texts
are few in number and that the issue is raised in them almost incidentally, besides the
fact that we have no firmly established, independent understanding of their background to
which we are able to relate what is said. However, this does not mean that they can be
discounted, only that we are obliged to relate them to those wider patterns by which we
make the message of Scripture intelligible to ourselves. In every age those who have found
a significant message in the Bible have interpreted it according to some pattern, which
offered them a comprehensible grasp of the whole Scriptural narrative. Without the use of
such patterns of interpretation the Biblical story would have appeared unconnected in the
extreme, and it is not surprising therefore that quite a number of such schemes have been
used in the Church during its history. Most schemes have undergone considerable
modifications during their period of usefulness, and some have been abandoned when it has
been realised that they were not doing justice to the Biblical material they were being
employed to explain. Most interpreters of the Bible have used some such scheme, though
frequently it has been implicit rather than articulated in their minds.
6.5 We would view the current interpretative
conflict as lying largely in the use of different schemes used by those who take part. On
the one side there are those who would view the Bible along with Calvin as basically the
story of God’s one covenant with his people under two administrations, the calling of
a community to embody in its life God’s holy purposes in the world. There are others,
however, who would view the Biblical narrative as being basically a story of liberation,
God’s freeing of individuals and societies to be themselves. Yet again there are
others who would view the Bible as a collection of texts without any inherent unity of
religious truth but expressing a variety of powerful views. The matter is further
complicated by the fact that some in the Church would adopt the Pietist pattern for
understanding the Bible, the story being centred on the conversion and the sanctification
of the individual. Between all these patterns there are bound to be overlaps and
conflicts, and a text in the Bible will tend to be evaluated differently according to
which scheme is operative in the mind of the interpreter.
6.6 In no way is that to be taken to imply
the relativist position, that each frame is equally valid and useful in dealing with the
Biblical material. Some frames, like scientific hypotheses, will show themselves more
competent in dealing with what is found in the Bible and hence will maintain their
position, though in all probability they will be modified in the process. On the other
hand, conflict between interpretative patterns cannot be speedily resolved, but rather can
only come about through persistent, humble attention to what is before us in the Bible.
7. On listening for the Word God
speaks
7.1 As members of the URC we believe that
there is a supreme authority for the faith and conduct of all God’s people. It is the
Word of God in the Old and New Testaments. This Word is discerned as we live under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit.
7.2 The Word of God is addressed to all
God’s people, and it is only by our listening together that the Word can be heard to
be the Word that God would speak to the Church. Hearing the Word of God is primarily a
corporate action. The presence of differences of understanding among God’s people is
not necessarily a sign that they have different loyalties. Rather, since God unfailingly
cherishes and guides the Church, such differences may mark the place where God purposes
fresh light to break out from his Word. Listening to one another may be a part of
listening for God’s Word. Patient explaining and courteous listening need to be
embraced; for both are part of the Church’s search for discernment, and are at the
same time a part of the Spirit’s activity in granting discernment. To refuse to
listen is to assert that the Word is rightly discerned by one party and that Christ is
denied by the other. Such refusal would be a grave step to take. Schism has ill equipped
the Church for its obedience, for it means that no part of the Church is able to listen
for the Word in the context of all the Church. Our own listening is impoverished by our
separation from our brothers and sisters in Christ, and we are bold to believe that theirs
may be impoverished by their separation from us.
7.3 Christians who hold their differences in
a shared search for the Word the Spirit would make known, are those to whom light and
peace may be expected to be given. On the other hand, it needs to be recognised that in
the past Christians who have conscientiously listened for God’s Word have felt the
need to separate from each other because of disagreement about what it required. Any
debate which touches the nerve of the unity of the Church calls for us to be sure we know
when we are at a point which concerns the standing or the falling of the Church. A study
determining ways by which we may know when we are at such a point remains to be
undertaken.
7.4 The Word that is listened for is the
Word that God speaks. In trying to hear that Word, we do not look for confirmation of our
opinion; we are engaged to listen for God’s Word to us, not to have God listen to our
word to him. Our purpose is not to build a bridge from where we stand back to the
Scriptures so that we may feel confirmed in what we do; but to listen for the Word spoken
through the Scriptures into where we are. We have to accept that that word may confirm our
wishes, may deny them, or may simply pass them by. What we seek is God’s Word to us,
and since it is God’s Word, it carries its own imperative, and must not be refused.
Since it is the supreme authority for our faith and conduct, it determines the way in
which any other claim which may be pressed upon us may legitimately be heard. The Word
that God speaks to perceptions of duty arising from contemporary concerns is spoken
sometimes to confirm them, sometimes to deny them, and sometimes to change them so that
they become a more fitting expression of what God wants his people to believe and to do.
The Word God speaks may be expected to shape the life of a Christian and to make it
distinctive in a God-forgetting society.
7.5 It may be costly to hear the Word of
God, and may lead those who obey it to be rejected by those who had other hopes of them.
But it is only by being faithful to that Word that true health for the human spirit is to
be found.
7.6 Discerning the Word of God in the
Scriptures is not always a simple matter. Some of the difficulties arise from the nature
of God’s Word itself. Christians have always been able to read the Bible to their
nourishment and growth in grace, but God’s Word in Scripture is not always presented
plainly to our mind as waiting to be heard by the casual enquirer. We have to learn to
listen. The Word we seek to hear is in the Scriptures, and we need to ask questions of the
text if we are to be laid open to discern what God would say to us. The Word we seek to
hear is God’s address to us, and we must be prepared to find God asking questions of
us so that we may be made ready to hear it. We are engaged in a conversation, of which
reading the Bible is an intrinsic part. The Basis of Union does not straightforwardly
identify the Word of God with what is written on the pages of the Bible, nor does it set
the Word of God and the Bible as distinct. God’s Word to us is not other than what is
written on the page, yet it may be more than what is written on the page.
7.7 It is part of most Christians’
experience that God at times holds silence. Since what concerns us is God’s address
to us and not our address to ourselves, God’s people have to await God’s chosen
time. It is also a part of Christian experience that God sometimes takes longer to address
us than we would wish. To encounter difficulties in understanding what is said to us in
the Bible is not necessarily due to faithlessness but it may be a step in God’s
leading us on to a deeper understanding of his will.
7.8 Other of the difficulties arise from
ourselves. God speaks, but we have failed to fit ourselves to hear. There are many things
which can make the Church or a Christian unable to hear when God is speaking. Past
disobedience to what has been made known; the easy assumption that what we already hold is
what God wants others to hold; the failure to cultivate a prayerful life in which intimacy
with God and awe before God go naturally together; neglect of letting the Bible feed our
imagination, shape our ways of thought, and set its inner rhythms on our affections; all
these and more can dull the corporate ear of the Church until a word from God can scarcely
be heard. But when their opposite informs the life of the Church, then differences become
places of new discovery and no longer occasions of strife, and even the silences of God
become places precious with expectation. Such contexts are conducive to the hearing of
God’s Word.
7.9 The creation of such a sensitivity is
not a matter of adopting some set technique, nor is it the work of a moment. Such an
awareness is the outgrowth of long years passed in honesty and openness before God. When
it is present, it becomes an inheritance for younger Christians which they can add to and
deepen in their turn. It may be that we have failed to build this for ourselves and for
them. Maybe it is for this reason that in these days of uncertain stress, the Word of God
is rare and there is little open vision.
7.10 It may be that in bringing us to our
present uncertain place God is prompting us towards a more ready obedience, and a deeper
inner life. The modern Church is lacking neither in scholarship nor in scholars, and
practical advice upon the complex technical matters of biblical languages, of criticism,
and of hermeneutic theory is abundantly available. But the cultivation of a delight in the
Scriptures which are experienced as the place where God’s Word is to be discerned, of
daily meditation upon what they say and upon what they may mean for our day’s living,
and of a readiness to obey what they declare and to rejoice in God as we do so, is
something which may not be so readily abundant among us. Maybe we are being invited to
begin again.
7.11 At present the URC is not of a common
mind on the specific matters which are before us. What will be the signs that we have come
to a place where the Church is able to make a decision which all its members can
honourably be asked to embrace? Some can be suggested.
7.12 We will find ourselves listening to one
another, not in order to show up the futility of the other’s point of view, but
genuinely finding the explanations given to us, even if we are unconvinced by them,
contributing to our understanding of the questions.
7.13 We shall be open and ready to share
with one another the sharp edged questions which we feel God to be putting to our own
heart.
7.14 We are likely to discover dishonesties
in the ways we have been listening to Scripture and to one another, and to be glad to be
able to step aside from them.
7.15 Above all we are likely to find that
the fear of one another which has lain behind the anger which we may have felt for one
another has melted away. Yet we are not aiming at a bland acceptance of opposites but at a
strenuous striving to find where our obedience in the truth may lie.
7.16 Many in the present debate believe
themselves to be personally rejected. We are called to keep a good or a clear conscience
in times when we are spoken against (1 Peter 3:16, 21). Peter connects such a conscience
with Jesus having been raised to life. A good conscience is a positive possession; not
just rejection of evil, but an embracing of virtue. It is out of such a conscience that we
are able to speak with dignity and to reflect the authority of Christ.
8.
Biblical Authority in matters of Faith and in matters of Conduct
8.1
Should one interpret the ethical
injunctions in the Bible in a different manner from the doctrinal statements? At the
outset it must be acknowledged that both doctrinal statements and ethical precepts are to
a very large extent contextually orientated. There is little in the way of universal
theologising in the Bible (parts of the Fourth Gospel and Ephesians – also possibly
some sections of Hebrews being exceptions). Otherwise the wider doctrinal significance
arises out of a word addressed to a particular situation – sometimes to an immediate
one as in a source and on occasion to a somewhat different one, when that source is taken
up into a wider literary setting. As to which should have priority when this happens is a
nice question for hermeneutical debate. The same goes for ethical injunctions; a certain
situation is presupposed for their immediate reception (as has been pointed out even the
Ten Commandments presuppose that those addressed have a certain societal position), but
this in no way precludes a much wider extension of their significance. So what is said
about both the nature and the activity of God and the moral requirements placed upon human
beings has to be considered firstly in relation to the context which has caused them to be
elicited. It is not therefore a question of the Bible having largely time-bound doctrinal
affirmations interspersed with immediately universalisable ethical injunctions; in regard
to both the context needs to be taken into account.
8.2 Having recognised this, it must also be
acknowledged that doctrinal statements and ethical precepts have tended to take divergent
paths of interpretation in the life of the Church. There has arisen a general core of
Christian affirmation, largely composed of what is found in the witness of the Bible, and
any specific doctrinal affirmation tends to be slotted into this without any immediate
particular difficulty. Even when theologians have used some philosophical framework for
their elucidation of Christian truth, it is rarely difficult to trace the underlying
traditional pattern. To put it another way, the references in the Bible to God and
specific divine activity have tended to produce their own broad, yet distinctive
hermeneutical path or paths, and this certainly makes things easier when we endeavour to
assess their present significance. When we turn, however, to ethical injunctions the
position is made more complicated, largely because the form, as opposed to the matter, of
such subsequent discourse bears a less distinct relationship to what is found in the
Bible. The general shaping of Western moral philosophy with its roots in Hellenistic
thought has largely determined the form in which the Biblical injunctions have been
received, which means that when we now seek to appropriate a Biblical injunction afresh,
we have to bear this further factor in mind. This means that there are extra difficulties
in doing justice to the commands concerning moral behaviour found in the Bible when
attempting to bring them into contemporary ethical conversation, than there are with
Biblical affirmations about God and his action within the world which bear with them their
own long, distinctive interpretative tradition.
8.3 When therefore we seek to bring
the moral insights of the Bible to bear on specific contemporary situations, there are a
number of questions which we need to hold before our minds, so as to make us aware of the
tension which is likely to arise between what we find in the Scriptures and what we tend
to assume today. Among these are:
8.3.1 What obligation is constituted for us
today, when people in a certain Biblical situation perceived the command of God to require
a specific form of obedience?
8.3.2 How is the original command related to
the root understanding of the character of God witnessed to in the Bible?
8.3.3 To what extent are our understandings
of the human condition (as that of Millennium Westerners) compatible with the Biblical
understanding of the human position before God?
8.3.4 How far does the political, social,
and economic situation in which we are placed permit genuine continuity in obedience to
the original command? This does not mean that we need to conform ourselves as members of
the Christian community to contemporary culture, but that we are bound to make our moral
decisions within its context.
8.3.5 How far do we need to make allowances
in shaping the present-day moral decision for what appears established on good scientific
grounds about the human condition as opposed to cultural presuppositions and stereotypes?
How do we distinguish between covert ideologies and well grounded scientific accounts?
8.3.6 How far is there an interaction and
overlap between well-tried theological categories as original sin and the working of grace
with what appears to be the established scientific description of human nature?
8.4
This is not intended to be an exhaustive
list of questions (it is obvious some of them overlap) which need to be in our minds when
we seek to take over the Biblically perceived counsel of God to be appropriated to our
present obedience; however, they do indicate the path to responsible discernment. Yet when
we have borne such issues in mind, there should be basically no difference in our approach
to the ethical injunctions and the doctrinal statements found in the Bible; they are both
integral parts of the witness of the prophets and apostles, expressed in the imperative
and indicative moods respectively.
1. Acts 10:1-11:18
2. Acts 15:1-21
3. 1 Corinthians 10:6-8; Ephesians 5:1-10
4. Acts 15:6-11; Romans 9-11
5. 1 Corinthians 6:9,10
6. Colossians 3:1-25
7. Romans 14:1-23; 1 Corinthians 7:1-31
8. Mark 1:21-28; Romans 13:1-7; Deuteronomy 23:19,20
9. Romans 1:26,27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; Acts 15:29
10. 1 Corinthians 6:11
Sections 1-8 of this report contain the work of the Biblical
Authority Working Group as agreed by that Group. When the Core Group read the Report, it
felt that it would be helpful to have further clarification of what is meant in para 6.4
by 'patterns of interpretation'. After consultation with the Convener of the Working Group
it was agreed the Core Group should ask three people from the Biblical Authority Working
Group each to write an exegesis of verses from Romans Chapter 1. What follows therefore is
not exhaustive but illustrative. It comes as an addendum to the report, and not as a part
of it, and it has not been subject to the Biblical Authority Working Group's joint
scrutiny.
An addendum to Paragraph 6
The following three brief readings from Romans are offered as
illustrations of ways in which some of the key verses from the opening chapter of Romans
may be read. They are neither complete nor definitive readings, nor are they offered by
the Biblical Authority Group as readings which they necessarily endorse. They are offered
only to illustrate the way in which differences of approach may shape the way the texts
are understood.
a. An interpretation of Romans 1:26,27
These verses are part of an extended passage in which the
apostle seeks to establish the empirical unrighteousness of the human race as opposed to
the righteousness of God which is revealed in the Gospel. There are two main sections:
1:8-2:3 which portrays the alienation of the Gentile world, whilst 2:3-3:8 aims to show
that the Jewish people have equally failed to live up to the specific divine claim upon
their lives. The conclusion of the argument is found in 3:9 "For we have already
drawn up the indictment that all, Jews and Greeks alike, are under the power of sin".
(REB)
Paul’s account of the failure of the Gentile world here
is not particularly original, as it is very much in line with one contemporary Jewish
explanation of the matter (cf Wisdom of Solomon 14:22-31). We must not, however, think
that the apostle’s use of this form of argument was a mere matter of conventional
acceptance, as there is no reason to doubt that he was inwardly convinced of the truth of
this account of the matter.
Indeed the fact that he introduces phrases from the diffused
Stoicism of the period might lead us to expect that this section is not just intended for
consumption by the Jews amongst his audience, but that he expected the Gentiles to see the
point too. The root, however, of the argument is that human evil arises because men and
women will not acknowledge the transcendent mystery of the creator and instead seek to
have as the object of their worship images of finite realities which they have chosen for
themselves. As a result of this fundamental alienation God allows a widespread perversion
of inter-human relations to develop.
Exegesis
Because humanity has turned away from the living God, they
are handed over by him to "disgraceful passions" (v.26), the first of these
being that women change their "natural functioning" for that which is
"against nature". This verse has generally been interpreted as referring to
lesbian practices, and if this understanding is maintained it would be the only passage in
the Bible where there is specific reference to them. Recently, however, another
interpretation has been put forward which would see in them a reference to anal
intercourse, which is known to have been practised in the Hellenistic world by prostitutes
and women engaged in an adulterous relationship as a contraceptive measure. In v.27 Paul
goes on to speak of males putting aside the "natural relations" with females to
burn with desire for each other, mutually committing the shameful act. If this is taken to
be sodomy, it could be supportive of the second interpretation of v.26 already mentioned,
but in any case it is quite clear that Paul is speaking in this instance of homosexual
practices. As a result, those who behave in such a fashion "receive in themselves the
fitting reward for such error", a phrase which is perhaps best interpreted along the
lines proposed by J.D.G. Dunn, "sex treated as an end in itself becomes a dead end in
itself and sexual perversion is its inevitable penalty" (Romans I:24). It could be
argued that if the non-lesbian interpretation of v.26 is allowed, Paul is arguing
basically in terms of clean and unclean actions, his reprobation being directed at the
physical act of sodomy. Besides the fact that Levitical categories do not
seem to have weighed overmuch in Pauline thought generally, it is clear that
in this passage such practices are placed and condemned in the context of
"disgraceful passions" and "burning desires", and therefore any physical act
would be viewed as but the outward sign of an inner attitude.
Implications of the Pauline argument
At least some forms of male homosexual practice are condemned
by this passage, but what is written makes it impossible to judge how far that rejection
extends. Though pederasty was probably the most common form of homosexual practice in the Graeco-Roman world, no indication is given in the text that the apostle only had this in
mind.
We are not meeting here with anything in the way of ethical
injunctions but rather with an explanation of what has gone wrong in human affairs.
Presumably as this is an aspect of wrongful human behaviour, it is expected that adherence
to the gospel would in some way rectify it.
There is no specific
denunciation of divine judgement against homosexual behaviour; rather such
activity is thought of as arising out of the divine wrath directed at the
primal act of human turning away from God. In a sense therefore those who
behave in such a way have been constituted as such by God’s handing over of
humanity into a state of inter-personal disorder. As with other aspects of
human sinfulness it is far from being entirely a matter of individual, human
perversity.
Theological significances
There
is no reason to think that this passage is peripheral to Pauline thought; it
is found in the most extensive backcloth prepared by him for his
presentation of the Gospel, and it coincides with his general teaching about
the nature of sexuality in regard to the Christian life.
The proper theological significance of what is found here can
only be assessed when this passage is placed within the context of what is held to be the
general understanding of the primary Biblical message. If, e.g. one adopts the classical
Reformed understanding of the matter, that the Bible is the account of God’s calling
out of a holy people to accomplish his purposes in the world, this would fit in well with
the general design, the Church being there to rectify the disorder which prevails in
general human society. If on the other hand one believes that the primary narrative of the
Bible is about the liberation of societies and individuals, one might feel impelled to
regard what Paul is arguing here to be somewhat out of the mainstream of the Bible’s
message, and to be relatively discounted in the name of its general thrust.
b. A reading of Romans 1:18-32
To
our bodies turn we then, that so
Weak men on love revealed may look:
Love’s mysteries in souls do grow,
But yet the body is his book.
In all cultures human beings read meaning written on the
body. The things we do with our bodies are always things that we are saying, never without
meaning or significance, never simply biology, but always meaning too. As Rowan Williams
has argued, the significant question to ask about our sexual lives is not ‘Am I
keeping the rules?’ or even ‘Am I being sincere and non-hurtful?’, but
rather ‘How much am I prepared for this to signify?’. He suggests that all that
we do, whether sexual or not, might express and signify what he calls the ‘generous
fidelity of God’.
The power of sex to signify is demonstrated very boldly in
Romans 1. In this chapter we meet a pattern of thinking very common to faithful Jewish
people as they watched and interpreted the Gentile world. For them, certain kinds of
sexual behaviour were symbolic of all other kinds of sin and depravity, and particularly
of the most heinous sin – idolatry. The 1959 Hollywood film Solomon and Sheba
exemplifies such a constellation of signs. In the opening title sequence we are invited to
witness the ‘pagan revels’ and the ‘nights of passion’. The Queen of
Sheba and her retinue are cast both as idolaters and as sexually immoral. The worship of
their gods is even portrayed as being highly sexual so that idolatry and orgy are
inextricably combined and connected. Sexuality expressed in ways other than
straightforward and seemly marriage signifies idol worship, infidelity to God, and
rebellion against goodness and truth. Paul, writing in Romans, seems to have assumed this
kind of thinking and the meaning he attributes to homosexual acts is evident. Whether he
is writing of a specific group or of humanity generally he describes the marks of
‘fallenness’ – idolatry, unnatural sexual practices, and then finally all
the kinds of vile and terrible conduct he can think of – from scandalmongering to
lacking respect for parents. For him homosexual activity signifies a breakdown in
relationship with God, and represents a disordered and destructive sexuality. There are
arguments to be had about whether Paul is writing of particular individuals who have been
trying out forms of sex ‘unnatural’ to them, for the sake of novelty, looking
for new forms of gratification. But it seems evident that, for Paul, homosexual activity
of any kind, which any traditional Jew would have regarded as ‘unnatural’,
signified a deep and disordered humanity. For him it was all part of well-trodden Jewish
critique of Gentile culture and would have included a critique of some forms of what we,
today, would think of as ‘straight’ sex. His basic cry is against all those who
reject God, who worship false Gods, who selfishly and wantonly seek to satisfy their own
lusts, who degrade their bodies and who, finally, have no moral values or commitments.
We, in the twentieth century, might well recognise
Paul’s cri de coeur in our day, there are also many individuals, communities and
cultures, which have turned away from the things of God. A disordered world lies in
fragments all around us. However, we would not, because of our very different experience
and ways of drawing meaning, use the same things to symbolise the terrors and idols of our
own culture. In Paul’s time, homosexual activity, as he witnessed it and understood
it, was very likely considerably different from what we know today. It was connected in
culture with the worship of foreign gods. It was often practiced in contexts of social
dominance, where slaves were exploited. It was a ready symbol of an often decadent
society. However, homosexuality as we experience it today is a much more varied and
complex range of experiences and meanings. Gay and lesbian relationships do not today
carry any associations with idolatry. They do not automatically carry associations with
decadence or dominance, or violence, or any of the other vices which Paul lists at the end
of Romans 1. They do not carry the same range of meanings and symbols as they (or their
near equivalents) did in Paul’s day. In Rowan Williams’ terms, they do not
signify the same things at all. In fact, as Michael Vasey argues, gay and lesbian
sexuality may even signify now many of the things of which Paul would approve. For
example, parts of gay culture today foster ‘an expressive rather than a brutalised
masculinity’. Similarly, lesbian culture fosters a way of being a woman which turns
aside from the terrible victim culture and violence of the patriarchy which inevitably
characterises straight relationships. Homosexuality in our culture thus often signifies
things quite different from the violence, greed and lust which Paul saw in his time. Gay
relationships do not belong with idolatry and degradation as cultural signifiers today.
A woman living in a faithful and loving lesbian relationship
today could hardly be expected to recognise her experience as that condemned by Paul.
Equally, he would not have recognised or understood her experiences, since
‘lesbianism’ and ‘gayness’ as we understand and experience them today
were not present within first century culture. Sexual acts and affections are given
different meanings in different times. It is no help to anyone to carry condemnation of
one cultural phenomenon over to another rather different one. Many gay men and lesbians
today argue that their own relationships signify the generous fidelity of God – or at
least that is what they wish and mean them to signify. These relationships are a long way
indeed from the scandalous and careless behaviour of those Paul condemned as they, as he
saw it, were given up to terrible and selfish wickedness. Of course we only have his
version of what he saw. It may well be that some of the people he so accuses were also
seeking to signify with their love the generous fidelity of God. We cannot know. But we
can listen to those who, in our day, tell us of the love that they believe is written in
their bodies.
c. Exegesis of Romans 1:26-7
This text provides the fullest theological reflection
on same-sex sexual relations in Scripture. Moreover, it is almost certainly the only
biblical reference to lesbian sexual activity - something which contemporary Graeco-Roman
sources hardly ever mention in the same breath as male homosexual practice.
The context has Paul affirming that the gospel is for Jews
and Greeks alike (v.17). We see, however, that this has negative as well as positive
consequences. Positively, it means that Hebrew and Gentile people are equal with respect
to salvation (v.16). Negatively, it means that they are also equal with respect to divine
‘wrath’ (v.18) and ‘judgement’ (2:3). On both counts, there is a
comprehensiveness in God’s plan: God’s righteousness is available to everyone
who has faith (v.17), but all who spurn God’s benefits are subject to what Paul later
calls ‘righteous condemnation’ (2:5). This comprehensiveness extends not only
across space, as Christian faith is ‘proclaimed throughout the world’ (v.8), but
also back through time, to God’s creation ordinances (v.20). Indeed, insofar as Paul
relates the wrath of God to the sin of idolatry (v.23ff.), he does so by presenting
idolatry as an abuse of these ordinances – that is, as a false exaltation ‘the
creature rather than the Creator’ (v.25 NRSV, cf. Ex 20:1-3).
Above all else, it is this creation-based definition of
idolatry which prompts Paul to cast homosexual practice as not only ‘degrading’,
‘shameless’ and ‘erroneous’, but also ‘against nature’
(vv.26-7). Granted, the concept of ‘nature’ can carry other meanings in the
epistles (cf. 1 Cor 11:14; Eph 2:3). But the strength of Paul’s more general
‘argument from design’ here means it would take a very extreme form of special
pleading to divorce his understanding of what is sexually ‘natural’ from the
male-female complementarity of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Besides, the notion of homosexual
practice as ‘unnatural’ is found in several contemporary sources, and especially
in that Hellenistic Jewish tradition with which Paul himself was associated.
It may also be significant here that the ‘exchange’
of creature and Creator exemplified by homosexual practice is described literally not just
as a lie, but as the lie (v.25) - the defining distortion or ‘perversion’ of
God’s purpose for the world, from which other distortions and perversions must
inevitably follow (cf. Gen. 3:5). Richard B. Hays bears this out vividly when he writes
that homosexual behaviour is for Paul ‘a sacrament (so to speak) of the antireligion
of human beings who refuse to honour God as Creator. When human beings engage in
homosexual activity, they enact an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual
reality: the rejection of God's creation design’.
Of course, none of this would matter so much for our current
debate if the specific sexual practices referred to by Paul in vv.26-7 could be
disassociated from the pattern of lesbian and gay Christian lifestyles today.
Those who deny that this passage can be read as a
‘blanket’ condemnation of homosexual practice tend to argue that Paul’s
concept of homosexuality is some way removed from the ‘faithful, loving’
partnerships which now exist among gay and lesbian Christians. One suggestion, mooted by
Victor Furnish and others, is that Paul is in fact describing a quite particular form of
pagan temple prostitution. No doubt the apostle would have known about the temple of
Aphrodite in Corinth (the city from which Romans was probably written), with its thousand
priestesses and ‘sacred slaves’ known colloquially as ‘the sailors’
delight’. But as even the gay apologist John Boswell admits, this explanation
founders when one realises that the relevant parties are ‘burning with lust’ for
one another (v.27) - a description unlikely to fit the more dispassionate prostitution
associated with such religious ceremony and ritual.
Another revisionist interpretation holds that Paul is
concerned here primarily with pederasty - a practice restricted to the upper echelons of
society and indulged in by basically heterosexual males. This was indeed the most common
manifestation of homosexual practice in ancient Greece, but it was by no means the only
recognised form of same-sex relationship. For example, the ‘Sacred Band’ of
Thebes institutionalised the pairing of soldiers as lovers to foster their courage in
battle, as they fought to the death for their ‘faithful, loving’ partner. A
similar arrangement pertained in Sparta, while longer-term homosexual partnerships were
accepted in Elis and Boeotia. Granted, these partnerships were often maintained
side-by-side with heterosexual marriage, but it is not even true, as many gay and lesbian
exegetes claim, that the Greeks and Romans had no recognition of what we would now call
‘homosexual orientation’. The extensive researches of Kenneth Dover in this area
in fact reveal a much more complex situation than many appreciate. Notwithstanding all
that has since been discovered in genetics and biology, the Anglican Bishops' report
Issues in Human Sexuality felt able to conclude on this basis that the world of the New
Testament did in some cases recognise phenomena ‘which today would be interpreted in
terms of orientation’.
We cannot, of course, know for certain the full range of
homosexual relationships and practices with which Paul was familiar. His virtually
unprecedented yoking of lesbianism with male homosexuality does, however, suggest that his
perspective is unusually broad for his time. (Granted, a few have read the
‘unnatural’ behaviour of the women in v.26 as female-dominant coitus or even
anal sex with men, but this ignores the clear rhetorical and grammatical parallels between
this verse and the next, which explicitly describes male-male intercourse). In any case,
the cosmic sweep of Paul’s argument suggests a concern for sexual relations as such,
rather than for specific sexual techniques. Indeed, the fact that Paul uses the more
generalised vocabulary of ‘male’ and ‘female’ here, rather than the
more particular terminology of ‘men’ or ‘women’, may well bear this
out. Nor is it likely that as an educated Pharisee, he would have been ignorant of the
subtle ethical reasoning of Plato, Aristotle and numerous other ancient philosophers, who
had condemned homoerotic sexual practice while nonetheless venerating same-sex
friendships.
When linked with all that we have said about the
comprehensiveness of Paul’s view of salvation and divine judgement, and when placed
in the context of his cosmic creation-theology, these points lead us to the conclusion
that the most authentic reading of Rom 1:26-7 is that which sees it prohibiting all forms
homoerotic sexual activity. |
