Andrew Goddard writes: After much pre-publicity, which I reflected on at the time, The Widening of God’s Mercy: Sexuality within the Biblical Story (Yale University Press) has finally appeared. This enables an end to speculation as to why New Testament scholar, Richard B Hays (writing here with his son, Old Testament scholar, Christopher) has changed his mind in relation to sexuality from the conservative stance he set out in a chapter of his 1996 classic The Moral Vision of the New Testament (MVNT). Or rather, it provides greater clarity as to the developments in his thinking.
Sadly, it is not the thorough, carefully-argued explanation that many of us hoped to discover, setting out clearly why his earlier arguments are now seen as faulty and presenting a clearly reasoned case for his new stance. The book has practically no discussion of “sexuality within the biblical story” such as offered in his earlier book and numerous other works arguing for the traditional perspective he advocated then. And there is little or no substantive response to the arguments which Richard Hays and others have previously articulated and which I and many others have found, and still find,
convincing.
What follows is an edited version of a much more detailed engagement with the book’s argument to which there are links in relation to each of the five questions considered below. A list of other reviews appears at the end of the post.
1. What are the authors arguing for in relation to the church’s response to LGBTQ people? (PDF)
Despite having the subtitle “Sexuality within the biblical story” and being publicised as a major new contribution to discussions on this in the academy and church, in fact there is surprisingly little focussed on this subject in the book. In addition, often the authors explain what they support simply in terms of a response to sexual minorities rather than the major contentious issue of the church’s sexual ethic both in general and in relation to gay and lesbian people. Their thesis statement is summed up in these words:
And so here is the proposal we offer in this book: The many biblical stories of God’s widening mercy invite us to re-envision how God means us to think and act today with regard to human sexuality. The biblical narratives throughout the Old Testament and the New trace a trajectory of mercy that leads us to welcome sexual minorities no longer as “strangers and aliens” but as “fellow citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19). (206, the last sentence is then repeated and italicised on 207).
There is no recognition here of the fact that “welcoming” language is now widely used and uncontentious and the real dividing line (certainly in most Western churches) is over whether, and if so in what ways, churches might move beyond this “welcoming” stance to become “affirming” (compare Stanley Grenz’s use of these two descriptors back in 1998 in his book Welcoming but not Affirming: An Evangelical Response to Homosexuality and the UK Evangelical Alliance’s affirmations).
That the authors are “affirming” (in contrast to Grenz and the earlier Richard Hays) is shown primarily by their call for “full access to…ordination and the blessing of covenanted unions, with the same expectations as for heterosexuals” (216). They do not really address whether or not they are viewing such unions as a form of marriage, nor do they set out a biblical, theological or ethical argument for this ethic being essential to being “welcoming”, nor do they enter into dialogue with arguments opposed to this position.
Interestingly, they seem to acknowledge that these matters may unavoidably be a “church-dividing” issue because:
As a practical matter, it is difficult to see how strong differences over same-sex marriage could be maintained within an individual congregation, or even in some cases within an individual denomination (216).
Their call here is therefore a more modest one: “that different Christian congregations might hold different norms and practices on this question while still acknowledging one another as members of the one body of Christ” (216). Appealing to Romans 14-15, they state that “it should remain possible for churches with different beliefs and practices to coexist peaceably and work together in an ecumenical spirit as history takes its course” (217-8). This potentially opens up an interesting and helpful conversation about the nature of our differences and their ecclesial consequences that goes beyond a stark choice of staying together in current structures and schism.
2. What are the authors’ main arguments? (PDF)
a. God’s Widening Mercy
The central argument—as shown in the quotation above and the book’s title—is one appealing to “the many biblical stories of God’s widening mercy” (206). Here there is much valuable material relating to Scripture and mercy and the importance of mercy that everyone will benefit from reading. However, there are also at least three major difficulties in the apparent argument.
Firstly, it is not clear how they are connecting God’s mercy to a particular (in this case, sexual) ethical conclusion. Richard Hays who writes the chapters on the New Testament says we need to keep asking “How might the Gospel stories of Jesus’s convention-altering words and actions affect our thinking about norms for sexual relationships in our time?” (121) but the nearest there is to an answer is to point to Jesus’ conflicts with those committed to God’s law who “interpreted it in a more restrictive way” (151). But does mercy simply mean “more permissive”? Can Jesus’ own interpretation of the Law (not least in relation to marriage and sex as seen in Mt 5:27-32 or Mt 19) and his response to the woman caught in adultery (Jn 8) really be seen as pointing to such a “more permissive” trajectory?
Secondly, in contrast to Hays’ previous discussion (in MVNT, 392–3) there is no exploration of how God’s mercy relates to God’s wrath (despite the importance of the latter theme in, for example, Romans 1).
Thirdly, the use of “widening” and a number of statements in the book suggest an ongoing extension of mercy through history. But this means we must now view God’s mercy shown in Christ and in the Spirit given at Pentecost as too narrow and having undergone expansion, in relation to LGBTQ people, at some (fairly recent) point in history. This connects to the second argument.
b. God’s Changing Mind
The changing of God’s mind is a recurring theme in the book from the start (on pages 2–3) to the end (“God regularly changes his mind, even when it means overriding previous judgments” (207, italics added)), especially in Christopher’s OT chapters. Leaving aside the handling of specific texts claimed in support (for one critique here see Martin Davie’s review) there is again a methodological question: even if their premise is granted that we can, in the light of Scripture, speak of God’s mind changing, can this fact in itself provide support for a revised sexual ethic?
For example, does Mt 19 (a passage astonishingly not discussed) not point to a consistent mind of God expressed in creation and reaffirmed by Christ but with divine accommodation to human sin and frailty in the Mosaic law, rather than a shifting standard? The possibility of God undergoing moral education over time and so there being a shifting moral standard also raises major questions not just in relation to the doctrine of God but also concerning the basis for, and justice of, God’s final judgment. None of these serious questions are addressed nor is the fascinating narrative of God’s alleged change of mind in 1 Kings 13 explored.
Even more oddly, in a number of places it would appear there is actually no need for this argument. This is because the authors seem to believe not that God has changed his mind but that the classic biblical texts “do not envisage covenanted same-sex partnerships as we know them today” (206). This points to the third (non-)element in their argument:
c. Sexuality within the biblical story
One of the most disappointing and surprising (even shocking) aspects of the book is the authors’ resolute refusal to discuss not only the classic texts prohibiting same-sex sexual behaviour, but any biblical material relating to sexual differentiation, marriage or sexuality. Even worse, they unfairly dismiss traditionalist arguments as if they only rely on a few texts (206–7). This is despite Richard Hays himself clearly setting out the bigger picture as crucial in previous writings (e.g in MVNT, 389).
For some unexplained reason, the book thinks that “sexuality within the biblical story” (its subtitle) can ignore biblical teaching on sexuality and instead appeal to “a deeper logic, a narrative pattern in which God’s grace and mercy regularly overflow the prohibitions and restrictions that exclude and condemn fixed classes of human beings” (207).
3. Why has Richard Hays shifted his position? (PDF)
In the book’s opening pages, first Richard (pp. 5–10) then Christopher tell something of their personal journey to their viewpoint and Richard Hays also adds a short epilogue (222–6). In addition to the theological arguments noted above, there appear to be at least the following four reasons for Richard Hays’ shifting position.
- Concerns about the way in which his chapter in MVNT has been taken and used, even “weaponised”, in church debates and wider culture wars. He recounts an event in relation to his brother initially refusing to attend his mother’s funeral if it was held in an affirming church which was “a tipping point” five years ago (8).
- Just as his earlier work was shaped by his friendship with a celibate gay Christian called Gary, so now his thinking is shaped by being in a church with gay and lesbian members in committed unions.
- He believes his previous work and stance has caused suffering and harm.
- There are hints, but no more, that he may no longer approach New Testament ethics quite as he did in the book.
There is, however, no clear critique or revision offered by Richard Hays of his methodology in MVNT and so it is worth asking whether and how his new conclusions relate to that method.
4. What has changed in Richard Hays’ approach to New Testament ethics? (PDF)
Four Tasks: Descriptive, Synthetic, Hermeneutical and Pragmatic
Central to Richard Hays’ method in MVNT are four tasks and although he does not explicitly address these in the new book, it is worth considering how his new stance relates to them. He is clear in relation to the classic texts addressing homosexual activity that “I (Richard) stand fully behind the descriptive exegetical judgments I made there about the meaning of all these texts” (n2, 245). There is no discussion of these texts in this book although there are hints, including immediately after that quotation above, that (in what would, in fact, be a different approach exegetically) he might now view the texts as narrower in their scope.
Given he has not changed his exegesis, the synthetic task which seeks to read all biblical texts together, canonically, also remains unchanged because the biblical witness is uniformly negative. As he put it in a recent interview,
My exegesis of those half dozen passages, it hasn’t changed. I think the Bible says what it says, and disapproves of gay sex, full stop.
Hays previously also supported this judgment with an account of how human sexuality is “portrayed in the canon as a whole” and how the “few explicit texts treating homosexuality” are “to be read in relation to this larger canonical framework” (MVNT, 389). Despite its subtitle, the book offers nothing equivalent to this but simply sets out a canonical framework focussed on God’s mercy.
Jumping to the pragmatic task, as set out in the previous section regarding why his mind has changed, it appears that this task—“the test that finally proves the value of our theological labors” (MVNT, 7)—has been crucial. Richard Hays now believes his earlier account fails this test. In short, the traditional position he previously supported cannot bear witness to God’s widening mercy although here there is no obvious awareness of, let alone engagement with, gay and lesbian Christians who hold the traditional view and are aware of the challenges it presents or the witness of groups of gay/lesbian/same-sex attracted Christians such as Revoice or Living Out. It would seem that as a result of his previous conclusion’s major pragmatic failure, Hays has revisited the crucial hermeneutical task.
The book recalls the description of this hermeneutical task in MVNT. We need to
Seek, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, to reread our own lives within the narrative framework of the New Testament, discerning analogies—perhaps startling ones—between the canonical stories and our community’s situation (222, quoting MVNT, 303).
It would appear that the analogy is now to be found in the canon’s witness to “the widening of God’s mercy”. There has, it seems, been a paradigm shift to read everything through this lens but without engaging with the previous paradigm. In MVNT the hermeneutical task was seen as primarily in terms of appealing to what he called “the paradigmatic mode” and “the mode of symbolic world construction” (MVNT, 303). The case was clearly put in MVNT that in the paradigmatic mode, the slender evidence offered by the New Testament is entirely disapproving of homosexuality” (MVNT, 395) and that “the mode in which the New Testament speaks explicitly about homosexuality is the mode of symbolic world construction” (MVNT, 396) where in Romans 1 humanity is portrayed as in rebellion against God and
homosexual activities are—explicitly and without qualification—identified as symptomatic of that tragically confused rebellion. To take the New Testament as authoritative in the mode in which it speaks is to accept this portrayal as “revealed reality”, an authoritative disclosure of the truth about the human condition. Understood in this way, the text requires a normative evaluation of homosexual practice as a distortion of God’s order for creation (MVNT, 396).
Given the descriptive task, exegeting Romans 1, has not changed, it is a major problem that this counter-argument in MVNT to the new stance’s approach to the hermeneutical task is not addressed in the book. Instead, Hays over-rides his earlier rejection of the now-favoured “mercy” analogy when it was focussed on inclusion of the Gentiles (see MVNT, 396). This is on the basis that it is not simply that text which justifies using this paradigm but “the broad base of scripture’s comprehensive story of God’s counterintuitive but persistent mercy” (223).
There is, however, no recognition that Romans 1 similarly can be said to rest on “the broad base of scripture’s comprehensive story” of God’s purposes for us as sexed creatures given the gift of marriage in creation which points to God’s eternal purposes of covenantal union in Christ and the new creation where there is no longer marriage.
Relating Four Sources: Scripture, Tradition, Reason and Experience
In MVNT when Hays considered and rejected something similar to the stance advocated in this book he noted that a key issue was “the role of experience” (MVNT, 396) having earlier acknowledged that “we have passed into an era in which the urgent question is the relative authority of Scripture and experience” (MVNT, 211). His critique of a position similar to that he now advocates was then that
It is crucial to remember that experience must be treated as a hermeneutical lens for reading the New Testament rather than as an independent, counterbalancing authority. This is the point at which the analogy to the early church’s acceptance of Gentiles fails decisively…. Only because the new experience of Gentile converts proved hermeneutically illuminating of Scripture was the church, over time, able to accept the decision to embrace Gentiles within the fellowship of God’s people. This is precisely the step that has not—or at least not yet—been taken by the advocates of homosexuality in the church (MVNT, 399, italics added).
It would appear that Richard Hays is now among those “advocates of homosexuality in the church” and the explanation could take one of two forms.
It is possible—as some (such as Bender’s review) have claimed—that he has now significantly changed his understanding of the relationship of Scripture and experience and thus undergone a fundamental change in his theological method. Perhaps, however, it is not quite that radical. Another possible explanation is that his experience of the pragmatic task as a failure in relation to his previous stance (which by definition can only be experience-based) has combined with his new experience of gay couples to generate this re-reading of Scripture focussed on God’s widening mercy. In this case, adapting the quotation above, we might put the following words in his mouth to argue for the step in favour of same-sex unions previously judged as “not—or at least not yet—taken”:
Only because the new experience of same-sex partnered converts has proved hermeneutically illuminating of Scripture as a whole (I have discovered there is not simply “the thread of a single analogy to Acts 10-15” but “the broad base of scripture’s comprehensive story of God’s counterintuitive but persistent mercy”, 223) is the church able to accept the decision to embrace same-sex couples within the fellowship of God’s people.
But of course he does not say this. And though such a statement might provide greater continuity with his earlier work, this still does not address either (a) his earlier argument that there would need to be “sustained and agonizing scrutiny by a consensus of the faithful” (MVNT, 298) whereas the experience has instead been one of division and decline or (b) the key concern Hays raised in his earlier work after noting the path then not taken but now advocated:
Is it possible for them [the advocates of homosexuality in the church] to reread the New Testament and show how this development can be understood as a fulfilment of God’s design for human sexuality as previously revealed in Scripture? (MVNT, 399, italics added).
The failure to answer this question is the major, arguably fatal, flaw in the book’s argument.
5. What are some of the book’s contributions to the current discussion? (PDF)
It is important, despite the critique offered here, to recognise the book’s significance within academic and ecclesial discussions concerning Scripture and sexuality. Here three broad areas stand out for me.
Firstly, it is vital that conservatives not only critique the book’s central argument but also heed its various challenges to their own approach which include the following.
- To be willing to keep asking questions and consider whether/where we are wrong.
- To wrestle honestly with God when we find what we understand to be his will something difficult or unacceptable or being claimed to cause harm.
- To scrutinise our pragmatic task and be willing to consider whether all our practical conclusions really are required by biblical teaching and whether there is the risk we might sometimes be (like the Roundheads in 1066 And All That) “right but repulsive”.
- To be alert to where we are causing harm and to develop good practices in church life to enable the pattern of godly living we commend.
- To take seriously the book’s core argument and make mercy central in our words and actions and community life and so be open to considering legitimate forms of pastoral accommodation.
Secondly, the failure to address biblical teaching on human sexuality directly while arguing for a change in the church’s stance in this area highlights some important features of our disagreements and why they are intractable:
- By referring to the ‘changing of God’s mind’, the strength of the traditionalist case of the argument from Scripture and Tradition is implicitly recognised. Questions are thereby raised as to the faithfulness and consistency of God and his Word spoken in creation, in Christ, and in apostolic warnings concerning God’s final word of judgment.
- By offering a canonical reading of God’s mercy, the book—in offering perhaps the best articulation of that approach—shows that we are facing two different interpretive paradigms or lenses that determine what it means to be “faithful to the biblical story”. In this light, the traditional approach needs to show how they are doing justice to the “inclusive” (here “mercy”) reading of Scripture—but those arguing for the “inclusive” reading must also demonstrate how it takes Scripture seriously in relation to its teaching on sexual differentiation, marriage, and sexual immorality. Without both of these, or else we will continue talking past each other and over each other.
- This all means that the book sharply raises the question as to what can be recognised as a “biblical” approach to matters of sexuality. In particular, this challenges whether this book is able to be seen as such given it
- accepts that the Bible speaks consistently against the behaviour commended
- effectively says that Jesus and Paul were wrong and so they mislead us in relation to these matters, yet
- offers no argued alternative reading of those negative texts or
- a discussion of the Bible’s wider message and theology on marriage and sex which frames those texts, while also claiming
- that God has changed his mind from what he says in Scripture.
Here they seem rather to be with Luke Timothy Johnson who admits,
We do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good (italics added).
Finally, the book sheds light on the significance of disagreements over sexuality for the life of the church, including the Church of England where the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent statements on sexual ethics (discussed here and here) appear to have much in common with its central argument. On the one hand, Richard Hays appeals to Romans 14-15 which would suggest, as the Archbishop would apparently argue, that the matters are to be viewed as adiaphora. However, there are a number of significant problems with this in relation to whether the substance is comparable (sexual ethics is taken much more seriously by Paul than food laws) and, the fact that even if it is, the strong/weak distinction as applied by Hays to sexuality, would seem to point to the need for constraint on the part of those pressing for change. On the other hand, as noted above in the first section, the two authors also seem to grant it is probably impossible to hold competing views on these matters of sexual ethics in the same undifferentiated ecclesial community. According to Hays and Hays, if their position is pressed, then division will inevitably follow.
In summary, although the book provides a powerful focus on God’s mercy and there are important challenges to those upholding received teaching, its flaws ultimately illustrate the weakness of the claims that arguments against traditional teaching are recognisably “biblical”. It also provides a warning that those who, like the authors, view themselves as “the strong” risk damaging those who are “the weak”. If they insist on particular denominations formally embracing their views then—as demonstrated repeatedly in recent decades—they are pushing currently united churches, especially where they lack “a consensus of the faithful” (MVNT, 298) for changes, towards having to consider how to restructure themselves to become instead “churches with different beliefs and practices” (217-8). Although it could then still prove possible “to coexist peaceably and work together in an ecumenical spirit” (217-8) the only proper response to this “re-vision” of sexual ethics and the life of the church is to pray, “Lord, have mercy”.
Other reviews:
From traditionalist authors the following are of note:
- Preston Sprinkle (author of People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue) and on his podcast also on YouTube) in one of the earliest and most thorough and helpful reviews
- Darrin W. Snyder Belousek (author of Marriage, Scripture, and the Church and Supplement)
- New Testament scholars Ben Witherington (Parts One, Two, Three, Four) and Thomas Schreiner (with additional podcast interview)
- Evangelical Anglican theologian Martin Davie, author of Studies on the Bible and same-sex relationships since 2003 (with summary and PDF)
- Rebecca McLaughlin author of Does the Bible Affirm Same-Sex Relationships?: Examining 10 Claims about Scripture and Sexuality (also in conversation with Gavin Ortlund)
- Timothy Pierce (OT Professor) and Kimlyn Bender (Professor of Theology and Ethics); see summary in Baptist Standard here
- Robert Gagnon, author of the widely cited The Bible and Homosexual Practice, reported on Facebook on 16th October the completion of his originally 8,000 word review: “The editor has lightly edited my 10,000-word critical review essay on the recent book by Richard and Christopher Hays that promotes homosexual unions in the church. Just now I completed a 3200-word supplement that summarizes the remaining 32,500 words of my manuscript, primarily offering a summary and critique of each of the 17 chapters in their book”. A foretaste of his perspective can be gained from his initial response on X.
Responses from those welcoming the book’s stance are currently harder to find but there are the following:
- Karen Keen (author of Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships)
- Robert Cornwall (Fuller PhD and minister in the Disciples of Christ denomination)
- Anna Sieges, (associate professor of religion)
- Keri Ladner in The Christian Century
Revd Dr Andrew Goddard is Assistant Minister, St James the Less, Pimlico, Tutor in Christian Ethics, Westminster Theological Centre (WTC) and Tutor in Ethics at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He is a member of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) and was a member of the Co-Ordinating Group of LLF and the subgroup looking at Pastoral Guidance.
Buy me a Coffee
One thing that has intrigued me, is that believers have traditionally been taught not to marry an unbeliever and therefore many single women in the church have been denied marriage and lived childless, celibate lives.
Has God changed his mind on this? Would the Hays, and our Archbishop (et al), now suggest that we must widen our mercy — and affirm the wishes of those that desire to marry an unbeliever if they intend to live in a committed loving relationship?
If not, this is a remarkable irony? Because I suggest Paul affirms the validity of a ‘mixed’ marriage (1 Corinthians 7:13–14) without recommending such — but surely not a same sex marriage.
I think exogamous marriage is less clear; Paul allows it but does not commend it. And it is a way that people have come to faith, as believing wives have brought unbelieving husbands to faith (though I don’t know how common it is).
The bigger question raised by this book, though, is: do the biblical writers understand God’s widening mercy when they teach about marriage and sexuality, or have they misunderstood?
Ian,
In addition to his endorsement of mixed race marriages, I would argue that there are just two other changes by Paul (neither relax any ethical understanding):
1 Cor 7:15 says on separation (the context implies divorce) a woman is not bound (NIV ‘enslaved’) — under the Deuteronomy 24 law she could only remarry if her husband gave her the certificate of divorce. I would argue that this law was particularly for ethnic Israel and Paul is cancelling it for the church age.
And the second is in 1 Cor 7:39 — where he seems to cancel any obligation for a widow to enter a levirate marriage (another ‘Jewish’ institution, this one based on protecting land inheritance) — and instead she is simply encouraged to marry a believer.
Ian,
“The bigger question raised by this book, though, is: do the biblical writers understand God’s widening mercy when they teach about marriage and sexuality, or have they misunderstood?”
I have spent many years studying this — I suggest for a lot longer than the combined efforts of the Hays. And my answer is an emphatic no.
The ’empatic no’ is to the question, “Do the biblical writers understand God’s widening mercy when they teach about marriage and sexuality?”
My answer to the question, “or have they misunderstood?” – is yes.
Colin, is there not a need here to explore the circumstances in which it came about, marriage of
a believing woman to an inbelieving husband, especially at Corinth, and conversions there of first generation believers.
Could not the married woman described became a believer after conversion, and the husband didn’t.
Years ago one of the woman on a mission team was converted after being married for some time. Her husband remained atheist and was antagonistic.
If recalled correctly, this text was something at the forefront of her mind.
Geoff and Ian,
Yes, many might have come to faith in the early church with unbelieving husbands.
But as we seem to be agreeing, the ‘mixed’ faith marriage was valid but not recommended.
In contrast, a mixed marriage in the OT would be about race not faith and they could (should?) be terminated (Ezra 10:3). Paul, I suggest, is saying that those ‘race’ principles do not come through to the church — not that he was changing OT teaching on sexual ethics.
Colin,
Isn’t the full canon sweep concerned with belief/ unbelief : true God v false/local gods
It is not primary about race and avoidance of mixture or syncretism of faith/ belief?
Hi Geoff,
“Isn’t the full canon sweep concerned with belief/ unbelief : true God v false/local gods … It is not primary about race and avoidance of mixture or syncretism of faith/ belief?”
Yes — but not, I would argue, the Mosaic Covenant (MC) which was not faith based. Entry into it was not volitional – you entered automatically at birth.
A lack of a personal faith in God would not exclude you from the MC — in contrast to the new covenant which is fully faith-based.
But you could eject yourself from the MC, as did Israel as a nation.
Hello Colin,
We disagree. All the covenants are predicated on faith:
God with his chosen people.
God’s presence is a biblical, longtitudinal theme.
Of course Christianity is a broad church. If you want to ‘widen mercy’ and be more open to same sex couples you can join a Methodist or Quaker or Church of Scotland or Lutheran church as those denominations offer full same sex marriages in their churches.
If you want prayers for same sex couples in churches your Church of England church now does so and the Roman Catholic church may follow suit in time based on comments by Pope Francis.
If you reject any marriages or even prayers for same sex couples then Baptist or Pentecostal or many independent evangelical or Orthodox churches offer neither and likely never will
Why is ‘Christianity a broad church’ when Jesus says the way to life is ‘narrow’.
Was Jesus wrong on this?
Keeping those two things faithfully together is always a huge challenge. But in practice every denomination is an amalgam of views and mostly people learn to rub along with those they disagree with e.g. on atonement, Trinity, salvation. Otherwise we’d have much sharper edges to the church, which some denominations do. Even within evangelicalism in the C of E there are very big differences re some of these which are irreconcilable but people stay together. I know of one very lively city centre parish with the largest congregation in the diocese where the incumbent takes the traditional/conservative view re same sex relationships, but others in the congregation and leadership team are allowed to differ. It’s not easy but it’s one way to respond to this intractable debate. Splitting is a choice not an inevitability.
I wonder what would happen in that church if, for example, a gay couple were part of the congregation and one or both wanted to take on leadership roles. The Rector would presumably be against that as he viewed them as openly sinning. Or do you mean there are leaders already there in gay sexual relationships?
Good question to which I’m afraid I don’t know the answer. But in plenty of churches people are in leadership roles but disagree with some aspect of the incumbent’s theology.
Do you think any of them is truthful enough to admit that they do not know enough to have much of an opinion on this?
I know of one specific instance of a man who had had a leadership position in a church (not Anglican) but subsequently came out as gay, left his wife and children and entered a gay relationship. He (but not his partener) attended a local Anglican church and was welcomed. However, he then sought to take up a more up-front role (communion server) but the vicar said “no” because of his lifestyle. So, he left and attended another Anglican church in the neighbourhood.
The cruelty to family is as bad and notable as the lifestyle and in fact even worse.
The unspoken assumption here is that schism is necessarily in this case caused by the orthodox leaving. But it’s schismatic to join and lead an institution without having any intention to uphold and teach the clear doctrine (teachings) of that organisation. They too have a choice: if you want to be within the Church of England you believe and teach what it has always taught, and if you can’t you leave.
Jesus also opposed divorce except for pornea but different denominations take different views of remarriage of divorcees as well. St Paul is interpreted as opposing women priests by many theologians and again denominations differ on women priests and bishops. Roman Catholics and Orthodox and most Baptist churches don’t have women priests or bishops but Methodists, Lutherans, Church of Scotland and most Anglican and Pentecostal churches do have women priests and the C of E and Lutherans have women bishops now too
I think a lot of people who formerly held conservative views on SSM and then go on to change their mind, do so because of someone they know- either a close friend or particularly a close family member who are gay.
These people are seen by them to have been treated badly by the church which then clouds their objective judgment when it comes to interpreting scripture.
‘These people’ are seen to be committed disciples of Christ, Bible-centred, filled with the life of the Spirit, known by their fruits (Matt 7), and living for the coming Kingdom.
This may be true in some areas of their lives, but how can that be so if their sexual behaviour is at variance with scripture? While none of us come up to God’s standards making an exception in the case of SSR/M is inconsistent with what we read as God’s thinking in marriage unless we accept Hay’s et al proposition that God has morally re-educated himself for our modern age.
David, yes, that is the claim that is made.
But if they are ‘Bible-centred’ why do they avoid, as Hays and Hays do here, what Scripture actually says about sex and marriage?
Yes, known by their fruits. And Hays and Hays are quite clear that the inevitable consequence of following their decision will be conflict and irreconcilable division in any church going down this path—as we have seen very clearly in every single denomination.
And *every* denomination following this route has accelerated in their decline, where other churches in the West are actually growing.
What kind of ‘fruit’ is that then?
1. Not a claim. It is evidence – and plain to see.
2. Not ignored at all. Careful scholars have studied the same texts and come to a different conclusion from you. It happens.
3. They say nothing about ‘inevitable’, ‘irreconcilable’ division. No one is being forced anywhere. And all sides have responsibilities in times of disagreement. The book itself is full of faith and hope – hence ‘widening’.
4. This repeated, simplistic claim – it is simply not true that all conservative churches are growing and all inclusive ones are declining – and that it all hinges on ‘this issue’.
5. The fruit of life of the Spirit is to do with being formed in the character and likeness of Christ – it is not a matter of church statistics.
“Careful scholars have studied the same texts and come to a different conclusion from you. It happens.”
No, that’s not correct. We are talking about competent *New Testament* scholars who know the ancient literature and have a deep knowledge of koine – not scholars in psychology or sociology or pastoral care etc. Your old colleague John Nolland is correct on the meaning of these verses and so are Luke T. Johnson, Bill Loader and other liberals.
Sorry, David, your argument is not evangelical, it’s liberal. It happens.
David R,
Why do you think there has been a change in what is considered to be biblical scholarship with an increased rapidity, and an increased hypersexual western culture post WW2?
The Hays have changed their minds, primarily; why? They have made it explicitly clear.
And other revisionists, primarlity why?
Croft, in his essay, was open enough to admit his change was primarily due to changing culture in matters of sexual morals and ethics.
And Welby?
And you, yourself, primarily, why?
Though I think that your comments here have given a great indication of your early influences as a younger man, student – changing culture.
The primary hermeneutic lens for revisionists is western secular culture.
James. Thank you for reminding of me of my time teaching on the faculty of Trinity College with John Nolland and others. It was a honour and a joy. One of the things I loved were the faculty discussions with such gifted people holding varied opinions. They were completely secure in allowing each other to hold different views, and respectful in clear disagreement. There was a generous wideness there. I still aspire to that. So sorry, James. Not liberal. Just evangelicals able to disagree in Christ – then and now. I am sorry if you, as a student at that time, missed that among us.
David,
A pleasure to remind you of your Trinity days – though I don’t think you ever forgot them. Of course, IIRC, you taught spirituality and pastoral theology, not New Testament exegesis.
That was John Nolland’s field, just as others were specialists in Old Testament exegesis. I know how they understood those texts, and it wasn’t what you claim they mean. It’s been clear for years that your understanding of the Bible is what Dave Tomlinson called ‘post-evangelical’.
But the correct exegesis of the Bible is actually what evangelicalism is about, first and foremost.
“They were completely secure in allowing each other to hold different views, and respectful in clear disagreement.”
Of course they did. That doesn’t mean they thought some interpretations quite bonkers. Even Australians can act like Englishmen (sometimes).
I was part of that close faculty team for six years. I don’t remember seeing you in the room in that time James. But let me leave you to your labels.
HJ,
That’s Process Theology, which is what a lot of liberals in the C of E actually believe.
After all, feminist theology has taught us that ‘Father/Son’ language for God is simply projection from the natural world, just as ‘King/Lord’ is from ancient hierarchical politics.
The logical answer is to embrace John Hick’s ‘Reality-centred’ pluralism.
Geoff, you ask of David R:
“And you, yourself, primarily, why?
Though I think that your comments here have given a great indication of your early influences as a younger man, student – changing culture.”
David has already said on this blogsite that already as an undergraduate at LBC in the 70s he disagreed with evangelical teaching on homosexuality, but he wisely kept that opinion to himself. So he knew what he believed before he had studied the scholarship. This is basically a Quaker outlook – the Spirit gives inner illumination – and those attracted to soft, imprecise subjects like psychology and spirituality tend to valourise this subjective outlook.
Many people make up their minds early on big questions in life and then spend the rest of their lives finding reasons to reinforce their early beliefs.
Other people (the majority) are not intellectually curious or studious but have a vague core of beliefs with other ideas in the penumbra, which can be abraded away by years of cultural drift. Justin Welby falls into this category. He was never a serious scholar, and his drift began 10 or 12 years ago, but he kept stumm for as long as he could.
David, you keep repeating such things.
1. Whereas people come to different conclusions, scholars do not (being precise and nuanced people) come to *polarised* conclusions, which is what you seem to be talking about. And in any case any conclusions are provisional, so you would need to show some humility in using the word ‘conclusion’ at all. The word conclusion is subsidiary to evidence. Your approach is not evidence-based, because it leaps straight to comparison of conclusions (!) without mentioning the hard nitty gritty in the middle that could enable conclusions to be drawn in the first place. Oh that life were so simple.
2. On homosexuality, the different conclusions are about more subsidiary points rather than about whether Paul is or is not opposed to same-sex ‘sexual’ relations, which he clearly is strongly and without exception.
3 If what you say about careful scholars is true, why does it not appear in critical commentaries?
The world is full of many scholars? Yet have you ever encountered a single one whose position is even close to yours who is not labouring under a culture that is pushing them that way (i.e., does not date from the last 50 years)? And even then, have they written critical commentaries?
4 What on earth do you mean, not all conservative churches are growing and not all the others ares shrinking? This is a world full of hundreds of thousands of churches. Of course not every single one will follow this pattern. Just the vast majority do, and how else do you want us to obtain information unless from averages?
5 So you think that although *fewer* people have even got to the point of coming near a church, it is quite possible that *more* are somehow being moulded in Christlikeness. Sounds a bit desperate, and conveniently unprovable. This is the sort of thing people start saying when the power has departed as a result of compromise with the nonChristian elements of secular culture.
David, thanks for responding.
Could you point me to scholars who believe that the biblical texts do not prohibit same sex sexual relationships? Hays and Hays believe they do; so do E P Sanders, Luke Timothy Johnson, Walter Brueggemann, Bill Loader…and so on.
Andrew comments: ‘the two authors also seem to grant it is probably impossible to hold competing views on these matters of sexual ethics in the same undifferentiated ecclesial community’ referring to an earlier citation in the book. Is he wrong in this?
Can you point me to a single denomination which has changed it doctrine and has not accelerated in decline?
many thanks
Yes, James it was time spent at LBC. Thanks.
David R will not respond directly to my comments, as is his prerogative.
Ian. You well know I have responded several times to the oft repeated claim that ‘all scholars’ and the bible on this issue – so I do not know why you are asking me to repeat myself? Here is one brief example – https://www.inclusiveevangelicals.com/post/all-bible-scholars-agree-that-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-woman-it-is-true.
The claim of church growth or decline based on beliefs on sexuality is yours not mine. It is for you to turn up with some clear evidence, not me.
Thanks for responding David.
Your article offers no evidence to contradict what I have said, so I am rather puzzled. For example:
Indeed. He is quite clear that the New Testament prohibits all same-sex sexual relationships. He just does not think that teaching makes any authoritative claim on us. That is what I keep saying: scholars agree that the Bible prohibits same-sex sexual relationships; but they just think the Bible’s teaching here is wrong. What have I missed?
The evidence on church growth is very clear: every single denomination that has changed its teaching on marriage has accelerated in decline. The numbers are public.
The only denominations in England that are growing just now (and they are, and attracting young people) uphold the historic, catholic view in line with the teaching of Jesus.
I cannot see anywhere where you have offered counter evidence to this.
Davidm now you are saying that the strong correlation between culturallycompromised sexual ethics and decline is Ian’s idea. It is obviously not that, but the conclusion drawn from graphs of church attendance graphs over millions of people and tens of denominations. Ian is responsible for all those people and what denomination they attend or fail to attend?
You have clearly not thought this through. It is just the age old story that never fails to be shown on graphs.
Ian you have made that claim about Walter Brueggemann before and it has been refuted before at least once. Do read what he actually says
https://outreach.faith/2022/09/walter-brueggemann-how-to-read-the-bible-on-homosexuality/#:~:text=If%20a%20man%20lies%20with,is%20no%20ambiguity%20in%20them.
I not only read it; I wrote a whole article about it.
What am I misrepresenting?
Correct me if I’m wrong – you haven’t expressed it totally clearly in this thread – but I think you are claiming that he says the bible is clear in its opposition to same sex relationships.
His article is clear in saying that the bible is not univocal in the matter.
“start with the awareness that the Bible does not speak with a single voice on any topic. Inspired by God as it is, all sorts of persons have a say in the complexity of Scripture, and we are under mandate to listen, as best we can, to all of its voices.”
“The reason the Bible seems to speak “in one voice” concerning matters that pertain to LGBTQ persons is that the loud voices most often cite only one set of texts, to the determined disregard of the texts that offer a counter-position. But our serious reading does not allow such a disregard, so that we must have all of the texts in our purview.”
“All interpretation filters the text through life experience of the interpreter. The matter is inescapable and cannot be avoided. The result, of course, is that with a little effort, one can prove anything in the Bible. It is immensely useful to recognize this filtering process“
This last quotation in particular is what we so often see with comments here, from all perspectives.
‘His article is clear in saying that the bible is not univocal in the matter.’
There is a question as to whether that is true; I think it is disputable. But in this very article, he contradicts that. He agrees that the teaching of Scripture, including Paul, is unequivocal in its rejection of same-sex sexual matters.
‘There they are. There is no way around them; there is no ambiguity in them…Paul’s intention here is not fully clear, but he wants to name the most extreme affront of the Gentiles before the creator God, and Paul takes disordered sexual relations as the ultimate affront. This indictment is not as clear as those in the tradition of Leviticus, but it does serve as an echo of those texts. It is impossible to explain away these texts.’
He then goes on to say that the principle of inclusion, including Gal 3.28, contradict these texts. In other words, Paul (and Jesus’) teaching on sexuality fails to reflect Paul’s own gospel of inclusion. Douglas Campbell says something very similar.
What they both say is that scripture is incoherent, because *their* understanding of ‘inclusion’ contradicts Paul’s (and Jesus’) understanding, so they feel able to dispense with what Scripture says clearly and unambiguously on sexuality and marriage—on the basis of their interpretation of the meaning of ‘inclusion.’
But their understanding fuses identity with actions—something scripture consistently rejects.
Does that make sense?
Andrew, you cannot possibly affirm when Brueggemann says that the Bible is not univocal on *any* topic. This is an airy sweeping ideological huge generalisation which is multiply inaccurate.
So the BIble is not univocal on the topics it mentions only once?
It is never univocal on the topics it mentions only twice?
It is never once univocal on the topics it mentions a few times, like whether homosexual sexual practice is right or wrong?
I can think of topics it mentions multiple times and always agrees. Does God exist? Is stealing right or wrong when no other factors intrude? Are idols ok? The list is as long as a chimp’s arm.
Andrew,
There isn’t a shred of exegesis in what Brueggemann does – but lots of political eisegesis.Brueggemann doesn’t think the OT is the inspired Word of God, as Jesus clearly did in his encounter with the devil in Matthew 4.
Brueggemann thinks it is more like a political process of arguing voices in the US Democratic Party, eventually coming to accept the Civil Rights Act 1964. Even the rhetoric of ‘an arc tending to justice and mercy’ is a direct echo of Martin Luther King.
Why choose these political terms?
Why not use the Bible’s own terms of where the ‘arc’ is tending: to the coming of the Messiah, the Kingdom of God and the holiness of God’s people?
Because as a good US Democrat, Brueggemann doesn’t care much for Kingdom or purity language – much too ‘Catholic’ for his anti-Catholic mind.
To set the Gospel off against the Bible, as he does in this article, gives away his ecclesio-political programme. Many years ago I read a critique of Brueggemann by Philip Davies of Sheffield (by then an agnostic, I think) and he correctly put his finger on what Brueggemann was doing.
All Brueggemann’s talk about Isaiah 54 etc doesn’t conceal the fact that he can find *nothing* at all in the OT or NT to validate same-sex relations.
So he resorts to political slogans instead.
And that, Andrew, is all he is doing.
Christopher no need for such wooden literalism. His points are well made
Ian. I am puzzled too. I know you do not agree with my position but I did hope you could join up the dots. At least take Brueggemann off your list.
As to the ‘all growing’ or ‘all declining’ claim, let’s have the evidence please. It is your claim. You back it up. Do not ask me to do that work for you.
David, I am trying to work out what you think Brueggemann said. As I cite above:
‘There they are. There is no way around them; there is no ambiguity in them…Paul’s intention here is not fully clear, but he wants to name the most extreme affront of the Gentiles before the creator God, and Paul takes disordered sexual relations as the ultimate affront. This indictment is not as clear as those in the tradition of Leviticus, but it does serve as an echo of those texts. It is impossible to explain away these texts.’
Brueggemann is quite clear that the Bible prohibits all forms of same-sex sexual relationship. So does every reputable liberal critical scholar I have come across.
But he then says two other things:
a. his understanding of the ‘heart’ of the gospel contradicts what scripture says on this matter. His assumption here is that he understands the heart of the gospel better than the biblical writers and teachers, including of course Jesus and Paul.
b. He believes that the Bible cannot have the last word. Like LTJ, he appeals to a quite different authority, which is his judgement in the light of his experience.
You say in your own article:
‘The problem with the claim is the premise behind it. Biblical scholars may agree that marriage is between man and woman in the Bible, but as theologians they can and do take different views about what should prevail today. Not all (perhaps not many) take the view, commonly claimed by conservatives, that what is ‘biblical’ is normative, or at least not in the way being asserted.’
‘Biblical scholars may agree that marriage is between man and woman in the Bible’ is precisely what I keep pointing out, and you claim to be refuting. And indeed they do not believe that what is biblical is normative.
Evangelicals, and for that matter Anglicans, do indeed believe that scripture is normative. A belief in the unity of scripture, as God-breathed, also rejects that idea that the biblical authors and teachers did not understand their own gospel.
You appear to agree with Brueggemann and others in their claims, but still seek to own the term ‘evangelical’. It is odd!
On church decline, I have done the work, and pointed it out to you. Look at SEC, TEC, ACNZ, CiW, Methodists…all who have changed the doctrine of marriage have divided and collapsed.
Can you point me to a single denomination which has changed its doctrine and grown—or even slowed its decline? I know of none.
Ian I’m afraid you don’t make sense and are clearly reading something into Brueggemann that isn’t there. He is, as you say, clear that the biblical texts specifically about sane sex relationships say exactly what they say. But he is also clear that, as Karen Keen puts it below, “To blindly apply law without consideration of the circumstances is ungodly legalism. That is what Jesus teaches.”. He isn’t arguing for inclusion. He is making the the point that the gospel is against exclusion. The thief on the cross is a perfect example. Jesus does not exclude him from the kingdom. No request for repentance. Just a seeing that the man’s heart is right.
Ian ‘On church decline, I have done the work, and pointed it out to you’. When and where was that? – sorry I have no record or recollection of you sending this to me.
And all these dying churches you point me towards (without citing sources or actual evidence). Have I got this right? They were all thriving and growing until the fateful moment they made a decision to go inclusive/liberal and/or decided to back equal marriage. Then they immediately went into steep decline. No other factors were involved at all. Empirical research unambiguously supports this? I rather doubt it.
And in any case – growth is not always a sign of faithfulness, and decline is not always a mark of unfaithfulness or error. I think you are wildly oversimplifying what is going on.
David, I am not ‘wildly oversimplifying’; you are misquoting me. I have never said that these churches were growing until they changed their doctrine. Neither do I say anywhere that churches will certainly grow if they don’t change. Those two claims are manifestly false.
What I do note is that these churches, which were already in decline, changed their doctrine—and in many cases they claimed that this was necessary, as holding on to the traditional view was an obstacle to mission, and prevented growth. Many in the C of E have also used the language of ‘by their fruit you shall know them.’
The fact that every one of these has found their attendance decline accelerate, and that every one of the denominations in England which are growing (and there are some) hold to the historic teaching, seems very strange if it is a coincidence.
And the reason at the root of it is that—precisely as you say—those who changed their teaching do so in contradiction to the consistent teaching of Scripture. They with you, and Brueggemann, and other critical scholars, that biblical theology is *not* normative for them.
And of course, the 39 Articles which determine the doctrine of the C of E say clearly that Scripture *is* normative for us (Article XX: And yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written). So your following Brueggemann and others is contrary to the formulas and therefore also canon law (Canon A5)>
(The data on what is happening is very very easy to find. Take this in the Church Times: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2023/29-september/news/world/us-episcopalian-sunday-figures-nearly-halved-over-past-decade . It notes: The overall figures for the decade to 2022 appear to reflect the effect of internal disputes. One of the areas showing the sharpest fall in Sunday attendance was South Carolina, where the average fell, between 2011 and 2020, by 78.5 per cent. This was chiefly due to the acrimonious split in 2012 over issues such as blessings for same-sex couples.’)
Ian,
I think you have correctly determined what Brueggemann is saying and how he arrives at his conclusion: not BECAUSE of what the biblical writers say (he understands what they are uniformly saying about same-sex relations) but INSPITE OF what they say.
He is saying the writers didn’t grasp the true significance of ‘the Gospel’ here and ‘the Gospel’ is different from the words of the apostles (and even Christ).
In this respect, Brueggemann argues the same way as Sanders, Loader and Luke Johnson, viz. the Bible writers are wrong, there are ‘deeper truths’ about justice and mercy at work which they failed to see.
IOW, it’s a kind of Sachkritik, rather as Bultmann did.
So David Runcorn is incorrect in claiming that Brueggemann shows that the Bible affirms same-sex relations.
In fact, if David (and Andrew Godsall, who provided this link) had read it carefully, they would see that Brueggemann is saying that the Bible writers are wrong because they didn’t understand ‘the true message of Jesus’ at this point.
Brueggemann may believe this – but by no stretch of the imagination could this approach be called ‘evangelical’ which is inherently about the correct exegesis of the text as the authoritative Word of God. (And that is also the historic Catholic understanding of Scripture, it should go without saying).
David’s position is post-evangelical a la Dave Tomlinson, and is really most nearly Quaker in outlook, claiming the internal illumination of the Holy Spirit as having priority over the letter. It certainly isn’t evangelical.
As David has said, he arrived at his beliefs about same-sex sex and Christianity while still an undergraduate at LBC in the 1970s, not through engagement with critical scholars.
David R, do you agree or disagree that a notably precipitate decline in Methodists numbers came directly after they changed tack on ss’m’?
Secondly, do you agree or disagree that the same happened to the USA Episcopals?
To a statistician, the fact that (by and large) all those haemorrhaging have something in common and all those growing also have a different and contrary thing in common is very strong evidence. It means that one single proposition holds true no matter which example one takes.
Interesting to note here that the Diocese of Coventry, which has had a conservative leadership under their previous bishop, is in steep decline.
As the Church Times noted: 1.6 per cent of the population attend a C of E church, with an average weekly attendance of 10,600 — a figure that has fallen by one third (32 per cent) in the last ten years.
So the claims here by Ian and Christopher and others don’t quite ring true.
They ‘don’t quite ring true’ because you haven’t read carefully what I have said. As I clarified to David, I am not claiming that all orthodox churches are growing; I am observing that the only denominations that are growing are orthodox on sexuality. It is a necessary though not sufficient condition.
And a diocese is not a denomination. All C of E dioceses will suffer the problems of the whole C of E on this.
Out of all the examples that could have been given (and our ‘side’ has graphs FULL of them) AG can cite one diocese of one denomination.
However, even that is not a counter example, since it came from a denomination already identified as shrinking. So it supports our pov not his.
And there is a second reason why it is not a counter example. In a country where church attendance is only just about holding up in total, and possibly slightly shrinking, then some groups will be just the wrong side of the grow/shrink line even if they are orthodox. What I said was that all those haemorrhaging (not all those shrinking to any degree) were revisionist and all those growing were normal Christian.
As Ian says, you confuse necessary conditions with sufficient conditions.
What neither of you seem able to acknowledge is the point that suddenly appointing a lot of ‘orthodox’ bishops is not going to reverse the trend of decline. The decline is not to do with same sex marriage.
Coventry is by no means the only example of a diocese where there is orthodox leadership and large decline.
And London as a diocese has been growing despite successive bishops who were accepting of same sex partnerships.
The decline of the CofE is complex. But I suspect terminal…..and it has nothing to do with the gays.
What an odd comment at every level.
The reason why London Diocese has been growing…is because Richard Chartres decided to work with HTB, as well as orthodox ‘catholics’.
There are lots of reasons for decline of the historic denominations. Accommodating the values of our sexualised culture always hastens it.
Christopher your talk of ‘sides’ and ‘our pov’ is playground language. It’s one of the things that most certainly is causing decline in the CofE.
Those who are affirming and inclusive, and those who are denying and exclusive need to find a way to work together. Neither, apart from the extreme conservatives, are going to depart. Peace is needed, not taking sides or having opposing pov. (I thought you didn’t like the word (view) anyway.
Ian, once again you seem to be missing the point. And I find your comment odd at every level.
The reason London Diocese has grown is precisely because +Richard and +Sarah after him have worked with all kinds of churches and have *never* said, “I’m not going to work with these or allow these people in the diocese.” And of course that’s precisely what CEEC and other groupings are now saying. It’s a reckless recipe for faster decline.
The only way to survive is by holding together.
They worked with diversity within the boundaries of C of E doctrine. That is not what is now being proposed.
They worked with those who were in same sex partnerships and refused to give in to the demands of places like St Helens Bishopsgate, for example, who did not want to take candidates for ordination to the Cathedral because of that issue.
The only way to growth is people working together.
James (and Ian as well actually): you are making the discussion here about the _text_ when it is about _implicatures_ drawn by hearers (readers) of the text and which of these _implicatures_ are stronger (and maybe intended by the speaker (writer)) or weaker (for which the hearer(reader) may need to take more responsibility). So it is important to consider from where and how the implicatures are being arrived at. In Relevance Theory (RT) the ‘from where’ part is ‘context’ as defined in RT. Context includes (1) all the hearer (reader)’s understanding of everything and how everything works; (2) the situation in which the communication is happening; (3) surrounding text and remembered text; etc. For readers, stronger implicatures can be drawn from (3), but (1) and (2) may be as important, as, for example, in Paul’s letter to Philemon where the text does not say that Onesimus is a ‘runaway’ slave or Colossians where the text does not say that there were false teachers in the church.
It seems strange that some evangelicals seem to narrow context to (3) when so-called liberals are using what they consider a broader context — for example, God’s revelation of who God is.
But it is still the IMPLICATURES that are being argued over, NOT the TEXT.
CB
And they also may see that marriage brings their gay family member support happiness ad stability and that they and their spouse make great parents and then it’s hard to connect those experiences with the pagan idolators of Paul’s letter to the Romans or the predatory townsmen of Sodom.
I am sure that they do. However what brings them personal happiness and whether God is happy about it are not necessarily the same.
Who says that same sex couples make great parents? Children need parental role models for both sexes ie; a father and a mother. Children are not simply ‘nice to have add ons. Same sex couples who have children are denying those children the advantages of being raised by both a man and a woman by prioritising their happiness and satisfaction over the child’s.
In fact this is true. And not only in Anglicanism, in fact national population studies generally as well as specifically within Christianity and specifically in the area of my doctoral research demonstrate empirically bearing out Gordon Allports Contact hypothesis which says that contact with those of whom we may may have previously disagreed with, sometimes violently reduces with hostility and opposition with contact. I have an item in my survey that measures how attitudes soften to the point sometimes of dissipation with increased forms of contact from familiarity to close family. Contact reduces strongly held attitudes including opposition to homosexuality etc, and as anecdotal evidence suggests, may lead to affirming positions. Intriguingly, pragmatism and compassion trump theology. The conversation that your stream has been so publicly engaged in is only really getting started in other streams including my own.
Thanks Sandy. Is it a good thing that ‘pragmatism trumps theology’, when that theology is the teaching of Jesus?
Absolutely no!
Some interesting research there, Sandy. ‘Pragmatism and compassion trumps theology’ more or less sums up what I was trying to say and I have observed in a number of cases -particularly when close family members or close friends are involved.
But this is often done at the expense of truth is it not?
It is, and therein lies the tension, and I’m sure for those who are conservative on this issue there is a real and deeply experienced struggle to reconcile clear biblical sexual ethics when encountering real people they know and love, and yet love is love is to tell the truth in love with love.
“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” – Hebrews 13:8. And human nature hasn’t changed since the Fall, so there is no reason for God’s response to it to change. If Mr Hays believes the Bible is out of date, why single out LGBT; why not simply declare himself a universalist?
Anton
You can recognize that the Bible was primarily given to iron age cultures which were very different to our own without throwing away all of scripture. In fact you apply culture and context to every other issue except this one!
Do I? Kindly give examples.
Well do you make sure that you do not harvest right to the edge of your fields and allow the poor to harvest what you didn’t?
Do you condemn people who have escaped modern slavery?
Yes, I do. I don’t have actually fields now, so I give space at the edges of the ‘field’ of my diary. The issue here is ‘do not seek to squeeze every last drop of your resources out of lack of trust of God which excludes the poor’.
‘Slavery’ in the OT is bond servitude; translations should not use that word, as it has no relation to chattel slavery.
Ian
Some slavery in the HB is clearly chattel slavery and claiming that it is ‘merely’ bond slavery does a great disservice to the text.
The central question is: Does/Can God change His mind/will as He receives “new” information?
Happy Jack
Few people who advocate for SSM believe God was ever opposed to it.
I think you are nearly right on this.
Most scholars tend to believe that the consistent biblical texts which clearly rule out any form of same-sex sexual relationships are corrupt, man-made, and do not express God’s will. This is what makes David Runcorn’s citation of them odd.
But popularly, people say to me all the time ‘God has changed his mind’. In fact that is exactly the phrase that Hays and Hays use.
Ian
Yes I think it’s probably more common amongst church leaders than Christians in general. I think what they really mean is “I have changed my mind, but I’m struggling to explain why”
The perfect example of entitled projection.
We have always had:
-God will forgive me – c’est son metier
Now this has been ‘authoritatively’ extended, by people who have no dog whatever in the fight, to: ‘Not only that, but he becomes more and more permissive as time goes on’.
How convenient.
These are the very same people who take umbrage at anyone claiming to have a hot line to God.
Keeping those two things faithfully together is always a huge challenge. But in practice every denomination is an amalgam of views and mostly people learn to rub along with those they disagree with e.g. on atonement, Trinity, salvation. Otherwise we’d have much sharper edges to the church, which some denominations do. Even within evangelicalism in the C of E there are very big differences re some of these which are irreconcilable but people stay together. I know of one very lively city centre parish with the largest congregation in the diocese where the incumbent takes the traditional/conservative view re same sex relationships, but others in the congregation and leadership team are allowed to differ. It’s not easy but it’s one way to respond to this intractable debate. Splitting is a choice not an inevitability.
HJ,
Yours is a question no one here seems to want to explore, and it is probably beyong the scope of this blog, but it of crucial theological significance resting as it does on the nature, attributes, Person of God in Trinity, that is the doctrine of God; which God do Christians worship and follow.
The idea that God changes his mind, seemed to highly exercise theologians some 20 or so years ago.
Within a generation or two the ides seems to have become embedded as a dominant theology.
Hays father and son may be an example, with son ( influenced by open/process theology) influencing father’s changed mind.
Indeed, Geoff. It’s one thing for ‘scholars’ to interpret Scriptural texts differently. It’s quite another to claim God changes and learns in the face of human struggles and experience.
HJ,
That’s Process Theology, which is what a lot of liberals in the C of E actually believe.
After all, feminist theology has taught us that ‘Father/Son’ language for God is simply projection from the natural world, just as ‘King/Lord’ is from ancient hierarchical politics.
The logical answer is to embrace John Hick’s ‘Reality-centred’ pluralism.
Tim,
You are confusing the Church as the bulwark of truth with a political model of association of (broadly) like-minded people.
Give up the political view and embrace the New Testament understanding of the Bride of Christ.
Or if you can’t do that – accept Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses (with their variant views on e.g. atonement, Trinity, salvation) as your brothers and sisters in Christ.
After all, the Mormons and JWs say they are Christians. Why don’t you?
Or maybe you do?
James, no confusion just a difference from you. And I’m not seeking to change anyone’s mind. Curiously there are bigger differences over supra-first order issues that don’t lead to splits – compare the theology taught at our residential colleges but they continue in one church led by bishops of equal diversity.
Tim,
Then you do accept Mormons and JWs as fellow Christians who just think differently on the Trinity and the atonement?
I thought so.
Not seeking to change anyone’s mind?
Why not Tim.
But of course you are, evidence in your comments, which are freighted with a desire to change minds, whether in theological, scriptural substance, doctrine or methodology in discourse which is weighted heavily, with its attendant unspoken view of the weight and significance of the matter: that is, it is a one of indifference, thereby aligning with the revisionists.
James, please read what I wrote without reading your own assumptions (I thought so)into it and please don’t jump to conclusions.Where do I mention members of other faiths? My point was about the huge differences between Christians (even between evangelicals in the C of E) who continue to remain in the same church and somehow live with their differences. That is just as challenging over limited atonement or the Trinity or the sacraments as it is over the current debates on sexuality.
I’d look to know the beliefs and teaching of those in authority, in leading, before coming under their authority.
Tim, you speak on the abstract yet don’t disclose where you stand, maybe coming out of Methodism for undisclosed reasons.
This is not seeking to categorise, but to understand.
Key is your understanding and belief of what the Good News, (life transforming/changing/, of Jesus is.
Tim,
I was stating that you accept Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as fellow Christians, not as members of other faiths. The fact that they don’t believe in the Trinity or in the atonement makes them no different from those Anglicans who reject the Trinity or the atoning death of Christ, so by your light thr3y are as much fellow Christians to you as evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics. If you don’t accept them as fellow Christians, why not? (I understand from your words that you do accept them as fellow Christians, which is what they profess to be.)
Tim, yes, of course all churches have a mixture of views in them. That is because everyone is on a journey of discipleship and people are at different stages on that journey.
But Christian truth is not defined by this, is it? There are all sorts of people in the C of E—but it has a settled doctrinal position on all the issues you mention, including the doctrine of marriage.
The issue here is not the muddle of individual churches, but the idea that change will be forced on a church. A denomination cannot believe two contradictory things and survive.
So the split is not the choice of the faithful, but it is being pressed by those wanting change.
Ian
But the cofe officially allows, even protects, different views on lots of subjects (most obviously divorce and women in leadership) and other issues such as infant baptism being 100% valid. And other denominations (Church of Scotland, the Methodists, The Scottish Episcopal church, the Episcopal Church in the US) have successfully made this a local issue?
Peter, ‘And other denominations (Church of Scotland, the Methodists, The Scottish Episcopal church, the Episcopal Church in the US) have successfully made this a local issue?’
You have a very strange definition of ‘successful’! Every one of those denominations has split down the middle and collapsed in attendance after making this change.
Is that ‘success’?!
I don’t think any of the denominations I have mentioned have split?
They are, of course, experiencing decline. So are most denominations.
If you think they have not split, you need to read a little more!
No, some denominations are growing. All in the UK affirm Jesus’ teaching on marriage.
Firstly none of that addresses anything I said. Secondly, disagreement will regularly be caused by ignorance and yet you automatically give integrity to all viewpoints. I am glad that you give integrity to my clueless views on astrophysics. Or am I> Thirdly, it is demonstrable that the vast majority of people are indeed without knowledge about the statistical and research evidence in this area. We should therefore give great reverence to the ‘views’ of people who have not yet done what is necessary in order to have a view. You have, so far as can be seen, not thought this through.
‘it is demonstrable that the vast majority of people are indeed without knowledge about the statistical and research evidence in this area.’
Be our guest, Christopher. Please demonstrate this claim!
Bruce, you can do it yourself very easily in under five minutes.
1. Ask your household and your neighbours who can understand first year university Statistics.
2. Ask them who knows anything about the work of Mark Regnerus.
3. Post the results on this website.
I can give you my results if you like.
Demonstrable, yes.
Take the main discussion fora on such topics on the worldwide web (which is indeed worldwide).
These are populated by a distinct demographic that has some interest in and knowledge of such topics. Unlike the vast majority of other people.
Among even those fora, let us suppose that some get wind of statistical publication by one forum participant.
Over many years, even among this relatively knowlegeable cohort, how many people quote the author of any of the papers cited? Virtually none.
How many quote even one of the papers’ titles? Virtually none.
How many quote even one argument of even one of the papers? Virtually none.
How many quote even one conclusion from even one of the papers? Virtually none.
Despite that almost total ignorance, there is endless toing and froing chatter.
And even that wide display of ignorance, massively counteracted by our well informed host, is far less bad than another blog dealing with similar topics which actually censors the production of informed and precise data, i.e. statistics.
James, I guess I could draw two conclusions from surveying household and neighbours:
1. The ‘vast majority’ of people in the world speak English;
2. The ‘vast majority’ of people in the world have some understanding of pragmatics and have heard of Sperber & Wilson!
Bruce:
3. The vast majority don’t care about undergraduate things like ‘pragmatics’. Ernest Rutherford called other stuff ‘stamp collecting’ compared to the literally world-shattering discoveries he was making.
Real linguistics (e.g. historical development of language families) is deeper stuff.
James, what an interesting example to give of ‘real’ linguistics. Nothing about how we human beings actually use language to communicate (sigh!)
‘Views’?
‘Views’?
Are you denying that the word views includes completely different things all fudged together? Preferences and wishes (including selfish ones, and including instinctive ones, and including ones that simply repeat what is trumpeted by the only culture people know) sitting side by side with research conclusions which took years to attain.
And you treat all these as the same thing called ‘views’?
Can you justify that position, or is it just not thought through?
Thank you Andrew Goddard for your usual lucid and coherent analaysis.
What I find concerning is the hollowed out scholarship in the name of cultural compliance and conformity.
……….
As for family and friends falling out and separating over this they fall out over many things so there’s nothing new.
A lesbian unbelieving daughter of our Christian friends did not invite them to her civil ceremony as she knew that her parents would refuse. And yet, and yet their relations were not damaged : reciprocal love care and support continued while going their separate lives in faith v unbelief ( the daughter knew the Bible’s opposition.)
Rebecca McLaughlin has a very good critique of Hays and Hays a@
/www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/widening-gods-mercy/
Or a more thorough treatment by Preston Sprinkle @
.centerforfaith.com/blog/review-of-the-widening-of-god-s-mercy-by-christopher-b-hays-and-richard-b-hays.
Jujst what does it take to make the Church of England’s evangelicals cry out, “Enough! You are a heretic, Justin; you must resign or we will do everything we can do within the law and the church’s constitution to make life difficult for you, until you go.”
How do you know they haven’t?
By ‘cry out’ I mean with maximum publicity.
Perhaps on a widely-read blog…?
Invite the mass media to a launch event where a number of prominent evangelical vicars uneil this statement to Justin Welby: “In view of your open promotion of unrepentant LGBT within the Church of England and the Anglican Communion (supporting evidence attached) we regard you as a heretic and a schismatic. We have no intention of going anywhere. What will you do?” Embarrassment is powerful and is based on the exposure of hypocrisy. Repeated demonstrations could be arranged outside archbishops’ residences with placards asking “Does this archbishop believe in God?” and “Should this archbishop resign?” Flyers could be handed out explaining in brief and simple language the incompatibility of liberal theology with the Christian faith. Included would be the archbishop’s salary, quotes from his (her?) liberal writings and speeches set against scripture, pointed questions about hypocrisy, and statistics for the number of administrators in the archdiocese and the number of regular Communicants during recent decades. Similar demonstrations could be held before services outside every church at which these archbishops give a sermon, and also at their other public engagements; local media could be alerted in advance. Boo them when they appear. Nail the flyer to the doors of their cathedrals after the manner of Martin Luther. Encourage senior bishops from the Anglican Communion worldwide to warn Welby publicly that they will withdraw from the Communion entirely if the Church of England licenses same-sex weddings.
Or just at the next synod?
Yes, Christopher. They should be willing to be disruptive at Synod – the analogue in the church of peaceable civil disobedience.
Evangelicals probably still labour under the misapprehension that if they are nice to liberals then liberals will be nice to them. They also find it painful to argue against people they have known within the same organisation. But how many more times will they need to be kicked in the teeth in order to get it? They need to understand who is behind the movement to take down the church – and has been for 2000 years. He will never be nice, but if you resist him then he will flee.
I meant that people should gather outside the synod as a people’s movement. But no doubt they will anyway.
Anton
If you listen to the Campbell/Stewart interview, Welby did not promote LGBT people. He implied that church teaching no longer saw same sex sex as a sin as long as it was within a marriage or civil partnership.
The people he did say must be included in the church was not LGBT people, but people who want gay people to be put to death.
The fact there’s more outrage about the former statement than the latter shows how immoral the church has become where it’s acceptable to put innocent people to death, but unacceptable for a married couple to have sex
Peter ‘He implied that church teaching no longer saw same sex sex as a sin as long as it was within a marriage or civil partnership.’ Yes, and in doing so was being deeply misleading.
Peter,
Does God take marriage to be between man and woman exclusively? And was he wrong to command death for “man lying with man as with woman”, i.e. for sexual gratification, in ancient Israel?
Please include clear Yes/No answers in any reply.
Anton
If you constrain me to yes/no answers only then my answers are “No” and “No”
Peter: I did not constrain you to Yes/No answers. I asked that any answer you gave should *include* a clear Yes or No. It could be as discursive as you liked provided you did that.
Odd how, green issues, x-rebellion rouse some dog -collars to demonstrations and public order offences.
Ah, you mean the Reverend Dr Sue Parfitt aka Walrond-Skinner, who was arrested for trying to destroy the copy of Magna Carta in the British Library.
I remember Sue from her time in Bristol when she was in charge of the Post-Ordination Training of clergy.
She said a lot of odd things then but she wasn’t into destroying Britain’s (material) heritage. Shaping clergy thinking was more her style. I guess everyone needs a retirement project when the day comes …
Except on the usual rotation evangelical, mildly conservative Welby would be replaced by a liberal Catholic who you would hate even more
Justin has just released a video which looks syncretistic, affirming Hindu belief in the power of light over darkness.
Just to have an orthodox Anglican next time would be great!
Ian, do you have a link to this?
If he has done this, he has been channelling Pope Francis!
What is the point of All Saints Day if all are saints?
The Archbishop has tweeted celebrations for All Saints Day today too
https://x.com/JustinWelby/status/1852257602958217463
Even Trump has wished Hindus a happy Diwali and we have just had a Hindu PM here in the UK, most of which the C of E is established church of. I have no problem with it, Hindus often wish Christians Happy Christmas and are decent and educated and hard working people with strong family values on the whole
Has he gone AWOL?
Or, AWALI.
Are you sure that isn’t from a year or two back?
Guess why some people think there is a problem with ‘establishment’?
That last was a response to T1’s
“Except on the usual rotation evangelical, mildly conservative Welby would be replaced by a liberal Catholic who you would hate even more”
If you think Welby is evangelical nowadays then you are deluded.
Anton
He absolutely fits in with the New Wine/HTB type evangelicals. If he was still Bishop of Durham instead of ABC I doubt his tradition would even be questioned
He DID fit in with them. In what year did you move from the UK to the USA?
Peter, you don;t appear to have been following events here at all.
Justin has cut himself off from HTB.
Ian
For someone who has cut himself off from HTB he’s pushed an immense amount of resources their way!
Where your treasure is there your heart is also
Nonsense for lots of separate reasons:
(1) You claim positions have legitimacy merely by existing!
There is nothing eternal about your 2-3 cherished positions. Nor anything universal about them. They are products of culture to an extent.
(2) Liberals are liberals and catholics are catholics. Why are you fudging them together?
In fact, the rotation you imply fell infallible from the sky included a liberal who was not catholic (Runcie) and a catholic who was not liberal (Ramsey).
(3) This supposed rotation would merely be a people-pleasing rota as though the bottom line were factions (partial tribes in face of a prior reality). The bottom line is truth (reality). You think discussion is more important than the reality being discussed. But without that reality, there would be no discussion, and the discussion that there is owes everything to the reality which evokes the discussion.
(4) The supposed rotation looks very short lived. Temple and Fisher cannot be shoehorned into so procrustean a bed.
The rotation has only kicked in once Christian culture became a minority. Temple and Fisher were national figures.
(5) Just like presidential candidates claim to be evangelical catholics so as to maximise their vote base, recent archbishops and archbishop candidates try to make sure they are all of the 3, thus destroying your imposed model. Thus Welby before election. Thus Bp Perumbalath now, and actually many of the soft-‘evangelical’ male bishops that are those who have come into office under Welby. Whereas the females elected other than Bishops Duff and Bushyager are mostly susceptible to accommodation to the cultural winds and are ‘broad’ in that sense only.
Christopher
If it makes you feel better I don’t think any of the diocesan bishops have been good for gay people in the church. The only bishop I know of that consistently supported gay equality in the church was Alan Wilson.
As I have said many times I think the new blessings are a complete scam designed to placate straight people whose conscience is pricking. They improve absolutely nothing for gay people
Of course they improve things, despite fierce opposition from conservative evangelicals who opposed prayers for same sex couples in church let alone marriage the prayers have been approved. Many same sex parishioners married in English civil law are now receiving them in services
T1
Priests were blessing gay people decades ago. This isn’t anything new, but the fact it’s been made controversial will make lots more priests nervous about doing so.
What do you mean by ‘if it makes you feel better’?
Runcie was a liberal Catholic succeeded by evangelical Carey, Ramsey an Anglo Catholic succeeded by evangelical Coggan. The C of E is divided about 50 50 between those on the Catholic wing of Christianity and those on the Evangelical wing. Just the Catholic wing now tends to have more of the liberals within the C of E after most conservative Catholic Anglicans crossed the Tiber after women priests and bishops were approved in Anglican churches while most, though not all, evangelicals tend to be conservative
We shouldn’t really be surprised. For more than 20 years the lobby seeking same-sex weddings in the Church of England has made it up as it goes along. (John Henry Newman called it Continuing Revelation in another denomination.) Welby is merely making it explicit at the topmost level.
@ Anton
The notion of progressive or continuing revelation Is not held by the Catholic Church. St John Henry Newman certainly didn’t advocate this. He showed how doctrine develops and is not innovation or invention. The Church seeks and comes to a deeper understanding of Divine revelation over time.
Newman was no fan of liberalism. His ‘Biglietti’ speech was quite prophetic.
He might have been thinking of Francis!
Indeed. But Rome has been making it up as it goes along for centuries longer than Canterbury, all too often about Mary the blessed mother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
@ Anton
Just to note the Catholic Church hasn’t been “making it up as it goes along for centuries.” We don’t believe in the false doctrine of scripture alone or the perspicacity of scripture.
Before we look at sola scriptura, let’s look at what your scriptures include that the protestant Bible doesn’t. “A man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness” (Sirach 42:14). I make it my business to mention this to Catholic women. Do you agree with this statement?
Not the least strength of sola scriptura is that converts know what they are signing up to. In Catholicism they have to accept as equally authoritative whatever twaddle the Pope might think up ex cathedra.
Anton
So what’s your understanding of Sirach 42:14?
Understanding of it? You want me to teach you English grammar and vocabulary? This isn’t a 150-word sentence out of a translation of Kant!
It means what it says. Read the extended passage I have taken it from and you will see that this does not modify its very simple meaning in any way. A meaning which Catholic women who aren’t aware of it find easy to understand…
The next question is: Is it correct? The Catholic church says it’s scripture. As it’s not in protestant Bibles, I am free to say Yes or No. And I say No.
What do you say?
My first impression of Sirach 42:14 on reading it for the first time is much the same as Ecclesiastes 7:28, which is in the Protestant Bible.
@ Anton
It’s all about context. Read the preceding verses. Here’s what the Catholic Haydock Commentary says:
There’s also another interpretation:
Are aware the Lord’s Prayer contains a verse that may have its root in Sirach?
Steve,
Sirach is making a general assertion, that a man’s wickedness is better than a woman’s goodness.. Ecclesiastes is looking at a particular sample and saying that, in several thousand people he encountered in his era in ancient Israel, he found just one upright man and no upright women. No wonder the prophets grumbled!
Jack,
Do you actually believe that basket of unconvincing excuses and dissembling? Rome had to say something to try to disarm that verse. I am perfectly content to warn Catholic women that they should read what the Vatican has to say about it before finalising what they think it means.
@ Anton
“Rome” has never commented on this verse. In fact, the Catholic Church has not commented authoritatively on most particular verses in Scripture. Scripture study is an ongoing, developing field. To create an official commentary would impede the development of this field.
One could provide a summary of the basics of the faith in a few hundred well-crafted propositions. Scripture contains tens of thousands of individual propositions, and to comment on the authentic meaning of each of them would swell the number of propositions into the hundreds of thousands.
The Holy Spirit maintains in the Church a consensus on the individual points of the faith, not for all the individual propositions of Scripture. There is widespread debate over the correct interpretations of particular texts. In preparing an official commentary on Scripture, the Church would either have to catalogue each permissible interpretation or settle every individual debate.
The Church allows Scripture scholars liberty to interpret any Bible passage in whatever way they feel the evidence best supports provided certain boundaries are not crossed – interpretation of a passage is not excluded or contradicted by other passages of Scripture, the judgment of the magisterium, the Church Fathers, or by the faith.
The Catechism is the official catechetical text commenting on all the major points of the faith.
@ James
One should always be charitable in one’s interpretation and not simply assume bad faith. I have read Feser and don’t agree with him. I find he’s too analytical at times and misses the forest for particular trees he trying to cut down!
[I also agree with Pope Francis on the death penalty and just war]
@ James
Pope Francis isn’t a liberal-modernist.
That will become clear when he dies and the voting cardinals he has appointed – a large majority of them – choose his successor.
I have no schadenfreude about this. But you cannot see what is before your face. Many Catholics see it.
HJ, it’s hard to say what he is. The nonsense he spouted in Singapore about all religions bringing us to God suggests he is a syncretist. Or a Hickian (Hickster?).
What’s your take on the Singaporean Syncretist?
@ James
My thoughts?
I agree with the first part and have concerns over the lack of clarity in the second part.
I also agree with this:
It seems to me that Pope Francis wasn’t making a general statement in the abstract. He is talking about inter-religious dialogue. He’s counselling against having fights rather than respectful religious dialogue. That doesn’t mean denying beliefs. He doesn’t say all religions lead to God, but “paths to God.” They are ways that people try to pursue God. That doesn’t mean they’re all correct understandings of God, or all equal and it doesn’t matter what your religion is.
You are to generous to Francis, Jack.
Read Edward Feser for a complete analysis of what Francis said and where he went wrong.
@ James
One should always be charitable in one’s interpretation and not simply assume bad faith. I have read Feser and don’t agree with him. I find he’s too analytical at times and misses the forest for particular trees he trying to cut down!
[I also agree with Pope Francis on the death penalty and just war]
Apologies for posting twice … wrong place initially.
HJ,
I have tried to be charitable to Francis’s words but facts are facts.
Francis is wrong on the death penalty in Catholic doctrine.
And he is seriously wrong in his syncretism. ‘A path to God’ means exactly that. It’s like saying ‘the A1 is a road to Cornwall.’ Feser is not ‘too analytical’. He is exact and careful and knows Catholic theology better than Francis does.
You haven’t pointed out a single error in what Feser says.
@ James
Feser’s “forest” is: Pope Francis repeatedly makes heretical statements that contradict “traditional” Catholic teachings.
On this particular issues, he writes:
Here we go (yet) again. James wrote: “‘A path to God’ means exactly that.”
Exactly what?
James are you also going to fix your thinking about what ‘real’ linguistics is? Or are you sticking with something about finding language families?
James — to help you, if you are starting from Edinburgh isn’t the A1 a road to Cornwall?
In other words, James, stop trying to make arguments from language use without understanding pragmatics!! 🙂
Anton
I know lots of people here disagree with me, but I’m certain Welby opposes same sex marriage and has said so many times. After his interview with Alastair Campbell and Rory Stewart I do not think he even thinks of gay people as being of the same worth as other human beings
It is possible to be certain but wrong.
‘I’m certain Welby opposes same sex marriage’ You are mistaken there.
Having read Andrew Goddard’s review, it seems there is little biblical exegesis in the Hays and Hays book and the underlying concept, dressed up in philosophical language, is of an authority accorded to post-apostolic ‘revelation’.
Systematic (aka historical) theology tends to place weight on reception history, and others see that ‘experience’ — their own, or that of other individuals, or of a culture —can legitimately be brought into play.
In contrast, a biblical theologian (as I understand it) gives no authority to these things. Thus, disagreements (particularly re SSM) are often (usually?) not about what the Bible teaches but are to be found in the different epistemologies employed in articulating an understanding.
With these differing epistemologies there never will be agreement.
Reception history is an extraordinarily unscholarly enterprise apart from in an historical way, if it simply leaves out the questions of truth and of coherence.
Alister McGrath’s The Genesis of Doctrine indicated how perspectives on doctrines were so often influenced by cultural and historical circumstances. And most heresies are to do with a fudging or splicing together of the host culture with the doctrine.
Christopher
“Reception history is an extraordinarily unscholarly enterprise apart from in an historical way, if it simply leaves out the questions of truth and of coherence.”
I fully agree! I find it remarkable that in Protestant orthodoxy such authority is given to small group of white northern European men in the 16th and 17th century.
When in Africa I describe it as the ‘white man’s religion’.
Why? That merely fosters racial prejudice.
If it is true, it applies across all countries, races and colours.
The challenge would be how to relate those truths to a particular culture.
We support Wycliffe translators on the African continent, and others into Islam countries.
Why? That merely fosters racial prejudice.
If it is true, it applies across all countries, races and colours.
The challenge would be how to relate those truths to a particular culture.
We support Wycliffe translators on the African continent, and others into Islam countries.
And it also negates Jewish heritage.
Geoff,
“The challenge would be how to relate those truths to a particular culture.”
I do not believe Protestant orthodoxy of northern Europe in the 16th and 17th century has an exclusive hold on ‘those truths’. But it has been taught as if they have in much of Africa.
I also personally support – and am involved in – a translation project in Africa (Madagascar) that I am visiting next week. I have encouraged them to look at the biblcal text without importing European Reformed systematic theology.
And I would further argue that the European Reformed system negates the Jewish heritage you mention below — but that is a subject for another day.
I’ll leave aside the point that the 16th and 17th century northern European men you refer to were wanting to return the (then corrupt) Church to something more like that of the early Church Fathers. Semper Reformanda and all that.
If one considers the presenting issue from the point of view of Majority World theologians at the present time, how might the debate proceed differently?
If one considers the issue in the light of first millenium theologians, how would it differ?
Does not the issue lie in the assumption of Modern and Postmodern Western thought that it holds a True and Better understanding of the Nature of Things than other places and former times? I’m sure there is a word to describe that assumption.
isnt it more the Jewish man’s religion, who are olive-skinned?
To be fair to scholars today of a protestant bent, I think most are simply trying to understand the Biblical text and what it says to us today. Some, like NT Wright, also highlight the Jewishness of the text and the cultural context in which it was written. That is all good for a correct understanding.
Peter
White religon, is appaling negation of the Good News of Jesus and salvation only in his name, (as a Hebrew).
Yours is what, your own particular belief and holding out and onto what your own white religon is?
Is Colin is the only one walking in step in his teaching?
Is cessationism, your own idea, or white reception history which would deny any cultural native animism.
White religon, is appaling negation of the Good News of Jesus and salvation only in his name, (as a Hebrew).
Yours is what, your own particular belief and holding out and onto what your own white religon is?
Is Colin is the only one walking in step in his teaching?
Is cessationism, your own idea, or white reception history which would deny any cultural native animism.
Maybe, you consider Augustine of Hippo, partaker white reception religion, or does he undermine your claim?
Does the history of Bible translation make Christianity a white religion? (Even as you contribute in translation in furtherance, in corroboration of you claim – with your own translation, maybe?)
Please, no more translations. Scott McKnight’s is awful
David and Geoff,
“I’ll leave aside the point that the 16th and 17th century northern European men you refer to were wanting to return the (then corrupt) Church to something more like that of the early Church Fathers.”
—but they didn’t. Instead, the Reformers based much of their teaching on Augustine’s world view. He adopted a demythologized Graeco-Roman understanding of the gospel.
In biblical scholarship outside the Reformed guild this is widely accepted. But this is a deviation from this blog – so perhaps another day.
Colin,
Your comments here seem to me to invariably point away from the blog articles, to your own theological hobby horses, particulary in relation to the fall, covenants, and God divorcing Israel and anti charismatic.
Your first comment here, above, is an example, setting the scene for a shunting into your own siding.
Geoff,
Both Douglas Moo and Thomas Schreiner, two of the foremost commentators on Romans in the evangelical world, have challenged the Augustinian transmitted sinful nature understanding of Romans (and indeed anywhere else in Scripture) — and as regards transmitted guilt this is plainly contradicted in Deuteronomy 24:16.
And the NIV as you will know backed away from this in their 2011 translation.
I once listened to a lecture in a Roman Catholic seminary and the lecturer’s point was that Augustine (on whose teaching much of the RC is based) had relatively little knowledge of the OT.
I think our African friends and translators for African languages should be aware of these issues.
Colin,
My point isn’t at all about Augustine!!!
All scripture is reception history; received. And we are not here to discuss that, the Reformation or counter reformation, nor continue on this, a frolic of your own on your hobby horse, on Andrew Goddard’s article.
Geoff,
But this is related to the post in that the Hays and Hays book relies ultimately on the concept of continuing post-apostolic ‘revelation’. It is the point that Anton made at 5.55pm:
“We shouldn’t really be surprised. For more than 20 years the lobby seeking same-sex weddings in the Church of England has made it up as it goes along. (John Henry Newman called it Continuing Revelation in another denomination.) Welby is merely making it explicit at the topmost level.”
Protestant orthodoxy has given a unique authority to Augustine — Michael Haykin argued in favour of such in the August 2019 Evangelicals Now under the title ‘We Are All Augustinians’.
I argue as a biblical theologian that no tradition, church, or theologian should hold that position — I tell my African friends to be aware of Augustinian Western reception history.
And it is another reason why I am a cessationist — continuing charismatic revelation is a big problem in many African churches.
Colin,
Your citation of Haykin is a straw man fallacy as it relates to your philosophy of reception history.
Indeed, your argument self refutes as it curves in on itself, it is circular, unless you subscribe to the view that your reading is outside reception, tradition akin to you having unique, exceptional insight only available to scholars following your methodology, hermeneutic.
Indeed, it looks like sola or nuda scriptura, as long as you determine your own translation to use somewhat leaning on reception history!
On which reception history hermeneutic do you subscribe to the reception history category of cessationist.
It is a category that that rejects, healings and miracles. Why? scientific white modernism receptionism.
Does it reject the denomic and doctrine of demons?
As for continued revelation used to support ssm marriage, which is neither truly prophetic, nor words of knowledge, but feelings, emotionally based, how is it to be tested, if at all. Nowhere, but scripture, the closed canon. God does not contradict himself.
But I’ll end with this.
Is it mostly white theologians in the last decade or more, who have promulgated, and subscribed to Process or Open Theology which is that the root of this press for ssm/b, not reception history as you seek to selectively here limit it to only certain aspects in the Reformation.
I know I shouldn’t really ask this, as it is likely to elict a response limited to it.
The Triunity of God. Do you subscribe or not? Founded on what? Reception history? Of white religionsts? Theologians in history, or sola/ nuda scriptura reception hermeneutic of the reformation?
Even your hermeneutics is an ad- mixture of receptions, or so it seems.
What you have not done, is address Hays+Hays reception history and motivations for revision, as has Andrew Goddard in discussing before and after Hays senior and the underpinning cultural reception and there own theological beliefs, mixed with reception Methodism.
Ironically in view of this discussion, cessationism is a culturally conditioned standpoint. Specifically, it is conditioned by the fact that miracles of the Holy Spirit are not seen by most people in the institutional churches of Western Civilisation, and by revulsion at the confusion of the emotional and the spiritual in Western charismatic churches (most obviously in worship). I share this revulsion, incidentally. But cessationists are forced to to assign every miracle today to Satan rather than the Holy Spirit; even miracles of healing. That is the unforgiveable sin. Careful! Please see Craig Keener’s book on miracles today worldwide.
Read the New Testament and you will never find cessationism. (If anybody wants to dispute 1 Corinthians 13:10 with me, feel free.) Do we believe our Bibles or not? If we do, we should ask what is wrong with our churches. And we should look at the testimonies of Christians in persecuted churches beyond our own culture.
Given your comment below re charismatic/cessationism, it’s rather ironic that it is often charismatic/pentecostal churches which continue to reject same-sex sexual relationships. Perhaps because they are listening more to the Holy Spirit who is often paid lip-service in other churches.
Thank you for linking to my review in Baptist News Global. Many of the concerns you raised are also named by Preston Sprinkle, which I address in another essay, “Preston Sprinkle vs. Richard Hays.” Found here: https://open.substack.com/pub/biblesexgender/p/preston-sprinkle-vs-richard-hays
To address some of the comments about biblical exegesis and an affirming view: I became affirming because of Scripture not in spite of it. I was committed to life-long celibacy and in my pursuit of ministry my post-graduate study in the biblical text opened my eyes to a question no one was addressing. Namely, how do Jesus and the biblical authors interpret Scripture for ethics. I realized they don’t blindly apply law in the simplistic way I had been taught. In fact, Jesus calls out the religious leaders for getting things backward. The law is made for the benefit of humankind not humankind for the slavish submission to law. To get it backward leads to legalism, which has the appearance of godly devotion but is actually contrary to God. I would argue that traditionalists are engaging in legalism and the result is preventing gay people from a means of grace, that is covenant, and the way covenant fosters holiness.
In doing a thoroughly canonical and biblical survey of God’s mercy, Hays is speaking against this ungodly legalism. He follows the method of Moral Vision of the New Testament by looking to narrative patterns to find focal lenses. And that is what the book does, looking at narrative pattern and seeing God’s mercy has the interpretive lens through which law is to be understood. It’s not ignoring law; it’s rightly understanding how law is supposed to function in light of Jesus’s quoting if Hosea 6:6.
On another note at the CenterPeace Conference, Richard Hays gave a 20 minute address on how he came to change his mind and I interviews him for an hour about the book, including addressing critic concerns. Both were recorded and will become available. Follow centerpeace.net for updates on that.
Karen, thanks very much for commenting and contributing to the discussion.
I am puzzled though by one comment you make: you claim that in this book he ‘follows the method of MVNT’. If that is the case, why does he not engage with the case there more carefully? Why no consideration of the texts themselves? As Andrew shows, he fails to address the very arguments that he sets out there.
I am also puzzled by your use of ‘ungodly legalism’. The gospels treat Jesus’ teaching as authoritative for sharing the life of the disciple—indeed, Jesus commands his follower to ‘teach them everything I have taught you’. There is a wide consensus that Jesus’ teaching is that marriage is between one man and one woman, because of God’s creation of humanity as male and female. In fact, Richard Hays again confirms that this is what indeed the texts say—this is the teaching of Jesus.
Are we now to say that we know better than Jesus what God’s mercy looks like in this area? And on what grounds is following Jesus’ own teaching ‘slavish submission to law’?
thanks
We evolved from protozoa, Ian. But feel free to argue that sexual dimorphism is a G-d ordained adaptation. I have yet to hear a coherent argument on the matter.
Ian
You’re taking Jesus words out of context. He was actually speaking against divorce and remarriage. I think a really good rule of thumb for Christian engagement with gay people would be to treat gay people no worse than you would a straight person on their second marriage
‘You’re taking Jesus words out of context. He was actually speaking against divorce and remarriage.’
No I am not. When asked about divorce and remarriage, Jesus refused to get into a debate about Deut 24.1, and instead went back to the theological basis of marriage.
Rejection of same-sex sexual relations was such a central part of Jewish ethics and a sharp contrast to pagan culture that its impossible to believe that this was not significant. Particularly so for the gospel writers, who are now working the context where Paul has to write 1 Cor 6.9 ‘Such were you…’
Ian
You just contradicted yourself
Ian, I don’t argue that we know better than Jesus. In fact, I seek to learn from Jesus how to rightly apply Scripture. Richard Hays would say the same. As for marriage, Scripture defines it as covenant. The recent hyper-spiritualization of sex difference through a misreading of Genesis is new theology. Christian tradition does not connect sex difference to the imago Dei. That was considered anthropomorphic. Even John Calvin knew Genesis does not say everything there is to say about what we can know about God’s creation. But even if we treated Scripture as the only source of knowledge Scripture itself teaches legal deliberation even on creation ordinances (e.g permanence of marriage). To blindly apply law without consideration of the circumstances is ungodly legalism. That is what Jesus teaches.
Thanks Karen. Scripture actually defines marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman, which Jesus affirms. Jewish reading of this set them apart from pagan culture. As E P Sanders notes:
(For other critical scholars who agree on this, see my article here: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/is-the-bible-contradictory-on-sexuality/ )
Jesus in the gospels sits four-square within this Jewish view, because his understanding of marriage is rooted in the creation of humanity as male and female. He can assume agreement on this amongst his fellow Jews; Paul has to make this explicit (as he does in Rom 1, 1 Cor 6) when writing to a mixed audience.
I am not suggesting ‘applying this blindly’. But I am assuming that Jesus teaches us the truth about the human condition, and therefore that we need to follow his teaching—that marriage is between one man and one woman. And I think he tells us this understanding fully the nature of God’s widening mercy.
Does that make sense?
Karen,
Why were you committed to lifelong celibacy, please?
I am wary of long discussion on how to interpret scripture, discussion which typically arises when particular topics are raised. I find it more fruitful to dive into those scriptures. God’s mercy is manifest in sending his son to die for the sins of others, that the repentant may be saved. This unavoidably raises the question of what is sin. I do not believe that God changes his mind about that between Old and New Testaments.
Anton,
“I do not believe that God changes his mind about that between Old and New Testaments.”
I think this is an important point. As an evangelical I accept that Scripture revelation is from the mind of the one God.
I would argue, as I have mentioned previously, that if a doctrine is taught by the church which is not found, at least in embryo form, in the OT, it should be open to challenge.
I see that the church has made a misstep in this matter — for example in its understanding that Jesus made a change to divorce and remarriage teaching, which in many cases it has now wound back on. Without looking to cause upset, it was Augustine who introduced the novel concept (among others) of a sacramental marriage, which has not been completely shaken off in Protestantism.
The subsequent rethink on this has been weaponised, in that the SSM lobby think the church should similarly rethink SSM.
The whole thing gets too intellectualised. Jesus never did that. A question that cuts through a lot is: Does God recognise SSM?
Anton,
“Does God recognise SSM?”
If we accept a closed revelation in Scripture I think the answer is clearly no.
There is obviously some confusion about the definition of a cessationist. As I understand it, a cessationist argues for the cessation of divine revelation of the mind of God with the death of the last NT Apostle commissioned by Christ. If we don’t believe this, is it possible to have a meaningful evangelical epistemology?
But no cessationist I know denies the possibility of miracles — they would argue it is the ‘healing on demand’ sign gift of an Apostle that has now ceased.
Anton
Jesus got asked pretty much the same exact question and his answer was “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven”
I always took ‘cessationist’ to mean somebody who denied that the Holy Spirit still did miracles through people, as occurred in the NT. If the word has two meanings then it’s news to me, but please take my comments as referring to the meaning I have stated.
Peter: Jesus was asked a totally different question.
Refer back to HJ’s earlier comment on this particular point
So Colin has God changed his mind across the canon?
Even as you avoid the the substance of comments in opposistion to your theses, which, to me, do not cohere.
Trinity of God. How about it?
Cessation of miracles, healings. How about it? Looked through the lens of your reception history?
Anton is right. You’ll not find cessation theory/ theology supported soley in scripture.
The ssm revisionists say God has changed his mind primarily based on the eisegesis of changing culture, or
their doctrine of scripture, doctrine of God, not on theological reception history, which is rejected.
It seems that their rejection of reception history is similar to yours, but to seek to establish their own theses. It is a two edged sword, cutting both ways arguing for or against change. It is circular, enclosed, philosophically presupositinally, (pre) determined.
In your article you state ‘to prevent gay people from life-long union is to withhold a means of grace. The implication of such withholding is that traditionalists are actually creating a stumbling block to holiness.’
Presumably then when you were celibate, you were not living a holy life?
PC1
‘Celibacy’ and ‘marriage as a means of grace’ — I hardly dare speak his name — but both concepts originated with, or at least were promulgated by, Augustine.
Both concepts are completely alien to the OT.
PC1, yes living in celibacy can be holy just as marriage can be holy though neither make a person holy, as only God makes us holy. And there are plenty of sinful people who happen to be married or happen to be celibate. But yes, in my case my years of celibacy were an attempt to live congruently with the convictions I had at the time. Now I’m married and that is also sacred. Whether celibate or married, my desire has always been the pursuit of Christ. That said I don’t think celibacy is a means of grace in the same way as marriage. Celibacy is a rare calling to devote oneself completely to ministry. Marriage, in part, is a means of grace by stewarding our passions. Not all people can achieve life-long celibacy. Most need marriage.
I think within my lifetime there was widespread belief that homosexuality was a dangerous and destructive choice, like maybe drug abuse and people who did it were bad people who you wouldn’t want near your children, because they would likely try to recruit them. God obviously condemned such people, as you would an axe murderer.
I think the fact more people have found out that they have gay people amongst their friends and family and that gay people are not fundamentally more evil than anyone else, has pushed people to revisit scripture and many have discovered that the scriptural case against gay people, gay marriage and gay sex is thinner than that against women in authority or no faults divorce and almost as thin as the case against tattoos or shellfish.
I think anti gay church leaders have lost the authority they once so clearly had because there has been so much scandal, but also because gay people are expected to be treated equally almost everywhere except in a church or at a political meeting.
You spray false analogies around like a firehose! Tattoos were forbidden in ancient Israel because in the Ancient Near East they depicted your god, or at least your religious allegiance. That law and not eating shellfish (a good way in hot climates to get food poisoning) have never applied beyond ancient Israel. But God never changes, and human nature has not changed since the Fall.
Most people know persons who do homosexual acts and are genial company. Certainly I do. The biblical view, after all, is that this is just one of many outworkings of fallen human nature. The Bible is also clear that all such outworkings, which it calls sin, must be forgiven by faith in Jesus Christ or be accounted for in judgement – and one sin unforgiven is enough to debar somone from heaven, because one sin wrecked this earth and God is not going to let it happen again. Those who commit to him, he remakes.
Anton,
These are good points you make in this reply to Peter.
I ate what turned out to be bad prawns last February in Madagascar and I have been ill ever since. I had surgery last week to try and correct the damage. Good advice from the Bible it seems.
I like prawns but only buy them from the main supermarkets. One does indeed have to be careful.
Anton
So maybe same sex marriage is only forbidden in hot climates?
No oysters on the honeymoon.
Peter, you are right that there has been a change in attitude. But the acceptance of gay relationships is rooted in a fundamental change in our culture’s anthropology and view of sex.
Bodily form is now incidental; sex is primarily about pleasure; our desires determine our identity. This shift has been hugely destructive, and we see the results in breakdown of relationships, spread of STDs, drop in birthrate, and rise in mental health issues, especially in girls and young women.
… as this article (below) on the BBC app today seems to suggest.
Many women want to marry and have children but the pressure to work, the delinking of sex from traditional marriage, and the ready access to casual sex via dating apps reduces the need to commit – by the men in particular I suggest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7x5kl5l8o
Ian, if you believe gay Christians are only seeking marriage for sexual pleasure you are sorely mistaken. We seek marriage for the same reason many straight Christian. Did you only get married for sexual pleasure? Oddly this assumption shows many traditionalists fixation on sex. I married to be rooted in family. Most of us have a *familial* drive to leave mother and father and create one’s own kinship unit. I married because it’s not good for the human being to be alone and I needed an ezer (stron mg ally) to walk with me through life. I married because I value covenant, a wonderful blessing of life-long faithfulness to another where I grow in self-sacrificial love. Marriage is where I more readily see my flaws and seek God’s help to be more Christlike. While marriage cannot be reduced to sex, marriage also a means of grace to steward our sexual desires. That’s hardly a licentious pursuit of sex. It’s clear that your views stem, in part, from misconceptions about what it means to be gay, and certainly what it means for a Christian who happens to be gay to pursue marriage.
Hello Karen K,
There is need to consider the nature and purposes of Biblical covenants in the full sweep of the canon of scripture. Some are in futherance of God’s purposes others are not, are in opposition to His (good will).
Akin to a preamble to a covenant is Adam’s delight at woman being brought to him, “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh…”
” Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast, to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (This represents the attributes of the marriage covenant, of God making.
Here is the essence of the sexual distinction and difference that constitute a covenant of marriage.
That is emphasised in the male female covenantal marriage between the Groom and His Bride, representing the continued distinction and difference, similarities (both in God’s image) yet unique dissimilarities.
Ssm is not a biblically-God- endorse covenant.
Unless Methodist today have watered – down their anual covenant service. such ssm you not form part of it, not included would be outside its purview.
As for Ebenezer I think there is misunderstanding and misapplication of scripture: it represents God coming to the help of repentant sinners.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Ebenezer.html
It foreshadows Jesus, the stone that the builders rejected, cornerstone, captstone, and more the rock on which he builds his church.
Genesis 2:22-25, is the the inception of the initial covenant of marriage, yet enduring for all time, all generations until the end of time, into eternity with Christ.
I think anyone who wants to debate with Karen should first of all read her book on the subject (Karen R. Keen: Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships).
This will help you avoid wasting her time by assuming she hasn’t already considered the arguments you offer.
And for emphasis and reiteration;
Jesus, the Groom, is the Last Adam, and his Bride is pure and spotless, figuratively, “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh”….
It is the only, one true, ultimate, “marriage made in heaven”, a Union, oneness in Jesus, to which all believers are predestined: eternity in his presence, with him, our portion, our inheritance.
Just as woman was brought to Adam, we, as his bride, are brought to Jesus.
Tim C,
Don’t agree. KK has chosen to comment here.
My comments are in response to what has been chosen by KK as an abstract of a key points in response to Andrew Goddard’s book review and Ian Paul.
I don’t assume anything in what may or may not have been written in a book, especially in connection with
Biblical covenants.
Do you assume that the points made in rejoinder to KK have been covered in the book, or have you read it and know that they have, with a scriptural thoroughness, that Andrew Goddard addresses in his review of Hays+Hays book?
Apologies Karen K, for talking about you, (with Tim C) without you, if you are still in the room.
Geoff, arn’t you completely ignoring a relevant ‘context’ here?
Karen, except Ian didnt actually say that gay people only want to marry to have sex, so I dont understand why you replied in that way. You responded to a point he didnt make.
As a gay man myself, I fully understand where youre coming from. But I dont agree that God has changed his mind or ‘progressed’ on the issue of same-sex sexual relationships, whether one-night stands, living together for some time or ‘married’. God’s character which you emphasise in your article is revealed in Jesus. He never condoned inappropriate sexual behaviour of any kind. In fact he made divorce harder for Jewish men and said if you even have lust for another who is not your wife/husband, you have committed adultery. That is difficult teaching, but it reflects the character of God. One could argue He isnt showing much mercy to those affected by such teaching. Yet his teaching holds.
Peter
Peter,
Thank you for your “skin in the game”, comment.
Is there not a need to explore what God’s mercy, in Christ Jesus, actually, is? How it is accomplished, manifested?
Do we recognise the weight of God’s mercy in the person of the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension of God the Son, fully man, fully God in the work of God in Triunity?
In grateful, “lives laid down in adoration?” If the whole realm of nature mine, it would be an offering far too small.
And yet, and yet we can not ever pay back, redeem our selves, an impossibility and a dishonour of his Name and Glory.
Karen – that is not what the word ‘marriage’ means, and I am sure you are aware of that – it needs people forcibly to change the meaning for that to be different. But we can forcibly change the meaning of any word – that proves only that we are forcible people.
What you say does not at all limit bonds we have to bonds of two people. Friendship has existed and will exist for ever. There is only one ‘two’ in nature and that is the complementary two needed for reproduction. Is not your prioritising of the number two here random and illogical?
Christopher
There’s a huge difference between a friendship and a romantic relationship
I doubt it. Intense love can be felt towards lots of people and for very good reasons. If you mean pair bonding, that does not work either, since bonding can be in larger numbers and between different simultaneous pairs too. So the only thing that is necessarily two in number is reproduction, which the institution of marriage recognises and hallows.
Ian
I think it’s less complicated than that. It’s that the internet has made it much easier for gay people to find other gay people and get support.
When I was a child the sexual revolution was a distant memory and yet it was newly illegal for LGBT people to be talked about positively in schools, politicians were resigning after being “outed” as gay and Mr Humphries went back in the closet.
I dont think Mr Humphries ever came out of the closet.
Who is Mr Humphries?
PC1
In the earlier years of the show, Mr Humpries was almost explicitly homosexual. In the later (Thatcher!) era they made it explicit that he was just camp, not gay. In the revival “Grace and Favor” they gave him a female love interest.
James
My Humphries from Are You Being Served? was one of the few gay characters on British TV prior to the 2000s.
Ian
Gay people dont exist because of a change in societal attitudes. Gay people were not invented in 1969.
Being gay is not merely a thought process. There are physical differences between a gay and a straight person. Im trying not to be too crude, but arousal is different for a gay and straight person of the same sex. You cannot just waive this away as some mental delusion brought on by shifting attitudes.
Indeed gay men tend to have lighter frames and higher voices than straight men and gay women tend to appear more butch than straight women. You can try to deny this, but these are undeniable physical differences that are clearly not driven by the brain.
‘Ian
Gay people dont exist because of a change in societal attitudes. Gay people were not invented in 1969.’
What an odd comment. Can you read mine again so you understand what I said?
Tim Chesterton suggests that anyone who wants to debate with KK should read her book. Forgive my reluctance to do this, but when Ian Paul writes that gay sex:” being rooted in a fundamental change in our culture’s anthropology and view of sex, then among other things he continues,— * sex is *primarily* about pleasure”, whereas KK accuses him of “believing that gay Christians are *only* seeking marriage for sexual pleasure” then at the very outset there appears to be something in her epistemological approach that communicates a certain dissonance.
I know nothing of Karen apart from this current thread.
However, the question seems to me is, Is Christianity / Marriage
a] A Relationship, b] A Covenant, or c] Both?
Covenants are the basis of Fellowship, and in general mean that we love what God Loves and hate what God Hates OR we love what another loves and hate what another hates.
Fellowship is the next step after relationship. It’s the “getting to know you” part on a continued basis.
Think of it this way. When you meet a new person and you both decide to pursue the relationship, the next “step” is spending time together. That’s fellowship.
But our intimacy, our fellowship with one another (in every aspect: physically, emotionally, mentally, etc.) is what deepens our marriage. We get to know each other, our likes and dislikes, our interests and pet peeves, and grow deeper in love.
And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it. 2 John 1:6
You’ve probably heard people say such things as, “I don’t need the church and religion; I have my own relationship with God,” or “Organized religion is for mindless people,” or even “Organized religion and the church are human creations; Jesus didn’t start a church and so I don’t need any of that non-sense.” Jesse Ventura became famous when he said that “organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people.” Maybe you’ve even felt or said some of these things yourself. Maybe you think all you need is a “relationship.”
Religion is often more human-centered—what we can get out of God. But I suggest that a relationship is the more fulfilling approach because it is God-centered—what God gives to us.
If your law had not been my delight, I would have perished in my affliction. (Psalm 119:92)
But Psalm 119:92 seems to suggest that God will bless us if we not only think about God’s Law, but delight in it!
Christians have many misconceptions about spirituality. The first is the common saying: “I’m Spiritual but Not Religious.” A saying which relates to a wider reality, that “people just don’t like the Church.”
There are many contemporary slogans that reflect this dislike and even hatred of the Church:
“I’m against organized religion.”
“Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”
And the ever-popular meme of the day: “I’m spiritual but not religious.”
Now who wouldn’t want to be “spiritual”? Even many atheists and agnostics think of themselves as spiritual. While being “spiritual” is very fuzzy these days, the meme, “I’m spiritual but not religious,” does, in fact, have an important meaning.
I’m sure there is a diversity of things that people mean when they think or say things like this, but the essence seems to be this: “I want to transcend myself and get in touch the spiritual dimension of life on my own terms, without anybody else telling me what to do!” But also how individualistic and self-centered.
. It’s safe to be spiritual because it doesn’t demand anything of me except what I already want.
By being “spiritual,” we mean that we can choose whatever god we desire, worship Him in any way we want, and that no one can bind or obligate us in any way.
We mean that God comes to us individually and not corporately; privately but not publicly.
Religion comes from a Latin word meaning “to bind.” And religion is all about binding: binding oneself to God and binding oneself to others. But we assume that binding means slavery and tyranny and that independence from others means freedom and liberty. And we don’t want anyone else limiting our desires and actions.
The truth is that Christianity is a religion but also that spirituality is vitally important.
This idea pits “relationship” vs “religion.” Presumably, relationships are good because they allow us to be free to be ourselves, without the expectation and obligations of others. Relationships with God are good because they’re genuine and allow me to express my love for God. A relationship with God allows me be alone with Him in the way that I desire.
Religion, on the other hand, is presumably not truly Christianity because it means I have to relate to God according to the rules and expectations of others. Also, religions are dry and dead and choke out the intimate relationship I might otherwise have with God. Religion, in this meme, is formal, institutional, and inauthentic.
I’ve heard people say that religion is a way to earn salvation, and salvation is all of grace. I’ve also heard Christians say things like “religion” is a creation of man and a bunch of man-made rules.
Love, in fact, requires binding oneself to another, which is why Christianity is what we might call a religious relationship.
At the heart of Christianity is the covenant.
And what is the covenant but a very special, religious relationship, that is completely binding and put in effect by a vow or oath from which there is no escape. A relationship without religion would look like what? A life filled with occasional remembrances of God and coming before Him only when I feel like it?
Maybe one of the reasons so many Christians believe that Christianity is a relationship and not a religion is because they have not correctly read the way God relates to men in the Scriptures.
Finally, my relationship with God is never just “me and Jesus.” Jesus has united Himself to His whole Church, and that contains billions and billions of other Christians, with whom I now have a relationship as well.
Hays and Hays seem to be attempting to make gay sex the subject of a ‘redemptive arc’. In ‘redemptive arc hermeneutics’ the idea is that God accomodates to humans by in effect ‘starting where we are’ and leading us gradually to a better place not through coercion but through better understanding. The big arc in scripture is of course the one that leads through the Law and the sacrificial system to and then beyond Jesus; even on occasion beyond the NT when it is fairly clear where things were leading, as in the case of slavery. The trouble is there simply is no arc in scripture which leads to gay sex being OK.
If it is a canonical redemptive arc, what is redemption, how? By whom? For whom? From what? Does it include “slavery to sin”.
Does it include not only salvation but sanctification/holiness, indivisibly so
In regard to sin slavery, here is something of an arc of scripture:
https://www.gotquestions.org/slave-to-sin.html
?
Geoff
google for ‘redemptive arc hermeneutics’ and check out books by William J Webb
Thanks, Stephen,
Did not the redemtive start in Genesis with
1 God’s promised seed, Jesus
2 the proto-evangel of God’s provision of sacrificial skin covering for guilt and shame?
Of course there is no such thing as guilt and shame in todays world, nor in Christianity or so it seems.
Then there is no need for Christ’s redemptive covering of his robes of his righteousness.
And the arc closes with Christ’s return.
Well, if there is such a redemptive arc (?!) it makes sense (?!) that its end point should be something which correlates with so much promiscuity, so many STIs, so many unsafe sexual episodes, and so many early deaths.
People often speak as though particular sexual practices are what is lethal. Statistically, that certainly has a lot going for it, but belonging to the cohort of ‘MSM’ has considerably more risk in and of itself, when it comes to HIV/AIDS, monkeypox, gonorrhea, syphilis, anal cancer, you name it. I know that does not sound logical, but it is factual for whatever reason. It is no good worrying about the reason; if the correlation is lethal, first ‘get out’ from it and only then try to ‘work out’ why the correlation should be so lethal. It is enough to know that it is, given that this is life-and-death.
So if anyone had that as the end of their trajectory (which is normally the beatific vision, oneness with God etc) their name is not the same name as that of the one we worship & honour.
Still insulting queer holy people with your obsession with disease?
Get therapy please. This is seriously disturbing.
Do conservative evangelicals realise that they are inferring a whole, prescriptive theology and anthropology of marriage from a single teaching of our Lord about the permissibility of giving women a gett, a certificate of repudiation. He was debating a wholly different form of marriage, a ketubah, not a covenant between husband and wife.
Halakhic marriage is a unilateral act, performed by the groom, in which he lays exclusive and non-reciprocal claim to his wife’s sexuality and reproductivity. Since the marriage was enacted unilaterally, repudiation was also the husband’s prerogative to grant or withhold. Women who sought a gett, and whose husbands refused, were in marital captivity until and unless the husband consented, often after extortive payoffs. They still are in conservative Jewish circles.
Jesus built a ‘binyan ‘av mi’shnei ketuvim,’ a well known rabbinical reasoning, by combining Gn 1.27 with Gn 2.24 to establish the principle (‘av) that marriage was indissoluble.
Reading a definition of Christian marriage in this is slightly mad. It is anachronistic as religious forms of Christian weddings would not arise for at least a millennium. It flies in the face of evolutionary biology as it assumes that sexual dimorphism was designed by G-d ‘in the beginning,’ which was not at all the case. It’s also a bad binyan ‘av, as it happens. You cannot say that ‘Moses allowed you to “divorce” your wives but in the beginning it was not so,’ as Moses is assumed to be the author of Bereshit (In the beginning).’ You cannot pit Moses against Moses, as Matthew did.
We’re back to no gay sex because Adam and Eve, which makes Christians sound utterly ridiculous.
Christianity, sounds ridiculous to the unbelieving world and offensive to Jews/Judaism as blashemous in its Oneness in Triunity.
Do you believe the Triune God of Christianity?
But thanks for a a very interesting comment,
I’m a Vicar, Geoff. I should have written ‘it makes us, Christians, sound ridiculous.’ I’m really annoyed when my secular friends dismiss Christianity or indeed Judaism in my family because of mad doctrinal positions like the above.
So why don’t you speak to them of the God News of Jesus? In the Triunity of God, of conversion to Christ and God’s indwelling and the consequences of eternity? Of sin and righteousness. Of salvation and sanctification?
As a vicar what are you vicarious of?
Lorenzo, we don’t know each other from Adam. There are atheist, unbelieving vicars: vicars who don’t hold to the Trinity, clearly who don’t hold to the teaching of church, vicars who are sychronists, vicars who are pluralists and more…
No doubt they may think of it as ridiculous.
Because I truly believe that Jews will be saved by holding fast to the covenant G-d made with them. Supersessionism has born poisonous fruits.
The covenantS (Abrahamic, Sinaitic, Davidic) which God made with the Israelites point directly to Jesus Christ and the new covenant in his blood. The Son of David is also the Suffering Servant, as Jesus taught.
Every Anglican vicar knows this.
Lorenzo
Are you literally a ‘vicar’? I ask because as I understand it, though Anglican ‘priests’ are often referred to as ‘vicar’ – and I’ve known outsiders call our Baptist minister a ‘vicar’, isn’t ‘vicar’ a quite specific kind of position, a person who is unusually ‘vicarious’ unlike say a ‘rector’.
Lorenzo
‘Supersessionism’ is wrong because the ‘church’ is not seen as ‘replacing’ the Jews. Rather the Christian ‘ekklesia’ is seen as being in continuity with the OT ‘congregation’ of Israel (also ‘ekklesia’ in the LXX), while Jews who reject Jesus are actually excluding themselves from the covenant because rejecting the Messiah is major disobedience to God.
The bad consequences to which you refer largely arise out of the changes from the ‘nationalisation’ of the Church by the Roman Empire which created a dynamic of seeing Jews as heretics to be persecuted. We can at least start putting that right by repudiating that nationalisation including the form it has taken in England of having an ‘established’ church….
Lorenzo,
What a fascinating turn this has taken.
Where do you place the New Covenant in Christ Jesus in your supercessionist denunciation?
That along with your avoidance of the key questions asked of you raises further question as to whether you can subscribe to the tenets of Christianity as abstracted in the Creeds.
James
I hope every Anglican ‘vicar’ doesn’t know this.
Penelope,
Please feel free to ignore me, as Andrew Godsall now kindly does, I promise not to be offended.
James
I am also free not to ignore your hermeneutics.
Like I said, Penelope, please ignore me, as Andrew kindly does.
Thank you.
Lorenzo,
You write: “I truly believe that Jews will be saved by holding fast to the covenant G-d made with them. Supersessionism has born poisonous fruits.”
Yes it has. I co-lead a prayer group for Israel/the Jews and we are resolutely against supersessionism. It is a great evil in the church.
I also agree that a Jew who holds fast to the Mosaic covenant will be saved. Trouble is, nobody did – or, indeed, could. Jew or gentile, all need faith in Christ to cover their sins on the day of judgement. One sin is enough to keep you out of heaven; one sin wrecked this world, and God is not going to let it happen again.
James
Sorry. No.
Lorenzo
I certainly don’t see my ‘conservative evangelical’ self basing everything here on just one text, though it is a rather fundamental one. The way Jesus uses the Genesis texts it seems to me that he answers the question about divorce by saying “So what is marriage?” and that widens the issue beyond divorce.
But there are also the Leviticus texts which essentially reject gay sex. And there is the simple fact that few as the texts may be which condemn gay sex, there are absolutely none which approve it. And surely if gay sex were OK, let alone gay marriage, there would have to be spproving texts, texts in the ‘law code’ sections covering various aspects of same-sex marriageincluding for example inheritance rights – and there’s nothing….
While in the NT the clearest text is I guess Romans 1 which could hardly be more explicit in declaring gay sex both a bad thing and specifically part of the disorder arising from human rebellion against God, definitely a temptation to be resisted and repented of.
Otherwise as I read it there is little about gay sex precisely because it is a bad thing – it gets the attention it deserves, enough to let people know it’s wrong and no more.
“isn’t ‘vicar’ a quite specific kind of position, a person who is unusually ‘vicarious’ unlike say a ‘rector’”
“Back then” there was a difference. In the 21st C, no. The historic titles carry through but not the difference.
Rm 1 is clear as mud. Homosexuality is not a consequence of idolatry (and Paul meant idolatry: “they have exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images resembling a mortal human, or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles” as did all the rabbis of his day: Kiddushin 82a). It arises in the most purely monotheistic societies as surely and regularly as it does in pagan ones. How furthermore do they ‘receive in themselves the due penalty for their error?’ What is this penalty? We’re not told. The only clear thing is Paul’s loathing.
Lorenzo
Paul in Romans 1 does NOT say homosexuality is a consequence of idolatry; he says that both are part of the disorder in human life arising from ‘the Fall’ or from human rebellion against God. Making that connection wrongly is part of the modern attempt to avoid the clear biblical condemnation of gay sex.
Why should we imagine that Jesus was arguing like a fourth century rabbi? Judaism in first century Palestine was very diverse – unlike the Mishnaic period.
‘Male and female he created them’ sounds pretty much like sexual dimorphism to me. I don’t care about protozoa and don’t draw any lessons about theology from them.
You’d be wrong then
Sex differences are not dimorphism.
That would be news to palaeontologists.
Please feel free to ignore me, Penelope, as Andrew Godsall is now kindly doing.
It’s nothing to do with palaeontology.
Dimorphism is differences between the sexes apart from those associated with sex organs.
Humans are not really dimorphic.
Peacocks very much are.
Andrew
I think that’s admirable. However my courage rises at every attempt to intimidate me – as Elizabeth Bennett nearly said – so I call out idiocy and insolence when I see it.
And that too is admirable and your courage will shine over their cowardice.
(I nearly said trump but that’s not a word I’m inclined to use today).
Humans are not really dimorphic?
They are highly dimorphic, like other animals also are, though few to the extent of peacocks. But a high proportion of biology is, quite obviously, based on dimorphism. ”Psychologically”, these biological differences play out to produce numerous other clear average differences too.
Christopher
Humans are not highly dimorphic.
Difference in height is one example, but it’s fairly insignificant.
In order to know how many examples there are, you would need to know pretty much everything, rather than citing the example[s] that happen to have occurred to you.
There are millions of ways that different groups can be compared and measured.
Physically yes, height, strength, brain. But numerous mental and psychological things as well.
Christopher
The example I used is the one most commonly cited to demonstrate that humans aren’t really sexually dimorphic.
I thought that you admired science.
Why on earth would you be concentrating on one technical term ‘dimorphic’ when the topic of the discussion was different: are there average clear differences between human men and human women? That topic is not at all exhausted by concentrating on the dimorphic, since there is so much more to be said about the topic.
Christopher
Please stop this messy and irrelevant desire to generalise on particular points.
I was commenting on one specific misuse of the term sexual dimorphism, which other commentators (including you) then defended.
Humans are not really sexually dimorphic. Look it up!
Eh? My entire point was (to repeat) that they may well not be, given that after all ‘dimorphic’ is a technical term anyway; but that that is irrelevant to the discussion we were having, which was about whether human men and human women are divergent from one another in that they are notably different from one another in numerous matters, both typically and on average.
I assumed he meant Mr Humphries, the character in Are you being served? As in ‘Im free!’ I still occasionally watch the odd repeat episode, and the film was quite amusing.
Judaism in first century Palestine? Please call it Israel!
The problem is it wasn’t called Israel in the first century – Romana Iudaea was the most comprehensive term for the land and I don’t think it was coextensive with the tetrarchy.
Given that Palestine derives etymologically from Philistine it is clearly inappropriate.
I know – but sometimes historical geography involves the use of anachronistic terms, e,g, ‘Scotland’ in Roman times. Maybe we should just say ‘the Holy Land’.
That’s what I do! Not many people know that the Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper in the days of the British Mandate.
The mishnaic period begins in the 1st century, concurrently with the New Testament. Jesus argued just like the rabbanim of his day, so did Paul who made no mystery of his schooling ‘at the feet of Gamaliel.’
There demonstrably was no creation of male and female ‘in the beginning,’ reproductive dimorphism is a late adaptation. If you want to consider it God-ordained and prescriptive, be my guest, but I earnestly fail to see how it can be.
Yes, it began in the first century- but continued long after, especially after the disasters of AD 70 and 132, which permanently changed Judaism and left the Phariseesin charge. Jesus wasn’t a Pharisee and could and did disagree with them at times. He spoke with his own exousia, not quoting authorities going back to the Great Synagogue. “But I say to you …” – the dominical ego of the Only Son of the Father.
If you want to think we are essentially grownup germs, be my guest.
Personally I don’t think ‘reproductive dimorphism’ is a ‘late adaptation’ (‘adaptation’ to what, exactly?) but God’s creational intention for the human race – and it’s a lot more than just reproduction. As a young man I generally believed the basic evolutionary story as I learned it in school, but over the years I found it an increasingly inadequate explanation and the more I learned about cellular complexity and conundra about the origin of life (on which Darwin says nothing), the less satisfactory I found it.
In addition, thinking about rationality, the mind and ‘the soul’ (individuated personhood), the more I have come to see Darwinism as reductionist and inadequate an explanation.
I don’t have a worked out model to replace it but my current thinking is that God intervened on successive occasions over the aeons, infusing new information into existing biological forms that made them discontinuous with their predecessors. I have a dual-substance view of human beings (body and soul/mind) which is quite counter to standard evolutionary thought, which is entirely materialist in ontology and entirely stochastic in explanation. I reject both these assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism.
For a refutation of Philosophical Naturalism and the physicalist explanation of mind, the relevant chapter in C. S. Lewis’s ‘Miracles’ is a good place to start, followed by Alvin Plantinga’s essay on Naturalism, and Thomas Nagel’s ‘Mind and Cosmos’. But I’m sure you know these works already.
It really comes down to three questions:
1. The authority of Christ (“male and female he created them)
2. The possibility of special divine acts in the world (aka creative miracles)
3. The non-physical nature of minds and consciousness.
Edward Feser is a good read on the third point and has just issued a massive book on the subject.
Well, till you have worked out a model that gains wide acceptance in the scientific community, I’ll stick with the current evolutionary theory model. You’re just trying to rescue a text that is factually wrong because it’s key to your theological argument. But we were not created male and female ‘in the beginning.’ Fact.
Loenzo,
The burben of proof is yours. That is mere philosphical, scientism. Fact.
Lorenzo,
Scientific models come and go. That’s why we don’t believe in phlogiston and the ether, though once it was ‘scientific’ to do so.
Or plum pudding atoms. Or Newtonian mechanics as the final word on physics. 100 years of QM has shown that. All we have is models which work for a while until they break down.
I am sure you have read Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, so no need to labour that point.
I’m not a Philosophical Naturalist or a materialist but a Christian substance-dualist – which obviously doesn’t sit easily with an atheist scientific community. Tant pis.
Are you a materialist, ontologically speaking? What do you think minds are – epiphenomena of brain activity?
God as Creator doesn’t mean all His creative activity took place at one instant, t= 0. The Bible suggests quite the opposite.
The vast majority of biologists accept evolutionary mechanisms as the best explanation as to how life developed, once started, on this planet. Even CS Lewis accepted it, but warned it should not be used in other non-biological areas – Richard Dawkins take note.
That is my view and that of many other Christians. Indeed given the number of Christians working in the scientific field, I would imagine the vast majority of biologists who are also Christian accept evolution as a fact, just as physicists accept Einstein’s theories. In my view the mechanisms are God-ordained, just as the laws of physics are. And their existence in no way casts doubt on the existence of the Creator, regardless of what the likes of Dawkins wants you to believe. Dawkins is so desperate to hold onto his materialist dogma that he chooses to give credence to the unevidenced multiverse theory than even the possibility the universe is fine-tuned because it was designed that way, so life would prosper. Rather ironic given his constant call for evidence of a Creator.
Amendments are made to scientific theories as more evidence surfaces, and that also applies to Darwinian evolution. Even Newton’s laws have been superseded, but they remain excellent approximations that reflect reality. Evolutionary theory may be amended, but I doubt the whole understanding will be replaced by the evidence.
Lorenzo,
Isn’t there a moral, ethical, teleological
vacuum at the centre of a closed material world system; it is not ex nihilo. It is dependant of the philosophy of science.
I wonder if Moses knew God’s heart all along, but like God saw that men’s hearts could be hard and so allowed such certificates. So not a case of pitting Moses against Moses, but Moses agreeing with God’s instruction at the time.
So, what biblical basis would you use to define marriage, and in particular, Christian marriage?
You’d be wrong then
Sex differences are not dimorphism.
Well, I never.
Sex differences are not sex differences, but are sex differences. There are admitted differences. At last, an orthodox biblical understanding, of irreducible Christian theological anthropology from a heterodox. Whoopee. Vive la différence.
So one day a paleontologist dug up a human skeleton, checked the pelvic structure and the shape and length of the limbs, and then did a DNA test. ‘This is the skeleton of an adult female,’ he said. But of course he was wrong, because he didn’t know how the skeleton self-identified.
A paleontologist would not necessarily know the sex of a skeleton. But that is a complete red herring. Because dimorphism isn’t about skeletal difference. Peacocks and peahens probably have very similar skeletons.
“There is a ‘Vas Deferens’ between male and female.” (My O/A level biology teacher.)
Vive la vas deferens.
Very good! I defer to your biology teacher.
Always ask: does it pass the testosterone test?
Or as I might have said when learning German, ‘Ven I said dat, I vas deferens to de facts.’
Peacocks are anthropos?
But humans are sexually dimorphic. We come in two forms: and males and females of our species have different shapes, muscle mass, cranial structure etc. It’s just that the degree of sexual dimorphism in our species is considerably less than other great apes and primate relatives, let alone peacocks. It’s not because the differences are slight among homo sapiens that the species cannot be called dimorphic.
No. Dimorphism is specifically differences which aren’t sexual, such as tails and colouration in the case of peacocks and peahens.
What is grievous is that ssm/b has become the ultimate mission of the CoE.
And certainly on this site those who comment is furtherance of that cause have been steadfastly, intrangigently so, unable
or unwilling to articulate the Good News of Jesus and life transforming conversion.
Which is why we have an impasse here. Those who support ssm/b think they are doing the Lord’s work and consider those who oppose ssm/b as “ignorant and insolent” and actively harming other people, perhaps out of malevolence.
In general, they also think the Bible is a mixture of good stuff and error, and they believe they can discriminate correctly in determining ‘the real message’. I am not entirely sure what they think ‘the real message’ of Christianity is or whether they think it is necessary to believe it to gain eternal life. Most theological liberals I have known have been universalists or even sceptics on the afterlife, but I am sure there are exceptions.
Those who oppose ssm/b, on the other hand, think they are being faithful to the Word of God and to the apostles and the catholic tradition. They recognise that life in this world is painful, even tragic at times, but this is the ‘via crucis’ of discipleship and the love of Christ accompanies us at all times.
So, because we can’t really agree on the binding premises of the Christian faith, discussions quickly degenerate and become ad hominem.
So I am glad that one contributor here has decided not to interact with those who don’t give their full name to him (considering them ‘cowards’) and I hope that another one does too. I want a fruitful debate about the Scriptures, not name-calling.
I agree that the obsession with ssm/b in the Church of England has made structural division inevitable, as it has in America, and now in New Zealand, where Anglicanism is pretty much in its death throes. The Bishop of Dunedin gave up this year and returned to England.
Scottish and Welsh Anglicanism are effectively dead.
But the City of God remaineth.
A helpful summary James, thanks.
But we are all in this together. There is common ground. There is a devasting agreement to be had, a “good agreement”.
“None Is Righteous” from Ligonier Ministries https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/things-unseen-with-sinclair-ferguson/none-is-righteous
But wait, but wait the sound of distant drums.
Loud they beat into binary categories: yet with the same rhythm -we are all prideful sinners in need of transformative redemption and a renewing of the mind with a washing of the word.
I don’t think people are ignorant and insolent because they oppose the blessing of same-sex couples in church, owing to their own reading of scripture and tradition.
I think people are ignorant and insolent when they are: a) ignorant; b) insolent.
Well put Penelope. I am not sure what word to use for people on this site who describe those holding including views as being in the ‘grip of Satan and his legions’? More than once, left undeleted and unchallenged.
Straw man arguments an ad hom arguments.
There are always people who don’t like the strength of opposition to their set in stone activism, in developed argumention such as by Andrew Goddard and others, yet contribute little or nothing of substance in comments other than dismissives.
An example is PCD here, where there is no attempt to engage with H+H book or Andrew Goddards Review, but only to bang her own drum.
BTW, does your Christian scriptural Theology include satan; the doctrine of demons? How do you read it?
If it is all a reader subjective hermeneutic, all in the name of equality are equally valid and that is an absolute, absolutely so.
And the rest is a power play in the CoE by revisionists.
David,
80% of that kind of talk is just cultural rhetoric from the lower middle classes. Just read a bit of church history to get a bit of perspective. The Church Fathers, the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation all talk this way – so does St Paul sometimes. It’s just another way of saying ‘you’re seriously mistaken and in spiritual danger’ – which is how John Stott and other upper class public school boys would have expressed themselves on this question.
I imagine you would have complained about the horrible tone Athanasius and St Nicholas of Myra took toward the Arians at Nicea. “Why do they speak in that horrid way? Why is there no good disagreement?”
It’s good to have a thick skin sometimes and not take offence easily, departing with hurt feelings.
It’s even better to engage objectively with arguments – which is what Ian Paul did when he took apart Brueggemann’s anti-evangelical stance on Scripture as a cacophony of competing voices struggling to see who will come out on top (which is why I compared Brueggemann’s idiosyncratic approach to the Bible to the fierce arguments in the US Democratic Party coming to terms with the Civil Rights Act 1964).
(I’m not bothered by what Penny says about me because I don’t take her post-modern relativist ideas that seriously. I’m just not interested in debating her any more because I don’t share her post-modern religion.)
Penny. Not only is he breathtakingly patronising, what James dismisses as the ‘cultural rhetoric of the lower middle classes’ is actually a recent quote from Anton on these threads. It would be funny if it wasn’t so insulting.
David,
Did Anton say that? I have never read that. I was not quoting him at all, those are my own words. But if Anton says that too, all the better.
Of course it is ‘the cultural rhetoric of the lower middle classes’ – that is how Pentecostalists and LMC Baptists typically talk and preach.
Why are you offended by such an obvious point?
And why do you get offended so easily, anyway? Is it cultural?
Did you understand what I meant by Athanasius and the Arians?
If you think I am ‘breathtakingly patronising’, suck it up as the better man.
Geoff
If bothered to read my comments you would see that I have responded to others here rather than to Goddard. As do you, and other commentators.
And for the record, my own background (economically, at least) was very working class – my father was a manual labourer, and when my parents split up and he disappeared, the family depended on social security for survival. The term ‘lower middle class’ simply describes the social tranche above us (intact families, home owners, above-poverty income – things we didn’t have).
The difference in our household is that we had a highly articulate mother and lots of books in the house, so most of us went to university, something none of our ancestors had ever done.
David ‘left undeleted and unchallenged’. The reason is simply that there are 304 comments here, and I do other things too.
I put very clear guidelines for comments, but sadly people on all sides ignore this.
David I have looked through all the comments can cannot find what you refer to.
What is the objection to that, though?
Are you saying (a) that no-one ever is or can be in their grip? In such a large world, that is highly improbable. In Jesus’s understanding, Satan is a main player. Our understanding is better than his?
Is your objection that (b) this is an unChristian way to speak? It is the opposite – it sounds like very New Testament language. No-one would talk that way but for the New Testament example.
(c) Is your objection that it is unseemly to speak of such unpleasant subjects? It is more unseemly not to tell the truth. And secondly life is not a teaparty. Any tea parties that there are are dependent on there being an awesome unimaginable world there in the first place in which to partake of them.
(d) Is your objection to people expressing their honest opinion? That would be enforced speech/thought.
I do not keep a record of my comments, but I am reasonably sure that I have referred to Satan and his legions as being behind attempts to depower the authority of the scriptures within the church, in particular by liberal theologians. I stand by that view, which is obviously relevant to what Welby is doing.
That has nothing to do with the sexuality of those theologians, and any hint that I have written (or believe) that gays are satanic is untrue.
Well done for counting! Anton hasn’t changed his mind though has he? But that is the lower middle classes for you.
David, I don’t think I get was must be the irony in your comment, assuming it is not just patronising. I am not actually responsible for the views of people who comment here!
But I also notice you have now disengaged on what Brueggemann actually says about Scripture and sexuality, which you appear to claim as an ‘evangelical’ view, not the clear picture that churches which embrace your position decline, and only those that do not are growing.
‘I notice you have now disengaged on what Brueggemann actually says about Scripture and sexuality, which you appear to claim as an ‘evangelical’ view, not the clear picture that churches which embrace your position decline, and only those that do not are growing.’
No. You completely misrepresent me. I’m out.
But if you want to be correctly represented, just clarify your position and from then on you will be. Sorted.
Bowing out halfway is becoming a pattern; but those who endure till the end are those keen on attaining the truth at the end of the tunnel.
It was on a late summer thread.
Oh right…so about 900 comments ago…?
David
Thank you. I don’t take him seriously.
I feel sorry for his flock though.
Absolutely so. It might be possible to take him more seriously if he were not hiding behind anonymity.
Annnndrew! Remember your promise!
James, flattered though I am that you hang on my every word, once again I was responding to Penny, as is absolutely clear.
Why?
It is the content that responded to or not.
I take Lorenzo and James and Anton others named and not named.
There are those who comment in futherance of revision, I’d trust on the face of things.
There are others I’d not.
Andrew Goddard in multiple articles has drawn out sufficient evidence for that, as has our host: ordination vows and lack of transparency, lack of disclosure of legal advice.
Not only that, there has been no defence of the methology employed pressing the change merely an unsubtantiate ya boo too, which of itself an admission that ends justify the malodorous means.
To fix an appellation of ‘coward’ is a form of high-handed bullying power play.
As an independant advocate in the mental health sector clients wanted to be anonymous at times concerned about staff response.
From the Anglican Futures article revealing the use of CDM’s against those standing on the status quo of doctrine would raise understandable warines.
What is more, it seems to me that DR and James may be aware of who each are.
This takes me back when DR, AG, PCD seemed to ride to the rescue of each other on this blog.
At the same time, they together now have taken an interesting turn, at the end of Andrew Goddard’s review, with linked reviews, together with the cumulative weight of comments is little more than a smokescreen to cover a lost argument, theologically, scripturally over revision, while not having the courage to admit it. (Ian Paul has been clear in mentioning those scholars who have so admitted.)
And round and round and round we go.
There’s nothing new.
Geoff
I’m not in the slightest bothered that Andrew Godsall denounces people who don’t give their full name to him (what right has he to know?) as ‘cowards’ and I am glad he has promised not to interact with them. I hope he keeps his promise. I only care that people interact with the substance (if any) of my arguments, not me. Nor do I want my life or family to be harassed by people who trawl through the internet for personal information on their ideological enemies. Sadly, witch hunts are a fact of the internet age, and I have no desire to encourage such harassers. When I consider how high profile Christian scholars like Professor Nigel Biggar suffered for years at the hands of the cancel mob, I figure we minnows need the protection of privacy.
I’ve been attacked here and elsewhere on the interweb. Usually by self-identified Christians. Never by atheists.
Still, some of us can only dream of being as ‘cancelled’ as Biggar.
Likewise.
James, I am going to repeat a claim you made above on which you haven’t expanded, not because I am thin-skinned, but because, like Penny, I want to call out statements that make claims about language that are false.
3 November 9.24am
‘3. The vast majority don’t care about undergraduate things like ‘pragmatics’. Ernest Rutherford called other stuff ‘stamp collecting’ compared to the literally world-shattering discoveries he was making.
Real linguistics (e.g. historical development of language families) is deeper stuff.’
Contra Christopher Shell, you can’t get ‘my neighbourhood’ from averages. Many of my neighbours ‘care about’ language development in groups of people around the world. Language development includes literacy and Bible translation. Do you really consider helping people translate the Bible like ‘stamp collecting’? Do you consider Bible translating unrelated to how people use language? Do you consider that because they have not really looked at ‘historical development of language families’ they don’t know something about ‘real’ linguistics?
De Saussure may start people on the road to understanding linguistics for helping language development. Aristotle, not so much. James, if you are going to use arguments based on language use in the ‘debates’ 🙁 on Ians’ website please don’t make them silly ones. And please don’t patronise people who are doing ‘real’ linguistics.
Scripture is uncorrectable.
The great divide here is over what scripture is and its authority.
Again back to the doctrine of the Triune God and the doctrine of revelation.
So is God dead and we are disecting him and his dead letters on the high altars of our prideful making?
Thank you Geoff. You sometimes refer to ‘Wycliffe missionaries in Africa’. Do you understand what they are doing?
What is scripture, Bruce?
Geoff, I wonder how your question is relevant to this conversation. I believe my question to you is (relevant).
Relevant to what?
That is logically probative of what?
Please communicate clear, and simply so that even I can understand.
As this article, the review and critique of H+H book is all about the centrality of scripture, scripture is central.
So, what is it to you?
What are you presuppositions?
Who is the iltimate author?
What is clear, to me from your comments on this site, all the way from Australia, is that they are generally captious, offer little to no contribution to the actual articles and are specific to certain commentators, Christopher Shell, Anton, James and me.
What’s up?
Let’s have a comment on Andrew Goddard’s review, please.
I’m getting too long in the tooth for this, wearying as it is. To me, there is nothing new brought to the table.
And now there are better things- European Champions League highlights on BBC tv.
Good night.
Geoff my comments are about linguistics.
When I see people making silly statements about language and how it seems to work — that’s when I comment. These ‘silly statements’ may or may not be referring to Ian’s post itself but they are often made as supporting the view being expressed by the commenter.
Of course I miss lots and you might think of this as nit-picking, but I am not correcting people’s grammar or pronunciation. I am questioning whether the claim the commenters are making about language — anything from how etymology ‘contributes’ to meaning to the number of phonemes in English — is actually supported in ‘world of linguistics’.
If my comments seem to be aimed at certain commenters, then my suggestion would be that those commenters refresh their understanding of language!
You want my comments to be about the Hays’ book. OK, among the 324 comments here, it seems to me that the one helpful conversation actually discussing language use (interpretation) — seemingly the point of the book, is between Karen Keen and Ian (5 comments). But the reaction to Karen’s contribution developed, yet again, into irrelevance.
PS I am also saying that it would have been good to have Karen’s and Ian’s development of their arguments on biblical interpretation — but why would they bother to take the time 🙁
Bruce,
@ 7th 1:20
Why on earth in your Ozzie way, make it plain.
Our host has a booklet on hermeneutics, which he may or may not subscribe to, as I’ve not read it. It may consider a range of methodologies.
From your comment on the latest article, you may prefer Eugene Peterson’s.
He supports Lectio Divina, of which you will be aware. I have his book: Take Eat.
Here is an article on the topic.
https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/resources/eat-this-book/?origin=serp_auto
The method is not a call to repudiate exegesis, far from it, as the CS Lewis institute article ppint out.
Peterson seems to have wander off orthodox and exegetal path.
Geoff, in some ways I do not completely understand what you are saying here. But thank you for the Eugene Peterson article. I very much agree with what he says. I don’t know if this is a ‘good’ thing or a ‘bad’ thing to you.
For example he writes:
‘Each book [bs: he means each individual book in the canon] has its own way about it, and generally a careful reader begins to learn how to read a book by slowly and carefully poking around in it for a very long time until a way is found. A careful reader (an exegete!) will proceed with caution, allowing the book itself to teach us how to read it.’
‘These words given to us in our Scriptures are constantly becoming overlaid with personal preferences, cultural assumptions, sin distortions, and ignorant guesses that pollute the text. The pollutants are always in the air, gathering dust on our Bibles, corroding our use of the language, especially the language of faith. Exegesis is a dustcloth or, better, a scrub brush scouring the words clean.’
Spot on!
Bruce,
My last paragraph after the link to the CS Lewis article is my main point regarding Peterson.
It seems that his employment of
LD methodology led to him leaving the path of orthodoxy regarding ss.
It seems he did not follow the full canonical biblical theological sweep in which to test understand and interpret Lectio Divina.
And so he did not continue on the ‘long walk in the same direction.’
While I appreciated his motives for the Message it was too slack and loose in its employment of language to communicate the depth of the reality of living Truth.
This link may represent the Peterson’s movement that drew much attention back in 2017.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/should-we-still-read-eugene-peterson/
There will be Roman Catholics who subscribe to the practice of LD but not to where it has led in ssm.
And what about Eugene Peterson’s retraction, Geoff?
Why did you post the link to his article on exegesis?
I am wondering why you made this statement:
[_The Message_] was too slack and loose in its employment of language to communicate the depth of the reality of living Truth’. Maybe you haven’t understood what he was saying in the article.
Hello Bruce,
I have undersood thanks. The last
link showed that I did understand as it considered, with some balance Petersons retraction and continued with a critique that you have not responded to.
I’m minded at present (but it is late) to tie up what I see as presented by Perterson and his hermeneutics, but in the light if day may not prolong this any further.
BTW I once had a law lecturer who thought that you didn’t understand his teaching if you didn’t agree.
If your interactions with David Roberston are anytthing to go by, no doubt you’ll have a rejoinder.
But last, I don’t dismiss Peterson out hand. I’ve benefited from some of his writings but I think he has displayed some of its limitations
His end wobble, is not a demonstration of ‘a long walk in the same direction’.
It is intersting to find out who one of your key hermeneutical influences is and has stimulated your comments,
particularly, though not solely, on this thread.
It is doubful that our host has followed this far, but it would be valuable to have his comments on Peterson hermeneutics and on LD and it actual oor pontential influence on the whole questions raised by H+H and the review.
Goodnight.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Geoff
Geoff. I do not understand what you mean here by ‘The last link’. Do you mean ‘Should We Still Read Eugene Peterson? July 13, 2017 | Russell Moore’? Eugene Peterson’s retraction is not discussed there at all. The retraction (fuller version published in Christianity Today) would seem to have been added to the top of the original Gospel Coalition article. I wonder then about your claims of Peterson’s leaving the path of orthodoxy based on Lectio Divina.
One writer who has shown how pragmatics (in this case, Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory) might be useful in hermeneutics is Margaret Sim, _A Relevant Way to Read : A New Approach to Exegesis and Communication_ Clarke, 2016.
Bruce, I was an Old Testament translator myself once for a new Bible version, so I clearly think it’s important. I never said Bible translation is like ‘stamp collecting’ – it calls for years of study and frequent reference to Waltke and O’Connor’s ‘Biblical Hebrew Syntax’, and even then I am never quite sure if I got it right. Fortunately my translation work was in Hebrew prose because Hebrew poetry is challenging to understand, let alone translate.
But reading a statement or an interview of the Archbishop of Canterbury is a good deal simpler than translating an ancient Semiotic language, and most intelligent adult speakers of English have no difficulty understanding what Welby was saying – or avoiding saying. I was referring to your repeated reference to ‘pragmatics’ which made me think of Moliere’s M. Jourdain and his amazed discovery that he had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it; and your repeated assertion that ‘people don’t really understand what is going on in human communication’.
Actually they do, even if they’ve never studied J. L. Austin or (for theologians) Kevin Vanhoozer’s ‘Is There A Meaning in This Text?’ which I read with profit many years ago as an antidote to the wilder ideas of postmodernism. Most intelligent people understand that ‘How are you?’ isn’t really an enquiry about a person’s health or mode of existence but a simple social code used in introductions. That is because we ‘inhabit’ our language and use it successfully most of the time, even if we have never read a book on sociolinguistics – a bit like fish that never had a swimming lesson in their life. They do all right.
That should say ‘Semitic language’ – but I like my accidental mis-typing!
James, sorry, but you really have not understood what I have been trying to say.
1. Of course speakers of a language do not need to understand linguistics in order to communicate.
2. That surely does not mean that linguistics, including questions of how human communication seems to work (that is, ‘pragmatics’) is not a valid area of research. Your message from Rutherford would seem to suggest that that research is somehow ‘softer’ than what he was doing. Is that not what you meant?
‘Thanks’ 🙂 for bringing in the dreaded ‘postmodernism’. Since I ‘like’ Sperber & Wilson’s Relevance Theory I have tried to be careful to exclude what some postmodern thinkers say about text and communication. RT causes problems for both Derrida and De Saussure (structuralism).
3. Can I make a couple of linguistic (pragmatics) observations on your examples?
You say: ‘most intelligent adult speakers of English have no difficulty understanding what Welby was saying – or avoiding saying’. As I have said before — you know much more about Justin Welby than I do. And, yes, ‘speakers of English’, intelligent or otherwise, would know what he said. But to understand what he ‘meant’ in the same way that you do would require the same presuppositions that you bring. Without those they would have no idea of what he was ‘avoiding saying’! So the text alone is not sufficient to understand meaning — the question is, is the idea of ‘plain’ text any more helpful?
You say: ‘Most intelligent people understand that ‘How are you?’ isn’t really an enquiry about a person’s health or mode of existence but a simple social code used in introductions.’ Yes, that may be the case (I note you use ‘intelligent’ again — just sayin’). Except when it IS a real enquiry about how someone is getting on. And that genuine enquiry is not necessarily signalled in the text itself. It _might_ be shown in intonation or non language behaviour, or it might be ‘communicated’ simply from knowledge of how the world works in these particular individual’s minds. James, sociolinguistics might get you to the observation of what is polite in certain circumstances. Pragmatics will get you to understanding what is going on in particular situations.
4. Good on you for translating from biblical Hebrew. I’m just not sure how a Hebrew syntax would be enough to help us understand what was meant by the text, since it often deals with only that — the text. Hence difficulty with poetry (and often actually understanding prose as well — what, for example, do ‘and’ and ‘the’ MEAN in English?). Exactly the point made by RT (i.e. Pragmatics).
And for you too, James, a quote from the Eugene Peterson article Geoff linked:
‘Because we speak our language so casually, it is easy to fall into the habit of treating it casually. But language is persistently difficult to understand. We spend our early lives learning the language, and just when we think we have it mastered, our spouse says, “You don’t understand a thing I’m saying, do you?” We teach our children to talk and just about the time we think they might be getting it, they quit talking to us; and when we overhear them talking to their friends, we find we can’t understand more than one out of every eight or nine words they say. A close relationship doesn’t guarantee understanding. A long affection doesn’t guarantee understanding. In fact, the closer we are to another and the more intimate our relations, the more care we must exercise to hear accurately, to understand thoroughly, to answer appropriately.’
Note: the ‘understand thoroughly’ is not guaranteed by the ‘hear accurately’.
Dear Bruce, Thank you so much for your courteous and very insightful comments from a linguistics perspective and the quotations from the wise Eugene Peterson. I am convinced that a huge amount of human communication is not (and cannot) captured by a written text and so whilst analysing the words of the text using the sophisticated tools of linguistics, history, cultural insights, anthropology, etc is essential it isn’t exhaustive. Which is partly why different interpretations of a Shakespeare play can all be equally true to the text. How might our ability to understand the biblical text (e.g. of the gospels) be deepened if we knew the tone of voice, the gestures, the body language, the shared memories evoked, the glances across the group, the laughter and so much more. We would do well to be more modest in our claims to faithful, objective and certain interpretation. Thank you.
Thanks Tim. Yes, indeed 🙂
Tim, there is one thing that does help us: we have _written_ texts. And so we can assume as human beings processing those texts that the _writers_ have put enough clues in the text to help (at least) their original readers ‘understand’. As Peterson was suggesting in his article we need to patiently and humbly look for and understand those clues.
I’m not Saussure.
And I’m not Grimm.
Very helpful summary review , Ian. And interesting threads…. Thanks
Please see my comment to you on the October 25 thread.
I’m on the affirming side, and the little I’ve read of the book makes me believe it’s quite weak, which is a surprise given the scholarship pedigree and chops of Hays.