Martin Davie writes: Three papers have recently been published by the Church of England’s Faith and Order Commission to provide advice to the House of Bishops and the General Synod as a whole in advance on further debate on the Prayers of Love and Faith proposals in General Synod in February:
a. The nature of doctrine and the Living God;
b. The doctrine of marriage and the Prayers of Love and Faith: Texts and contexts; and
I have elsewhere offered an assessment of these papers from my own conservative perspective. In this article I shall examine the responses to the FAOC papers made from a liberal perspective by Thomas Sharp and Mike Higton.
1. The responses by Thomas Sharp
Father Thomas Sharp is a ‘priest theologian’ based in Southeast England and the Provincial Secretary of the Society of Catholic Priests. His three papers look at each of the three FAOC papers in turn.
In his first article, he makes two major criticisms of ‘The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God.’ His first criticism concerns FAOC’s statement that doctrine is ‘communally regulative.’ Sharp’s comment on this statement is as follows:
What does “Communally Regulative” actually mean? Does it have a conservative meaning of establishing the bare minimum of precepts which a person must accept in order to be confident of their salvation, in the sense of Article VI of the Articles of Religion? Or does it have a broader, more liberal application, in the sense that ‘those things a Christian is required to know, believe, and observe are available to all in their reading of Scripture’ (§172) and that whatever lies outside this is not to be permitted. The Report acknowledges that the latter approach ‘is not expressed in the Church of England’s historical formularies per se’ (fn. 154).
The former, more conservative approach, might fit better the doctrine of the scriptures found in the Book of Common Prayer and the historic formularies of the Church of England. English Anglicanism, at least in its formularies, is conservative about what it considers to be a “first order” issue. If anything ever mentioned in scripture becomes a “first order” issue, simply by virtue of the fact that it is mentioned in scripture, doctrine will simply cease to function as a useful means by which the Church teaches God’s people what their salvation is, and where their hope should be. Just because we feel very strongly about something at the moment, on either side, does not make it a first order issue.
In my view, Sharp is correct to reject the idea that ‘anything ever mentioned in scripture becomes a ‘first order’ issue, simply by virtue of the fact that it is mentioned in scripture.’ The nature of the biblical material makes this idea untenable. The Bible is not a simple list of divine commands, all of which are to be obeyed in order to avoid eternal damnation. The material contained in the Bible is much broader and more complex than that.
The Bible is a collection of texts inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21) which tells us in a variety of different ways who God is, what God is like, how God has acted in creation and redemption, and what this means for his human creatures in terms of what they should believe and how they should behave. The Bible obviously does contain specific divine commands (see, for example, Exodus 20:2-17 and Matthew 5-7), but their location within the Bible indicates that God’s intention is that these commands should be understood and applied in the light of the teaching of the Bible as a whole.
The ’communally regulative’ function of doctrine follows on from what I have just said about the nature of the Bible. This is because doctrine is the teaching given by the Church to its members about what God’s human creatures should believe and how they should behave in the light of the biblical witness. Such teaching is regulative because it provides a rule, subordinate to the Bible, for Christian belief and behaviour. However, accepting that doctrine has this function does not mean saying that every issue is a first order issue. What is means is that the witness borne to the teaching of the Bible by Christian doctrine provides the proper starting point for deciding whether a particular issue is first order or not.
Sharp’s second criticism follows on from the first. He writes that:
The illusion of a near eternally settled body of doctrine which peacefully and unchangeably has taught and guided God’s people is both a historical fantasy, and also dangerous, as our theology becomes so simply overconnected that everything is raised to being a ‘first order’ issue.
If what Sharp is referring to in the first clause is the idea that doctrine has never been contested, my response would be that he is describing an idea that no one has ever held. There has always been controversy about doctrine, and every serious student of Christian doctrine I have ever come across has always accepted this fact. However, this does not mean that there is not a ‘settled body of doctrine’ which ‘has taught and guided God’s people.’ As Thomas Oden shows in great detail in his book Classic Christianity (London: Harper Collins, 2009), there is what he calls a ‘classic consensus’ about Christian doctrine that can be seen in documents that are representative of historic Christian thinking from New Testament times onwards. In the famous words of Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, there is a corpus of teaching which represents what has been believed ubique, semper et ab omnibus (everywhere, at all times, and by all).
Furthermore, holding that such a doctrinal consensus exists does not entail saying that everything is a first order issue for the reasons previously noted. It is perfectly possible for the doctrinal consensus to lead to the conclusion that something is a matter on which faithful Christians may disagree, as Paul taught was the case concerning the eating of non-kosher food and the observance of Jewish festivals (Romans 14:1-9).
In Sharp’s second paper, he criticises the ‘unchallenged assumption that the unchanging doctrine of marriage in the Church of England is and has always been that it be between one man and one woman for life’ in the second FAOC paper.
Sharp writes that in reality:
We do not actually believe (as a Church) that marriage is between one man and one woman, or if we do, we certainly have not believed that unchangingly or traditionally. The Lambeth Conferences of 1888 and 1988 came to exactly opposing conclusions about polygamy. We also do not actually believe (as a Church) that marriage is for life, given that remarriage of divorcees is now routine in the Church of England, and not reserved to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ envisaged by Marriage in the Church After Divorce (2003). It now seems only in really exceptional circumstances that marriage of heterosexual couples after divorce is ever denied.
I certainly have never heard of public penance being done by heterosexual divorcees to make clear that the Church does not condone their remarriage before their service of thanksgiving. But the Report uses divorce as an example of another ‘morally ambiguous’ situation which the church does not bless (§19). It is made clear in the liturgy, apparently, that what is offered to divorcees is not a blessing. But I have never known that service to be referred to in any terms other than as a ‘wedding blessing’.
What Sharp says here is unconvincing for two reasons.
First, neither of the two Lambeth Conference resolutions to which he refers call into question the traditional Christian teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. The starting point for both resolutions is that polygamy is a problem precisely because God created marriage to be between one man and one woman. In the words of the 1988 resolution, which also express the starting point of the 1888 resolution: ‘This conference upholds monogamy as God’s plan’ (Lambeth Conference 1988, resolution 26 in Roger Coleman (ed), Resolutions of the twelve Lambeth Conferences, 1867-1988(Toronto: Anglican Book Centre, 1992), p 211).
The only point on which the two resolutions differ is that the 1888 resolution has an absolute ban on a polygamist being baptised, whereas the 1988 resolution says that he may be baptised providing ‘that the polygamist shall promise not to marry again as long as any of his wives at the time of his conversion are alive’ (ibid). The reason for this concession is simply to prevent the practical problems that would result from a rejection by a polygamist of an existing wife and her children. The 1988 resolution is seeking to prevent the moral problem posed by the existence of a polygamous relationship being resolved in a way that results in additional harm.
Secondly, the fact that the Church of England accepts that there can be divorce and re-marriage after divorce is not a departure from the belief that marriage is for life. What Canon B 30 correctly says is that ‘according to our Lord’s teaching… marriage is in its nature permanent and lifelong.’ What this means is that marriage is created by God to be a permanent relationship, reflecting the permanence of God’s love for his people; therefore, divorce is always, in and of itself, a moral wrong (‘What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.’ Matthew 19:6). In the words of John Stott, divorce is always ‘a sad and sinful declension from the divine ideal’ (John Stott, Issues Facing Christians Today (Basingstoke: Marshalls ,1984), p 271).
If we lived in an unfallen world divorce would therefore not exist. However, the world we live in is fallen and in this situation the New Testament allows divorce and by extension re-marriage in two circumstances, adultery (Matthew 19:9) or a demand for separation by an unbelieving spouse (1 Corinthian 7:15).
In holding both that marriage should be lifelong and that divorce and subsequent remarriage are in some circumstances permissible, the Church of England is therefore not contradicting itself but reflecting both parts of New Testament teaching on the matter.
I would argue that the Church’s discipline with regard to remarriage after divorce should be stricter and only permit remarriage in circumstances where the biblical conditions for divorce have been met. This is because if these conditions are not met divorce cannot take place and, as Jesus taught, and new relationships in such circumstances would be adulterous (Matthew 19:9). As Darrin Belousek comments:
Christians can, consistently, allow recognition of divorce-remarriage in certain cases in accord with Jesus’s ruling and oppose sanction of same-sex union. Christan cannot, consistently, approve blessing of adulterous couplings by divorce-remarriage despite Jesus’s ruling and then oppose blessing of illicit coupling by same-sex union for the reason that such would despise God’s word. (Darrin Belousek, Marriage Scripture and the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2021) Kindle edition, p 160)
I would also argue that should be a penitential element in a service marking remarriage after divorce to reflect the fact that what is taking place, although allowed by God’s law, is nevertheless the result of a ‘sad and sinful declension from the divine ideal.’ However, this does not mean, as Sharp seems to suggest, that there should logically be penance for the remarriage itself. It is not the remarriage that is the problem but the prior divorce.
In Sharp’s third paper he makes three criticisms of the third FAOC report.
First, he argues that the report is defective in what it says about the exercise of discipline within the Church. In his words:
… as the report proceeds to outline a theology of discipline, it is unnervingly one-way, authoritarian and entirely lacking in awareness of the operative theologies of power which have led to both the abuse crisis in the worldwide Church and the failure of the Church of England itself to respond meaningfully to abuse.
Whether or not this is a legitimate criticism of what it said in the FAOC report, it is undoubtedly the case that there can be forms of discipline that involve the abuse of power and forms of the theology of discipline that justify such abuse. Sharp is right on this point. However as the Latin tag has it ‘abusus non tollit usus’—misuse of something is no argument against its proper use.
From what Sharp writes, he is concerned about the cases of abuse that have come to light in the Church in recent years. The reason he is concerned about them is because he believes that such abuse is wrong. This presumably means that he thinks that something should be done about abuse and ‘doing something about it’ will necessarily involve the exercise of church discipline.
However, if Sharp concedes that it is right to use discipline to address this moral wrong, to be consistent he would have to agree that discipline should also be exercised in other cases of wrongdoing, such as, for example, the misuse of church funds. What follows from this is that if the Church is right to hold that it is wrong for members of the clergy to be in same-sex marriages, or other forms of gay and lesbian relationship, there can be no argument in principle for not imposing appropriate discipline on those who are in such marriages or relationships.
Secondly, Sharp argues that the report is wrong to make an appeal to the concept of ordained ministry as a ‘whole-life dedication.’ As he puts it:
The report advances an argument that the vocation to ordained ministry is a ‘whole-life dedication’ which makes it ‘difficult, if not impossible, to separate the moral from the exemplary imperative in a life conceived as a form of witness’ (§64). This is an extraordinary argument for an Anglican to advance, especially as it is essentially the root of the argument for clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church. If ordination is ‘whole-life dedication’ to God, then heterosexual marriage and dedication to another person also should be inappropriate for the clergy.
What Sharp confuses here are two different things. The first is a calling to a life of singleness and the second is ‘whole-life dedication to God.’ In the words of Oliver O’Donovan, the New Testament Church:
…conceived of marriage and singleness as alternative vocations, each a worthy form of life, the two together comprising the whole Christian witness to the nature of affectionate community. The one declared that God vindicated the order of creation, the other point beyond it to is eschatological transformation (Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order 2ed (Leicester and Grand Rapids: Apollos/Eerdmans 1994), p 70).
When the Church of England once more permitted the marriage of clergy at the Reformation this was a deliberate attempt to reflect this New Testament pattern. Those clergy called to marriage should express their whole life dedication to God in that context and those clergy called to singleness should express their whole life dedication to God in that context.
The call of the clergy to exemplary conduct can be properly expressed by living appropriately in either vocation. To quote O’Donovan again: ‘The married must live in the way of marriage, the single in the ways of singleness’ (ibid). From the standpoint of traditional Church of England teaching the problem with clergy being same-sex relationships is that it involves those who are single (that is, not married to someone of the opposite sex) not living as single people should.
Thirdly, Sharp criticises the report for assuming that same-sex marriages will involve sexual activity.
At the heart of the problem here is that the report refuses to say plainly that a same-sex marriage has no more presumption of sexual activity than a civil partnership. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 inserts s.12(1-2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which disapplies the requirement that same-sex couples consummate their union in order to have a valid marriage. In law, there is no expectation that a gay couple who are married will be having sex, any more than there is for a civil partnership.
The failure to acknowledge this amidst all the handwringing is one of the largest and most uncomfortable omissions of this discussion of ‘clergy exemplarity.’ The readers of the report are left with the false impression that marriages mean gay sex while civil partnerships mean gay celibacy. This is a false impression. If clergy can be exemplary as civil partners, living a sexually sacrificial life for the Church, there is no reason why they could not also do the same as a married couple. There is no difference in terms of sexual activity between civil partnership and same-sex marriage.
Sharp’s account of what the report does and does not say might be accurate, but even if it is, it would not follow that a church that accepts that clergy can be in same-sex civil partnerships should also accept that clergy can be in same-sex marriages. The reason for this is because clergy who wish to enter into same-sex marriage hold that what they are entering into is a form of the way of life instituted by God at creation which the Christian tradition has called marriage.
However, marriage as instituted by God is a sexual relationship (a ‘one flesh union’) between two people of the opposite sex. A celibate same-sex marriage would not meet either criteria. For this reason it would not truly be a marriage. To quote the Prayer Book marriage service, it would be an example of two people ‘coupled together otherwise than God’s word doth allow’ and consequently, whatever the state may say about their union, they ‘are not joined together by God; neither is their Matrimony lawful.’ Because this would the case it means the member(s) of the clergy involved would not conform to the calling of the clergy set down in the 1662 Ordinal to:
…frame and fashion you own selves, and your families, according to the doctrine of Christ; and to make both yourselves and them, as much as in you lieth, wholesome examples and patterns to the flock of Christ.
2. Mike Higton’s response to ‘The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God’
Mike Higton is an Anglican theologian who is Professor of Theology and Ministry at the University of Durham and a former member of the Faith and Order Commission.
In his paper ‘Cries of Suffering: A Response to ‘The Nature of Doctrine and the Living God’’ he makes a number of criticisms of the way in which, in spite of referring to it, the FAOC report failed to do justice to what he said about the nature of doctrine in his 2020 book The Life of Christian Doctrine.
The first point he makes is that the FAOC report failed to take on board what he wrote about the problem of describing doctrine as ‘knowledge about God.’ In his words:
I would also find it difficult, without some serious qualification, to describe doctrine as ‘knowledge about God’. I argue in the book the more apophatic claim that:
For Christians to grow in knowledge [of God] is for them to grow together in their imagination of the love of God for them – their grasp of its breadth and length and height and depth. It is for them to grow in knowledge of the God-imaging love to which they are called, discovering the wisdom that will enable them to live that love out in the midst of all the relationships – local, political and cosmic – in which they find themselves. Knowledge of God consists in this deepening knowledge of love, and any supposed knowledge of God that does not take this form is simply fatuous (p 104).
Doctrinal statements and doctrinal theology can, I argue, play an important role in guiding and supporting this knowledge, but that doesn’t mean I can say that doctrine itself is ‘knowledge about God.’
The problem I have with what Higton says here is the combination of ‘knowledge’ and ‘imagination’ in the first sentence of the quotation from Higton’s book. I do not question that it is legitimate for Christians to seek to grasp the immensity of God’s love for them. However, if this growth is to be real growth then it must be based on real rather than ‘imaginary’ knowledge about God. The purpose of doctrine is to enable Christians to grow in their knowledge of what God is really like by bearing truthful witness to God’s self-revelation in the Bible. Doctrine succeeds or fails in achieving its purpose to the extent to which it succeeds or fails to bear such witness.
Higton talks about the role of doctrine being to guide and support knowledge of God, but this begs the question of where knowledge of God comes from in the first place if not from the faithful teaching, the doctrina, provided by the Church giving us truthful information about God.
The second point he makes is that, in contrast to what is said in the FAOC report, he writes:
‘…. with a much stronger sense of the fallibility and failures of the church, and I extend that to my estimate of the church’s doctrinal inheritance. I write that
Doctrinal theology…is involved in the reproduction of the life of the church. Yet the life of the church is always broken, always distorted, always sinful. Whatever true knowledge of God is embodied in the life that any Christian community lives, it is always mixed with ignorance, with misunderstanding and with the deliberate refusal of knowledge. The life of the church is a series of always failing experiments in the knowledge of God. If doctrinal theology helps to reproduce the life of the church, it will be helping to reproduce all of this failure – all of the exclusions and imbalances of power, all of the forms of harm that mar the church’s response to God’s love (p 4).
The authors of the FAOC document do briefly notice this aspect of my account (see the second paragraph that they quote in §136), but it quickly vanishes from sight. A large part of my book is, however, devoted to exploring how the Spirit works to convict the church of its sin (including those sins woven into its doctrinal theology), and to teach the church to know more of the truth. It is an account of the necessity of ongoing penitent change in the church’s doctrinal teaching.
The problem with this quotation is that, like the statement of the man who said, ‘the truth is there is no truth,’ it undermines itself. Higton tells us ‘The life of the Church is a series of always failing experiments in the knowledge of God.’ What he does not explain is how we know this is the case. If we never have correct knowledge of God, how can we know when what a piece of doctrine says about God is wrong, is a failed experiment? A Church that was always in error could never know that it was in error.
To echo the language of Article XXI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, human sin and ignorance means that those who have produced doctrine ‘may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.’ However, the only reason we know this is because God, in his mercy, has a maintained through the work of the Spirit a faithful witness to biblical truth in the life of the Church. It is this faithful witness, what the Christian tradition has called ‘orthodox doctrine’ that the Church of England, like all other churches is called to discern, teach and act upon.
The third point that Higton makes is that the Church needs to listen to the voices of the marginalised in the construction of its doctrine. Higton cites two passages from his book to makes this point:
God’s call reaches this church through cries…Most sharply, the call reaches the church through cries of suffering—cries from those injured, marginalized, erased, ignored or forced into passivity by the existing patterns of this church’s speech and action. These may be the cries of those who are already visibly part of the life of this church; they may be the cries of those on or beyond what are currently thought of as its edges – but wherever they come from, these cries break in on the church’s present life, posing questions and demanding re-evaluation. Can they do justice to the lives from which these cries emerge? (p 223).
The reading practices to which the church is called, and which doctrinal theologians are to accompany, are practices of reading while walking. That is, they are practices of re-reading in the light of the new situations, the new encounters and the new relationships into which the Spirit leads scripture’s readers. Above all, they are practices of re-reading in the company of those who suffer and are oppressed, those who are marginalized and excluded, those who are harmed by the church’s present settlements. They are practices in which those in positions of hermeneutical power and privilege sit at the feet of those who read from the margins, to listen, to learn, to accompany and in time to converse (p 169).
To justify this claim Higton would have to offer some form of evidence that ‘those injured, marginalized, erased, ignored or forced into passivity by the existing patterns of this church’s speech and action’ have a superior understanding of God’s self-revelation in the Bible to those others who have studied the Scriptures down the ages and across the world. He fails to provide such evidence or to indicate where it might be found.
It goes without saying that bishops and others must converse with those who Higton describes in these two quotations, but what Higton does not establish is that these people have an automatically superior theological wisdom that is denied to everyone else.
Higton’s fourth and final point is that the FAOC failed to learn from a series of previous Church of England documents that it is possible to ‘hold multiple doctrines simultaneously.’
My response is to wonder why Higton pointed to these documents in particular when the whole history of Christian theology tells us that Christians have always held multiple different doctrines simultaneously. Thus, for example, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther and Karl Barth, to name but four major Christian theologians, all held simultaneously doctrines concerning God, Christology, creation, the Fall, the atonement, the Church and the sacraments and the last things. Holding together these different doctrines is simply a way of laying out our understanding of the truth of God and his relation with his creation in a way the enables us see clearly the different aspects of the truth that has been revealed to us.
The real issue that needs addressing (and which Higton does not tackle) is whether we can rightly hold contradictory doctrines simultaneously. The law of non-contradiction means that the answer to this question is ‘no.’ We cannot coherently hold that God both is and is not triune, that Christ both is and is not God, that humanity is both fallen and not fallen and so on.
In a similar way, in the current debates about marriage and sexuality we cannot say that marriage is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex and that two people of the same sex can be married to one another, or that sex outside monogamous heterosexual marriage is a sin and is not a sin, or that clergy engaging in same-sex sexual activity is both sinful and exemplary. We have to make a choice about which position is correct and which is not. That is unavoidable. We cannot simply say with the Dodo in Alice in Wonderland ‘Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’
Dr Martin Davie is a lay theologian who is a fellow of the Latimer Trust and theological consultant to the Church of England Evangelical Council. The main body of this article was previously published on Martin’s website here.
Buy me a Coffee
Writing as one of those who is ‘outside’ of the Church, having excluded himself from the Eucharist for fifty years, might I ask, “Could the image of God as the ‘ultimate progressive’ be at all helpful in this debate?” The creator God of Abraham, Isaac, Israel and Jesus of Nazareth, obviously, ‘works’ through evolutionary means; and to exclude the insights of human experience and the human sciences from the debate, by ‘privileging’ one approach to those ancient documents we have designated as ‘scripture’, seems to this old homosexual Christian, to be undoing, and even reversing, many of the teachings of Jesus, himself. Jesus ‘shrank’ ten commandments to two: yet the Church appears to wish to re-codify human existence. I have shared forty-two years of life with a wonderful, handsome, male atheist: and don’t especially care for the Churches’ judgment on our love. I do care about God’s ‘opinion’: and hope my love of Him is sufficient for both of us, as we near our deaths.
Loving God means keeping his commandments, as Jesus explained at the Last Supper and as John expounded in his first Epistle. This is the fundamental error is your approach.
But then it’s not really about how much ‘you’ love God, but the other way around. Otherwise we could boast.
I too am gay but I have yet to reconcile such a sexual relationship with Biblical teaching. I just dont see it.
Thanks for commenting Mark—I appreciated it. But a couple of responses.
First, Jesus didn’t ‘shrink’ the commandments. He was asked which were the most important. As I say in my article on that passage, this was a common debate in Judaism in the first century. And Jesus affirms here the importance of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.
But he does not take the ‘antinomian’ line that you are suggesting. Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew, and appears to have expected his followers to be so too. Identifying the most important commandments helps us keep the others better, not dispense with them.
Secondly, the reason why we believe Scripture has the ultimate authority is because it bears faithful witness to Jesus. That is what it means to be part of the ‘one, holy, catholic, and *apostolic* church’. The reason why the canon is closure is because Jesus is God’s last word to us.
Lastly, faith is not something that we offer to God. Faith is our accepting what he has done for us. It is not your faith that will save you or anyone else—it is Jesus’ death and resurrection for you and me. We need to accept his offer of life—which includes turning from what he calls sin, and walking with him in newness of live. Jesus is our good shepherd, who laid down his life for us—and who teaches us the truth about who we are and what is holy.
And I don’t think any reputable scholar disputes that Jesus taught marriage is between one man and one woman. If we are to call him Lord, then we need to receive his teaching.
I hope that all makes sense.
‘I would argue that the Church’s discipline with regard to remarriage after divorce should be stricter and only permit remarriage in circumstances where the biblical conditions for divorce have been met.’
Does this mean that the wife of a violent husband that has landed her in A&E, the husband having been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm or attempted murder, that she after divorcing him she cannot remarry in church unless he has also committed adultery?
Does not St Paul answer that with clarity in 1 Corinthians 7:11?
Here’s a theological puzzle, at least for this layman. It seems to me that reading 1 Corinthians 7 as a whole, celibacy is the most preferred state, according to Paul (e.g., verses 1, 7, and 8). He seems to allow marriage more or less as a concession, not a command (e.g., verses 2, 6, and 9).
Yet the very first command God ever gave to man was unambiguous: to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). This leads me to wonder whether we should consider Paul to have been infallible, as we apparently do (as certainly I have anyway).
Paul was writing only for Chrtistians, who are always going to be a small miniority in the world. (Some of us believe this to be true even in institutionally Christian lands.)
It is interesting that I doubt many preachers today would ever tell their congregations that being single is best, not marriage (apart from the catholics, most preachers are married themselves, and in some churches it is an actual requirement to be an elder as an example). Today the exact opposite is taught.
Good question John. But I think we need to do three things here.
First, we need to recognise Paul’s rhetorical strategy. Throughout 1 Cor, he at first accepts, and then gently corrects the Corinthians’ own view.
Secondly, he elsewhere uses marriage to illustrate the relation of Christ to the church, so he is hardly denigrating that.
Thirdly, as a Jew who knows that first commandment in Scripture is to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ through marriage, sex, and procreation, we need to recognise how remarkable is his affirmation of singleness and celibacy.
Overall, I think Paul’s teaching is that marriage is for most, and is important as we continue to live in this age. But single celibacy is also an honoured path to which God will call some—and in fact anticipates the new creation where we will be ‘like the angels’ and will not need marriage (because of intimacy with God) nor procreation (because death has ended). And in both states, the people of God can be fruitful through having *spiritual* children through our faithful testimony to God’s grace.
Was not Paul, previously Saul, now concerned that the spread of the Good News of Jesus was of utmost, primary importance. Marriage could be a distraction to Jesus great commission,
probably because he believed Jesus was returning within his lifetime, hence the urgency.
Few today believe marriage is a distraction.
I would agree with Sharp that the Church of England should not marry anybody whose former marital partner is still alive. But does Sharp – a liberal theologian – actually believe this himself, or is he using it as a trick, to divert the debate about whether two men who have undergone a wedding ceremony are married in God’s eyes? *That* is the issue. The first step in answering it is to consider where the answer is to be found.
Of course he doesn’t. The ‘Society of Catholic Priests’ is the Church of England’s reconstituted group of Anglo-Catholics (after many left to join the Ordinariate) that now affirms female ordination and homosexual partnerships – in other words, not really Catholic.
But they like the haberdashery and the titles even while their theology is completely out of whack.
But the gay Anglo-Catholics have always been that way: very radical in theology, very papalist in liturgy. Barnabas Lindars somehow managed that impossible balancing act.
There is a unified explanation for the two things you polarise, which is a rebellious or attention seeking spirit.
Rebellion is not bad or good per se, because it entirely depends on what one is rebelling against.
Anglo-Catholics have always played that game of conflictual rebellion, which showed they were not fundamentally serious. They believed in social privilege while having a soft spot for Communism. They extolled celibacy alongside sodomy.
Sharp’s essay is full of contradiction and shows he doesn’t understand what marriage is. In comparing civil partnerships to marriage he displayed his ignorance but did indirectly highlight something I have been saying for years: that the C of E erred very seriously in permitting clergy to enter civil partnerships. Everybody (except the C of E, apparently) knew that CPs are same-sex marriages in all but name. That is why the C of E should have imposed its own discipline on clergy in this matter.
Good analysis.
Of course not, the Church of England is established church of a nation where same sex marriage is legal. So it would be absurd to deny its clergy to enter civil partnerships even if for them to enter a same sex marriage requires majority approval of Synod and stand alone services for same sex couples who are clergy or parishioners require a 2/3 majority of Synod as the bishops affirmed.
What the article sensibly states though is that if the Church of England is stricter on regulating clergy trying to enter civil same sex marriages or on stand alone services as opposed to within service prayers for same sex couples it needs to be stricter on divorce too. Only allowing remarriage of divorcees in church where spousal adultery took place in accordance with scripture and only otherwise recognising a woman as divorced if her ex husband committed domestic abuse of her and she had to leave him in accordance with scripture, though not remarrying
I remember what Evelyn Waugh wrote about Anglo-Catholics in Brideshead Revisited.
1. Knowing God is not the same as knowing about.
2. Knowing Jesus, who he is, is not the same as knowing about Him.
3. Doctrine: we all have doctrines on meaning of life and how to live it. The Holy Bible is God’s revelation on this. In the beginning God.
3.1 Postemodern subjectivism, has made inroads and dead-end diversions and enterd into Biblical theology through dead ends, diversions, no- through-roads in the the name of culture and the academy Christian Biblical theology.
3.2 None of it can set aside the ‘law/logic on none- contradiction. ‘A’ is not ‘ none A’.
3.3 What is notable is the removal of absolutes.
3.3.1 And with that new absolute doctrine is the removal of
3.3.2 the doctrine of God
3.3.3 the doctrine of biblical revelation, by God
3.3.4the doctrine of humanity
4. The first quotation from O O’Dovovan draws well on the biblical doctrine of humanity.
4. Discipline: the quotation about correct discipline is spot on. Self discipline is an absent concept, it seems.
5. The doctrine of sin is remarkably but not surprisingly absent.
6 As is the doctrine of Holiness
7 5+6 are integral to salvation and sanctification: First Order matters.
‘The real issue that needs addressing … is whether we can rightly hold contradictory doctrines simultaneously. The law of non-contradiction means that the answer to this question is ‘no.’ ‘ But within the Church of England there are those who affirm the eternal election of some to salvation, and those who reject that doctrine. We allow them to co-exist in one church although their doctrines are contradictory. Article 17 would seem to support the former but no one insists that others are heretics or unorthodox. Similarly, there is a range of views about Holy Communion but no one argues for a separate province for only those who agree with their sacramental doctrine. I’m not defending contradictory teaching only that in some areas that are undoubtedly more important than marriage we live with it and manage to respect our brothers and sisters in Christ. It would be more consistent to insist on a church with a single biblical view on all these topics and not compromise in any area.
Tim,
Whitfield and Wesley differed, but they were both driven by the salvation of people. That is what they held in common.
Wesley’s ‘Almost a Christian’ sermon wouldn’t find much favour today, as it didn’t then. Indeed, Wesley met much hostility. Even as his views on atonement are dismissed in Methodism today. W+W were both on post- conversion ‘fire’ . Wesley after first meeting the Moravians, following a barren time in USA.
W+W were both concerned with conversion of people.
So Tim, it is suggested your point incorporates something of straw man and no true Scotsman, fallacies.
Through Faith Missions led by CoE ministers, welcome all, from Methodist, Baptists, Pentecostals, Presbyterians in their mission of conversion as a beginning of discipleship.
Conversion and discipleship are absent from any of this CoE farago, this tying of self in knots.
Yes, Wesley and Whitefield certainly valued each other and recognised each other’s valid ministry. Personally I’m indebted to Wesley, not least for his sermon on catholic Christianity. They in effect agreed to differ over what was and is undoubtedly a first order issue that affects other areas of doctrine (not least the Trinity) and mission and evangelism. Similarly people on both sides today can both be driven by a desire to proclaim the faith. Somehow in the current debates marriage has been stated to be a first order issue, though many would dispute that, and that this therefore justifies the level of acrimony, name calling and division that we see paraded before us. It does make a good boundary marking issue to generate an ‘us’ and ‘them’ approach so that any suggestion that the other side has any validity has to be immediately disproved as totally false. But just as the bitter disputes over Calvinism and Arminianism faded in the C20 it may just be that the same thing will happen to disputes over marriage in the next 100 years. Things may look very different to our great grandchildren, or they may not do. No one can know, however 100% certain we are today on either side.
But Tim,
Again and again they are first order matters relating to, sin, salvation and sanctification, matters you do not and have not addressed, nor have they been addressed by those pressing for change.
Tim: how can anybody deny that Predestination to Life is clearly taught in Scripture?
There are dozens and dozens of passages in John’s Gospel and Paul’s letters that clearly state this: ‘You did not choose me but I chose you and appointed you to bear much fruit.’
‘No one can come to me unless the Father draws him.’
How human wills and the divine will interact is certainly a mystery, but no one in the C of E can affirm that faith is simply our own decision – or initiative. Article 17 clearly precludes this. So I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Similarly, the Church of England clearly denies that the bread and wine become the physical body and blood of Christ. Anybody teaching that in the C of E is plainly heretical.
In social terms I find it pretty hard to imagine what areas you think can be “undoubtedly more important than marriage” since marriage and the family are the foundation of society and marriage is the context for sexual behaviour: outside marriage sex is promiscuity or adultery, on which our Lord has some pretty strong views. What do you mean by saying marriage is “not that important”? Jesus and his apostles seem to think differently from you.
I think it’s one of those debatable topics. Do ‘drawing’ and ‘choosing’ automatically mean the end result will be inevitable? Or does human free will play an important factor.
The Bible demands that we treat sexuality as s first order salvation issue:
http://www.john-stevens.blog/2022/12/homosexuality-bible-demands-that-we.html
That is correct. This is where Tim falls into serious error. He fails to understand how central sexual faithfulness and purity are to Christian discipleship.
Thanks Tim for your efforts to bring some helpful discussion to Ian’s blog. I (for one) appreciate it.
So do I.
Thanks, Tim, I think this is a great question.
First, it is worth noting that many members and clergy, and even bishops, sit loosely to the doctrine of the C of E on all sorts of Questions. Does that matter? Yes, I think it actually does, more than most. To take Communion: the formularies of the C of E set out a pretty clear receptionist view of Communion (or the Lord’s Supper, as we really ought to call it), and explicitly rejected any kind of transubstantiation. On social media, someone said to me that the Formularies and BCP are more or less Zwinglian, and I think that is true. And I think it matters. So I take care to teach this where I can, and whenever I administer Communion, I use the BCP words of administration to make that clear.
But the wider question is which doctrines matter more and which matter less. whatever we make of the others, there is a clear case to be made—from Scripture, from theology, from history, from pastoral concerns, and from the C of E’s own position, that sexuality and marriage is not an area on which we can agree to disagree. Not least reason is that this was a hot topic in the first century, and the rejection of all forms of same-sex sexual relationships were a hallmark of Judaism in contrast to pagan views—and Jesus taught explicitly on this, as did Paul.
Does that help?
Thank you, Bruce and Ian. I happen to side with Wesley on this and so against the Articles, at least if we take the plain sense reading of them. Clergy affirm allegiance to the historic formularies, not absolute agreement with them, so the more receptionist understanding of the C16 Articles, historically conditioned as it was, is not the only option today.
But part of my point is that in the C of E we share ministry and sacraments with others with whom we disagree over profound matters that are at the heart of faith, sometimes even in the same parish. Perhaps underneath the ‘presenting issue’ of marriage are much bigger ones which have several dimensions, including the level and kind /of doctrinal purity we seek. Some want us to be more rigorist and quasi-confessional, others find the openness to different interpretations attractive as the C of E is a kind of national ecumenical project.
We probably all know people whose theological views have changed profoundly over the years in all sorts of directions but they still find a home in the C of E and that may be very uncomfortable for us if they now disagree with us. I suspect it may in part come down to personality and academic training as much as anything, and maybe Leslie Francis could do some interesting research on this for us.
Thanks for the response. But two further observations.
The Declaration of Assent might use the term ‘allegiance’, but canon law is unambiguous: the doctrine of the Church is found in the Articles and BCP. And ordination vows commit us to believe and uphold that doctrine. The DoA doesn’t provide the get-out clause that many think!
Secondly, there are issues which can sit side by side. If in my parish we accept Anglican receptionist eucharistic theology, but in the next door parish, they have moved to something nearer transubstantiation, there is diversity but not necessarily contradiction, assuming that we are both preaching salvation by grace through faith (and not salvation by receiving communion).
But if we teaching that marriage is, according to the teaching of our Lord, a lifelong exclusive union between one man and one woman, and the neighbouring parish teaches that God blesses same-sex unions, then a same-sex couple changes from being sinful in our parish to being blessed the moment they cross the parish boundary.
That is not diversity; it is contradiction.
It is contradiction – and it is profound incoherence that undermines the very nature of the Church as the fellowship of those redeemed by Christ who are forgiven by his sacrifice and now living a new life to the glory of God. This is very clear from 1 Corinthians where Paul instructs the congregation that there must be no fellowship with the sexually disobedient until there is repentance and amendment of life.
This is the error that Tim keeps making: he fails to see that marriage and sexual fidelity are central and intrinsic to the right ordering of the Church’s life – as they are to human life in general – because the New Testament, in many places makes this point.
The second major error that Tim makes is in failing to see that the modern – and completely historically unprecedented – push to redefine marriage as a voluntary sexual compact between any two persons instead of a foundational relationship for the furtherance of the human race – is born directly out of the REJECTION of Christianity in the west.
It is NOT a legitimate development of Christian doctrine, it is actually a humanistic repudiation of Christian teaching about the nature of humans and our destiny.
Tim has ended up siding with the atheist Jeremy Bentham without realising it.
You will see the picture as plain as can be by observing what happened at the point when the culture shifted from majority Christian to majority secular: circa 1964 onwards, and particularly the early 1970s.
The insurgent anti-Christians WERE essentially the sexual revolutionaries (i.e. they were powered by animal nature and selfishness: the reverse of Christianity). It was that simple, and not all that much has changed today (they still ARE); except that people in the Christian tradition, who have no idea how much wisdom they lack, have treated legalisation as normalisation, and normalisation as moral. I would not like to witness the spectacle of their trying to defend that logically indefensible and confused (or unthinking) stance.
Ian, thank you responding courteously, though I’m not arguing for SSM only for a different perspective. Some who are absolutely resolute on insisting on following the teaching on marriage sit rather lighter to other things, and justify this by designating the former as a first order issue (BTW this is not a phrase I can find anywhere in the historic formularies. but I may have missed it.) Any suggestion that any another view is or ever could be in any way possible has to be rejected in the strongest and sometimes frankly judgemental/ uncharitable terms. But I know, as I’m sure you do, very faithful Christians who’ve come to a different view. I can remain in fellowship with them and receive holy communion from them if they’re ordained.
The precise nature of how the doctrine of the C of E is contained in the BCP and Articles and ordinal and how far priests are required to assent to it all is fascinating. But if we take a fairly maximalist view then we are committed to the election to salvation of some, baptismal regeneration, that bishops priests and deacons have existed since the apostles, the Athanasian Creed, no one to preach without due authority not just the agreement of the vicar, and acknowledging the supreme authority on earth of the sovereign. In addition, clergy are ordained to the priesthood and only they can preside at Holy Communion. But I know (and maybe you do too) of many clergy who do not wish to be called priests and who use other terms e.g. teaching elder or senior pastor. Well, OK, but why not simply respect the C of E’s teaching that we are ordained to the priesthood? Some also openly favour so-called lay presidency at HC. My question is not why is discipline over marriage demanded but why do those who demand that discipline so vehemently sit light to it in many other areas?
Sorry to labour this but it looks as though it’s been decided somewhere that marriage and sexuality will be the issue where discipline is to be enforced (almost that a stand must be taken) but other areas can be let go. As I’m not involved in any pressure group I don’t know why this is the case.
Tim:
You keep missing the point and making false comparisons.
First, Anglican clergy are called “priests” in the BCP but this is simply a contraction of “presbuteros” and does not mean what cohen in the OT or hiereus in the NT means: one who offers sacrifices (hiera). The Anglican priest or presbyter is essentially a teaching elder – not a sacrificer.
Second, Anglicans recognise the sacraments of non-episcopally ordained clergy. Bishops are simply one way of ordering the church. Other ways are possible.
Third, your “maximalist” reading isn’t borne out by Anglican history or church law. Nothing in Anglican church law prohibits “lay people” meeting in private homes from breaking bread to remember the Lord’s death- I know of Anglican home groups that regularly do this. Anglican law relates to public worship.
Fourth, although you say you are “not advocating for SSM” you are in fact doing this, you just haven’t seen the logic of what you are saying. ‘A different perspective’ is just another way of saying you really want SSM but you can’t bring yourself to say so openly. You are also falling into the error of false comparisons (accusing evangelicals of hypocrisy or law breaking) and forgetting, as you did before, that Canon B5 actually gives quite a bit of latitude to Anglicsn worship in local situations. Anglicans are not Roman Catholics, who have very little liturgical freedom by their canon law.
it looks as though it’s been decided somewhere that marriage and sexuality will be the issue where discipline is to be enforced (almost that a stand must be taken) but other areas can be let go.
Decided in heaven, perhaps?
This (once more) is why it is important:
http://www.john-stevens.blog/2022/12/homosexuality-bible-demands-that-we.html
Tim,
Where do you draw or redraw the line? On what is it to be based?
As you will know the Methodist authorized Communion alternative liturgies in the 1990’s included one addressing God as Mother. Is that a first order matter?
Or is it open season, to preach/teach whatever tickles one’s fancy?
Is that heresy, or is there no such thing today?
I’m really uncertain how you would fare as a jury member who to convict anyone, would have to be sure.
On a jury it is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ i.e. judgement is exercised. It’s not pure objectivity or 100% certainty. Similarly in theology judgement has to be exercised and always has been. There’s no getting away from it. That’s why we all need to be open to the possibility we’re either mistaken or have only grasped some of the truth. As Rahner said, ‘All our theology is like playing with pebbles on the edge of a sea of mystery.’ That’s exciting because we have so much more top discover.
Rahner’s statement, taken literally, is nonsense and undermines any attempt to say anything about God. This is not at all what Jesus and his Apostles say, nor what the Church has declared throughout history. If he is only asserting that God’s nature is greater than we can conceive and likewise for human dedtiny in the eschaton, there can be no dispute; but if he is casting doubt on the truthfulness and knowability of Christian dogmatics, then he is making any claim to religious knowledge impossible. And thst is completely against the NT.
Rahner’s statement, taken literally, is nonsense and undermines any attempt to say anything about God. This is not at all what Jesus and his Apostles say, nor what the Church has declared throughout history. If he is only asserting that God’s nature is greater than we can conceive and likewise for human dedtiny in the eschaton, there can be no dispute; but if he is casting doubt on the truthfulness and knowability of Christian dogmatics, then he is making any claim to religious knowledge impossible. And that is completely against the NT.
Tim,
A decision is to be made by the jury after the case has been closed on evidence.
Beyond reasonable doubt, means, that you must be sure.
The canon of scripture is closed.
Seems that the answer is that you could never be sure to conviction.
Except in your present conviction.
God can be known, is knowable.
That quotations by Rayner appears to be flaccid philosophy not matched by his life. Maybe he is ultimately of the same persuasion of atheist Cupitt and his Sea of faith from. A void.
If that statement represents your base line ingrained belief, it is sub Christian it seems. For Christianity is more than a series of proposition. It is knowing God who has revealed himself.
Conversion, knowing Jesus would preclude any sort of Rahner flaccid philosophy.
Also I’m not sure whether your citation of R. represents tacit approval of the Methodists ‘Mother god’s as R seems to argued against the Trinity of Christianity.
But here, rather than pick out bits is an article by RR Reno, First Things, that provides a sweep of Rahner’ s
Philosophy and theology with a critical conclusion.
https://firstthings.com/rahner-the-restorationist/
Tim
I think part of the problem is that you think this is all ‘theology’, No- theology is not even a science. The study of languages, texts, history and cultures is more scientific.
But a larger part of the problem (and here I am omitting the oft mentioned elephant in the room: self-refuting relativism) is that you are treating all theology and all issues as uniform – there is disagreement about all of it. No – it should be studied and assessed issue by issue. More careful work already does things that way.
And your not grappling with the two oft-mentioned issues of (a) your simply assuming good faith, (b) your lumping together of vastly different levels of expertise creates a double impasse until you do. It is not coming across that you understand how central a-b are.
Rahner is an interesting one. How could he assess the proportion of how much we have to discover and how much we have so far discovered of the main picture? Thus, his claimed agnosticism fails at two points – (a) it is actually gnostic, (b) it is claiming superiority merely by being agnostic, when in fact being agnostic takes zero thought, research and effort.
His saying is not even original – it is Newton, and is the assessment that would immediately spring to mind, especially for a brisk writer such as he was.
Jesus never once rejected all forms of faithful same sex relationships, he rejected promiscuity regardless of sexuality and reserved marriage to one man and one woman ideally for life
Utterly wrong – you have no knowledge of this historical period and constantly misunderstand the literature. Jesus rejected porneia which means dec outside marriage. There is NOT A SINGLE commendation of homosexuality in any Jewish, Jewish Christian or Gentile Christian sources in the first century (while there are plenty of positive comments about male homosexuality in Greco-Roman poetry and other literature of the classical period – Catullus, Horace, Tibullus etc). You can be very sure that if Jesus had EVER approved of homosexuality, this would have formed part of the charge against him before the Sanhedrin.
Simon, although you have a strong personal desire to see same sex relationships approved of in thf Church of England, you need to learn some first century history, especially the character of Judaism. You keep making the same basic historical errors.
*sex outside marriage
Pornea means promiscuity, thanks also for confirming Jesus never said anything against same sex unions
Simon: you are completely mistaken znd have misread me seriously. I understand you are not a biblical scholar, and so prone to making generalisations without knowledege of the historical material, so you need to learn from scholars of the first century. Porneia means sex outside of marriage. This includes homosexuality. Jesus did indeed reject homosexual affairs. It is impossible to imagine Jesus approving of homosexual love affairs and not being condemned by the Sanhedrin. You keep misding this simple but fundamental fact about first century Judaism- which you have obviously never studied. Read pro-gay liberal scholars like Luke T. Johnson and Bill Loader. They are clear that you are wrong about the meaning of porneia.
Porneia does not remotely equate to promiscuity. Kittel or Colin Brown, Vine or Mounce dictionaries of NT concepts go into NT koine Greek words and their semantic range in great detail.
Nor is the NT ever directed against promiscuity as such, as though it were saying ‘a body count of 3 is fine’ or anything odd like that.
I am a historian. Pornea in the Greek is a term focused on promiscuity, adultery and incest not faithful same sex couples. Though if you interpret it to include same sex couples too then conservative evangelicals would need to be condemning heterosexuals who have any sexual activity before marriage or outside of marriage as much as they condemn same sex couples in committed unions
Simon:
As I said, you are not a scholar of the New Testament and I doubt you have studied koine Greek to a great extent- correct me if I am wrong about your professional training. Do you know the ancient languages (Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic)? Have you studied first century Rabbinics? Are you familiar with Strack-Billerbeck or similar compilations of sources on Judaism and Rabbinics? Have you ever read LT Johnson or Loader? You seem to know nothing about first century Judaism either, which is the context for understanding what Jesus said. If you knew this material, you would know that ‘porneia’ essentially denotes ALL the illicit sexual conduct proscribed in Leviticus. You would also know thst Jews were COMPLETELY different in their sexual ethics from the Greco-Roman pagan world, which celebrated faithful same-sex couples: as you would know if you had studied Plato, Vergil or Catullus or other pagan writers. You really need to learn some Greek and Aramaic, along with some Mishnah and first century Jewish history- this will help you to avoid the basic errors you keep making,
Not withstanding the fact that if your main focus is the Old Testament and the likes of Leviticus you are really Jewish not Christian anyway. Plus the fact that the Romans were more into orgies of heterosexual or homosexual type than faithful relationships, certainly until Constantine brought Christianity into the Empire. I would be interested to see conservative evangelicals like you being as critical of pre marital heterosexual sex as you are of sex between faithful same sex partners
Simon, ‘whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven’ (Jesus, Matt 5.19).
‘These things were written for our instruction’ (Paul, 1 Cor 10.11, Rom 15).
Are they both wrong?
Simon, you confirm that you are not a scholar of Judaism, the first century context in which Christianity arose, or the ancient languages. As for your claim that I am Jewish, oi veh ….
But your claim that “the Romans were morr into …. orgies than faithful relationships” really makes me wonder about your claim to be a historian. Of what? Hollywood B movies?
As for pre-marital sex, plenty of evangelicals and Catholics oppose this and say so. But the “progressive” culture you support has been attacking them for over sixty years.
Simon ‘Pornea in the Greek is a term focused on promiscuity, adultery and incest not faithful same sex couples.’ Sorry, as a matter of fact that is simply not true. It referred to the prohibited relationships in Lev 18 and elsewhere, which included same-sex sex.
Clearly James you need to look into the history more, orgies were rife in the parties and banquets held by Roman Emperors like Tiberius and Caligula. Most conservative evangelicals tend to spend much more time opposing homosexual relationships than pre marital sex as far as I can see, Catholics are a bit more balance
Jesus mentioned pornea in the context of promiscuity, if your main focus is Leviticus’ interpration of it then you are really focusing on an Orthodox Jewish rather than Christian interpretation of sexuality
“Jesus mentioned pornea in the context of promiscuity, if your main focus is Leviticus’ interpration of it then you are really focusing on an Orthodox Jewish rather than Christian interpretation of sexuality”
Oh, so Jesus was using this word intending to be understood as a 21st Century Liberal Protestent, not an Orthodox Jew? What a strange thing for him to do, seeing as he was, indeed, a Jew, and he was talking to Jews, about Jewish questions.
Jesus never explicitly said a word against faithful same sex couples having sex, unlike Leviticus
Ocne again Simon: every time Jesus mentioned ‘porneia’, he affirmed the list in Lev 18. That is what it meant in the first century. He specifically said marriage (and so sex) is between one man and one woman, because of God’s creation of humanity male and female. Paul made that assumed Jewish teaching (believed by every single Jew in the first century) explicit in a gentile context in Rom 1 and 1 Cor 6.9.
That is why every single reputable (liberal critical) scholar agrees that is the consistent teaching of every part of the Scriptures.
Do you think they are all wrong? On what grounds?
That is the poorest of poor arguments, and you know it. It is incredible how you ignore the reiteration of the thought-context point. The concept is a 21st century one, so obviously it would not enter Jesus’s head. Are we also to find it significant that he said nothing about XBoxes? The behaviour in question was more uncontroversially out of court for Jews than certain kinds of divorce, which is why the latter came up as a live topic and the former did not.
Argument from silence – 99% of possible topics Jesus never mentioned. 99% of possible topics everyone else never mentions either. And most of them do not enter our heads in the first place. To think that the topics that enter 1st century heads must be 21st century topics is so culturally blinkered.
If most conservative evangelicals do indeed spend more time opposing ss ”relationships” than premarital sex, then the solution is to oppose both firmly. It is to be taken for granted that many things are opposed, but what is the good of spending time reciting them?
The reason the former topic comes up more in the present era is obviously only that church people raise it more in the present era. We would prefer to talk about neither.
Jesus affirmed marriage is between one man and one woman for life, I grant you. Paul may have included practising homosexuals in the unrighteous but Jesus never made such a statement, indeed he never openly condemned same sex relationships at all
Leviticus and Paul mentioned opposition to homosexuality, Jesus however did not see it as a priority so never mentioned it. In theory conservative evangelicals might oppose same sex couples and pre marital sex equally but normally they don’t, focusing more on the former
Nonsense. We have less than 1pc of the words Jesus ever uttered. Even had we 100pc of them, he would still have spoken on 1pc if topics.
Secondly, he never needs to speak on things all Jews already agreed on. He does refer back to the Ten Commandments but that is not because anyone is disputing them.
Paul has a gentile audience. It becomes an issue for him.
Fourth, any departure by Jesus from Jewish orthodoxy would be both one of the first things remembered and one of the first things recorded. His novel stances on sabbath and divorce are well remembered. Had he held the imaginary views that you wish, that would have been both more novel and more scandalous than either.
Fifth, the major issue for you is a non issue historically which you are desperately trying to make an issue, and that is bias. Things which actually figured in Jesus’s life you mostly never mention . That’s not the real Jesus, it’s more like your puppet.
Sixth, since when was Jesus likely to be opposed to Paul or even disagree with him? Are there any examples?
Seventh, since when was Paul disagreeing with Jesus? Are there any examples of that either? Quite the opposite, he wanted maximum conformity to Christ.
So it is hard to find a more forlorn stance (or wish).
If Jesus was really anti faithful same sex couples at least one of the Gospel writers would have written that up. Jesus created a new non Jewish religion, he doesn’t overturn the 10 Commandments no but he based his religion on his teachings. If your main focus is Old Testament law not the teachings of Christ you are an Orthodox Jew not a Christian.
Paul may have mentioned it but Paul was not the Messiah, Jesus was. Paul did not even become a Christian until after Jesus had been crucified and resurrected and ascended into heaven
Utter, utter nonsense. You disallow the possibility that there were topics that Jesus never mentioned.
It is 100% certain that there were many topics he never mentioned. Chief among them were concepts that belong to our day (or some day that was not his own) not his.
If he had been in favour of homosexual sex then that would have been extremely comment worthy – off the Richter scale, in fact.
Anyone can read your comments and see that you are implying it is 100% certain that Jesus commented on this issue. You provide no evidence for that extremely unlikely stance.
He wasn’t in favour of promiscuous homosexual sex anymore than he was in favour of promiscuous heterosexual sex. However he never said a word against faithful same sex couples
Sharp is quoted in saying:
“I certainly have never heard of public penance being done by heterosexual divorcees to make clear that the Church does not condone their remarriage before their service of thanksgiving.”
However, the “Service of Prayer and Dedication Following Civil Marriage”, which is what I presume he refers to as the “service of thanksgiving”, has at its beginning penitential prayers. This is the major difference between this service and the service of the “Solomnisation of Holy Matrimony”.
As for Sharp’s statement:
“It now seems only in really exceptional circumstances that marriage of heterosexual couples after divorce is ever denied.”
this illustrates the issue with the concession of allowing remarriage under some circumstances. I recall when in our PCC our vicar aired this for discussion. It was cited then that the Methodists started some decades ago, to allow remarriage under exceptional circumstances. However, over the years effectively this became remarriage under any circumstances. The problem with this shift from “never (but we have the service of Prayer and Dedication)” to “sometimes” is that it shifts the decision from the general principle, but making no judgement on the individual case, to making the decision on the particular case of the couple coming forward for marriage. The vicar would have to say “yes, we do remarry divorcees in some circumstances, but in your case we will not.”
Are there any statistics of how many incumbents still to not permit remarriage of divorcees?
Good question, and no there are not. But I don’t know of any evangelical church which is careless in this regard.
This is an incisive and helpful analysis by Martin Davie — but there is one misleading statement:
“The NT allows divorce [for] adultery (Matthew 19:9)” — that of course, is not what the verse actually says – it is divorce for ‘porneia’ — a small but nonetheless, I suggest, important point on a sensitive subject.
Coincidentally I had never heard of FAOC until I went to a meeting last evening and heard John Dunnett speak on behalf of CEEC of which our church is a member. He spoke well but couldn’t conceal his basic pessimism about the whole thing.
Some might think this is another pedantic point but nonetheless I think it is important:
“Marriage as instituted by God is a sexual relationship (a ‘one flesh union’) between two people of the opposite sex.”
I think a deduction has been made from this that is not directly taught in Scripture.
Jesus is citing Genesis 2:24 and the understanding in the original context of ‘one flesh’ is ‘one family’ (i.e. not a direct reference to sexual intercourse). Clearly marriage was intended for sexual intercourse — but is it correct to deduce that there is no marriage without such?
Is it not rather like saying a driving licence is not valid unless you drive a car?
You ignore the ‘command’ to multiply. You cant multiply without sex. And sex is supposed to be within marriage. So logically, marriage – sex – multiply. And I also maintain that the one flesh wording does indeed refer to the physical joining of a man and woman, which happens in sex. Even if this ‘one flesh’ has other meanings too.
Indeed Peter.
The context in Genesis is 1. forming and 2 filling the earth. It is teleological in it purpose.
To drive a car legally requires a licence: rules that require conformity for the benefit of society at large. It is a false premise that is proposed.
It is not credible to suggest that Jesus didn’t know the meaning and purpose of one flesh joining together.
And another inaccuracy is that when he refers to ‘polygamy’ he means ‘polygyny’.
Polygamy includes polygyny but is not synonymous with it — just as sexual immorality (porneia) includes adultery (moichaō) but is not synonymous with it.
Also, literal adultery throughout Scripture means when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man who is not a husband — there are no exceptions to this. But when used metaphorically it refers to unfaithfulness and does not have a gender basis.
These are hard facts and if we start our exegetical journey with a different understanding of the way the Bible uses these words it seems to me, we will arrive at the wrong destination.
To pursue a medical analogy, if your surgeon got confused between your bladder and your gall bladder it will not be a happy situation.
Correction: “with a married man who is not HER husband.”
It is never ideal using a smart phone on a block that does not allow for corrections!
Another false premise; neither polygamy nor polygyny come within the meaning of one flesh.
I believe that scripture takes the view that married man having sex with unmarried woman (eg prostitute) isalso adultery. The difference is that he Mosaic penalty (death) applies only to married woman and unmarried man.
There are reasons for this difference, and they are not tht God is a misogynist.
Hi Anthony,
“I believe that scripture takes the view that married man having sex with unmarried woman (eg prostitute) isalso adultery.”
Can you give an example?
Colin,
How or why did God divorce Israel, according to you!
The is a covenant principle to marriage which applies to both parties. Fornication outside marriage would be in breach.
As it also would be a breach of the one flesh principle, joined to another.
Mark 10:11, where Jesus says: “Anyone who divorces his wife and [or perhaps ‘in order to’] marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
To Colin H Genesis 2:24 may not be “a direct reference to sexual intercourse”, but it is certainly not primarily highlighting “one family”! The Hebrew for flesh is ‘basar’,referring to the physical aspect sof our humanity. This is borne out in the previous verse (23) ” Then the man said:’ This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man’.”
Furthermore, the fact that the Hebrew terms ” and ‘issa’ are employed in the context of viewing the woman derivatively from the man, indicates that prior to becoming “one flesh”they are distinctively separate beings. But in the following verse (25) in referring to “the man and his wife”, the text steers us back to describing the man as ‘Adam’ (c f. 1:26 -27) while at the same time referring to ‘Adam’ in the plural, thereby putting the focus firmly on the psychosomatic unity we call ‘marriage’ and secondly,emphatically heralding a relationship that is (according to the Word of God)complimentary in essence. However,those who seek to promote alternative approaches to the issues raised here will not find Holy Writ a forthcoming source of assurance.
error: 1st line -2nd para. should read “is” and “issa”
reply to Colin Hamer
One hesitates to intrude into another Anglican dilemma.
I remember Gresham Machen writing that Liberal Christianity is an altogether
another [? different] religion.
It reminds me of the vision of the multi -metal statue of declining
Metal splendour and “values” of governments in declensions;
Until the legs of iron [?rigidity] and clay [?malleable ] are its final features;
All swept away by a divine unstoppable rock, a kingdom not made with/by
Hands, a parallel government.
It reminds me of Isaac [ as a type of Christ,] quite apart from the sacrifice motif
Covered by many dictionaries which however fail to include that Isaac’
Legacy was that he was a Well Digger in which he typifies the “Walk”
of the Messiah. He walked as He walked.
The Philistines had blocked up the wells of Abraham with all manner of rubbish;
Denying all access to the “living” life giving waters.
Some he successfully reopened and contended for a brief period without
success. He left the conflict to dig his own wells these also were capped off by the Philistines . He moved on and eventually “God made room for him”, led him
to still waters and green pastures and flourishing prosperity.
Meekness was his/His dominant spirit.
Of course, the woman at the well met a man from a parallel universe
Though he knew her history He did not comment further, but she became a missionary and believed his words as the citizens did.
[?A new creation wherein dwelleth righteousness, a new heart I will give you}
In the end what is important is the wells of Salvation which only One can give water from.
For the iron and clay legs, only that from a parallel dimension can overcome.
Walk as He walks. Shalom.
Hi Anthony Williamson,
You raise this query about adultery:
Mark 10:11, where Jesus says: “Anyone who divorces his wife and [or perhaps ‘in order to’] marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
Craig Blomberg, David Instone-Brewer (both have served on the translation committee of the NIV), and Craig S. Keener — three distinguished scholars who have examined this phrase in some detail — all argue for various reasons this expression must be read as metaphoric adultery.
‘Adultery’ is used about half of the time in Scripture in its metaphoric sense to mean unfaithfulness to the marriage covenant — which makes sense if it was an invalid divorce by the husband which the text suggests (i.e. he was divorcing his wife NOT on the grounds of sexual immorality).
Blomberg comments: “Jesus has indisputably used the verb moicheuō (adultery) to refer to other than actual sexual relations.”
Of course, a divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality is a valid divorce — and the repeated teaching in the OT it is that it is on these grounds that God divorced Israel (e.g. Jeremiah 3:1–10).
Also, in theology sometimes a common-sense deduction is required. For millennia throughout Israel’s history and across the whole ANE — and in the Islamic world today, ‘adultery’ is as I have defined it.
Indeed, if that was not the case, those polygynous marriages by Jacob that formed most of Israel would be invalid.
Blomberg, Craig L. “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12.” Trinity Journal 11NS (1990): 161‒96.
Instone-Brewer, David: What God Has Joined Together.” No pages. Cited 30 September 2014. Online: http://www.baylor.edu/ifl/christianreflection/MarriageArticleInstoneBrewer.pdf.
Keener, Craig S. And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991.
For what it is worth, my own study — accessing an even wider range of contemporary scholarship — came to the same conclusion.
Both Craig Blomberg and David Instone-Brewer read my study in detail and corresponded extensively with me about it, and both gave commendations for the published version.
Hamer, Colin. Marital Imagery in the Bible: An Exploration of Genesis 2:24 and its Significance for the Understanding of New Testament Divorce and Remarriage Teaching. London: Apostolos, 2015
Am I supposed to be cowed? I’ve written a 12,000-word essay on this subject myself after extensive reading of all sides, and had extended correspondence with Instone-Brewer on the subject having read his book “Divorce and remarriage in the Bible”, which I found a valuable resource about the history but exegetically questionable (not least his splitting of the Hebrew phrase ‘erwat davar’ in Deuteronomy 24 into two unrelated reasons for divorce in ancient Israel). Another scholar associated with Tyndale House in Cambridge, Leslie McFall, profoundly disagreed with Instone-Brewer and I believe you can find McFall’s writings on the subject online.
Craig Keener has my respect but decent exegetes, do not agree with each other about everything, so non-experts may legitimately disagree. Let us look at the fuller passage in Mark 10:
[6] But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’. [7] ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, [8] and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. [9] Therefore whom God has joined together, let man not separate.” [10] When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. [11] He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery [moicheia] against her. [12] And if a woman who divorces her husband marries another man, she commits adultery [moicheia].”
Presumably Jesus means adultery in verse 12, and the idea that moicheia means something else in verse 11, in a discussion about remarriage and divorce, is intellectually desperate.
There is indeed a place in the Bible where adultery is used as a metaphor: where ancient Israel goes a-whoring after other gods, in the pithy phrase of King James. In Mark 10:11, what is it supposedly a metaphor FOR?
Hi Anthony,
“In Mark 10:11, what is it supposedly a metaphor FOR?”
Jesus in Matthew 16:4 describes his Jewish audience as ‘An evil and adulterous generation’ — I would argue that he wasn’t saying they were all committing adultery — rather they had not been faithful to their God.
So, the metaphoric concept in Mark 10:11 would be that the husband had not been faithful to his wife — because he had divorced her for no valid reason — the adultery was the invalid divorce. And vice versa for the woman in v. 12.
You’ve done enough study I imagine, to realise that there are textual variants of these divorce verses — it seems the scribes could not get their heads round how a divorce would create literal ‘adultery’ against the woman — when in contemporary culture a man could marry a second wife without it being adulterous.
I again appeal to a ‘common sense’ hermeneutic — and ask would Jesus in these isolated comments about divorce in the NT be speaking of literal adultery and thus overturn millennia of OT teaching?
Can you think any OT moral teaching that is radically changed in the NT?
In this matter people are often deeply influenced by church tradition — where a sacramental view of marriage developed (often based on a misunderstanding of Ephesians 5:31–32) and many believe that some sort of permanent union is created even by sexual intercourse itself.
Again this — and much other traditional church teaching — is completely foreign to ancient Israel’s understanding of their own Scriptures — as clearly demonstrated for example in the Judaean Desert Documents.
PS I do believe David Instone-Brewer made a mistake in that he did not engage in the fact that when Jesus spoke in Matthew and Mark, he was addressing the question he was asked — which was about husbands divorcing their wives. The Hebrew Bible and the Judean Desert Documents (which cite that text as their basis) make it clear that the husband’s divorce grounds were different from that of the wife in Scripture and in practice. William Heth in the Foreword to my published PhD acknowledged that this has been a remarkable oversight in the literature — including, I suspect, Leslie McFall.
PPS One thing David Instone-Brewer and I have in common is our hermeneutic would not appeal to church tradition, in contrast Leslie McFall seems to repeatedly describe DIB’s thesis as against such tradtion.
Of course, Jesus seems to treat the male initiative and the female initiative as though there were no difference between them (the initiative itself rather than the gender being the point) in Mark 10.11-12.
Instone-Brewer certainly could not appeal to early church tradition, for there was no trace of remarriage being permitted after divorce (while the ex-spouse econtinued to live) for several centuries after Christ. Henri Crouzel’s book, which I had to read in French, amply verified that. The change seemed to creep in once the church got seduced by the world after the fourth century, which makes depressingly good sense.
Do you know of the argument between GG Coulton and Hilaire Belloc about this? They disagreed at length and acrimoniously. It eventully became clear (to all but themselves) that they were using different meanings of ‘early’ in ‘early church’. They might have left it there but by then these two disputatious personalities were unable to disengage.
Jesus’ audience for his words in Mark 10:11-12 is NOT the Pharisees who comprise that evil and adulterous generation. By the time these words are reached, Jesus is speaking to his disciples alone.
We might end up disagreeing, but one thing I am not going to take in silence is the claim that, in an extended discussion about human marriage, divorce and remarriage in ancient Israel, it is ‘common sense’ to suppose that Jesus jumps without notice or explanation to an allegorical meaning in which ‘adultery’ means spiritual adultery. That is not common sense but nonsense. The disciples were not Greek philosophers but normal people – fishermen, etc.
It does indeed make depressingly good sense. The ways the early Christians (vague phrase, I know…) were refreshingly different and improved are strongly connected to the fabulous (pace Ehrman) church growth.
Anthony – Per your comments here and below, do you mean in the first few centuries of the church, if a married man had an affair and subsequently divorced his wife, after the divorce the ex-wife was not allowed to remarry another man, despite the failure of her 1st marriage being caused by her husband’s adultery?
Is not the marriage ended, even in God’s eyes, due to the adultery which broke the one-flesh union? Isnt that why Matthew has the additional words re adultery as that is how he understood it?
I believe that nobody who has a living ex is free to marry again. I’ve argued that here before (including with our host). We are very quick to alight on Matthew and say ‘So it’s OK’ and widen the exception until anything goes. But Luke and Mark are very clear, and cannot have known that their gospels would be taken with Matthew’s. I doubt that they would have omitted a freeing clause if it existed. I take the Matthew porneia stuff to be something specific to Judaism.
I’d rather not post my 1000-worder again summarisning my arguments and conclusions but I will if necessay. It went up here only a few weeks ago in one of these threads.
(A footnote: The terminology ‘ex’ is utterly depressing, and misleadingly cute and cosy and friendly (rather like ‘E’ for ecstasy and ‘p*rn’ for p*********y), masking the ugly reality. The word is used as though it were a given, for all cultures – when obviously it is not. And we do not treat as normal the things that become more normal the worse the culture becomes. It is secularist language. When will people realise a tenth of the harm done by secularism?)
There is an authority referencing, or appeal to authority, fallacy to be considered, weighed.
Having questioned CH’s interpretation of Genesis 2:24 (further back in this post) permit an aging cleric to enter the arena here, by referring to the same contentious text (Mark 10:11) as it is recorded in Matthew 10: 1-11:
First, this tete-a-tete has echoes of the entry of the Pharisees [2] seeking answers to what are not necessarily the core issues.Significantly,Jesus does not address the issue of adultery until it is raised by his disciples[ 10-12] For nowhere prior to this is adultery mentioned!
It’s as if adultery is not (in Jesus’ eys) the central concern. There are more than shades of Hillel v Shammai here.
Jesus faces them down in the first instance. Their question? : “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”Now Jesus , knowing that Moses (in certain situations) permitted divorce defends Moses’ actions by condemning *them*- “because of *your* hardness of heart”.
Then, secondly, he gets to what I believe to be the heart of the matter, he quotes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 respectively: ” God made them male and female” and “the two will become one flesh” —-and finally the trump card – “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
He reminds them- and and all of us of two paradoxical concepts: (1) that marriages are indissoluble! But (2) we are all sinners -forgiven or not! And sometimes divorce may be the only viable solution or all too often today the only (?)way out?
Perhaps the central message in this post ought to be: beware of self-justification and hardness of heart in these matters!
The problem with your sentiment is that it is that sort of argument that those who are pro-gay relationships put forward – to avoid suffering, do what needs to be done because we are all sinners in the end. Then accusations of hypocrisy rightly follow.
Dear Peter, I am aware of that possibility. However the whole argument has been forwarded on the basis of two of propositions (a) Jesus’ reassertion of “what God has joined together, let not man separate” and (b) the fact that Moses allowed allowed divorce, and yet Jesus does not condemn him! These are biblically based – they are not “sentiment”! The pro-gay lobby will always have their say – and “accusations of hypocricy will usually follow.
Jesus is saying that he requires higher standards of those who follow him than among the rest of ancient Israel. (“Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees…”) Christians (alone) are given the Holy Spirit to assist them to keep His commands against the drives of their own flesh, after all. I suggest that if God had not allowed divorce in the laws of Moses then Israel would have adopted the practice de facto and thereby brought the law into general disrepute. Remember that there is no such thing as a perfect set of laws – we only need a legal code because of Genesis 3.
and yet a significant number of Christians still get divorced.
I know, Peter, and tragic it is in every case. I know some. I’m not convinced that in all cases both partners have the Holy Spirit even if they come to church every week. We are at the tail end of a long era in which the church and the world got confused, the era of institutional Christianity. There is nothing like that in places where the church is persecuted.
My only advice is that if it happens, do not remarry someone else. I don’t see how else one can interpret 1 Corinthians 7:11.
What Peter says is untrue . For example, in 1958 less than one in 500 Uk adults ie less than one in 1000 couples d……d that year. And the Christians would be, as ever, the least likely suspects. What Peter is talking about is what happens in sexual Revolution cultures. But since a culture would be mad to adopt the SR then what else would anyone have expected? It’s a bit like saying there are more premature deaths in Russian roulette cultures.
Anthony,
“We might end up disagreeing, but one thing I am not going to take in silence is the claim that, in an extended discussion about human marriage, divorce and remarriage in ancient Israel, it is ‘common sense’ to suppose that Jesus jumps without notice or explanation to an allegorical meaning in which ‘adultery’ means spiritual adultery. That is not common sense but nonsense. The disciples were not Greek philosophers but normal people – fishermen, etc.”
I think you do not understand what I say? I never mentioned allegory.
The whole Pentateuch and many of the Prophets (notably Hosea) are embedded with the concept that Israel was ‘married’ to God .Thus when Israel was unfaithful to the covenant, God said it was adultery. That is metaphoric, not literal adultery. It is the dominant conceptual metaphor of the OT.
This would not be a new concept in 1st century Judaism — Jesus in Matthew 16 used adultery metaphorically — just 3 chapters before Matthew 19 — but it is quite a new concept for many believers today — as witnessed repeatedly in this blog.
And the disciples certainly didn’t like it: “This figure of speech Jesus used with them (metaphoric shepherd imagery), but they did not understand what he was saying to them.” (John 10:6
But I think Anthony’s point is that when he spoke to the disciples re marriage/divorce/remarriage, he was not speaking metaphorically but directly answering their practical question.
Hi Peter,
G. B. Caird, one time Professor of biblical exegesis at Oxford University said — “All, or almost all, of the language used by the Bible to refer to God is metaphor and that comparison “comprises … almost all the language of theology.”
Unfortunately, metaphors are very little understood in theology today — but they convey real practical truths. Because something is ‘metaphoric’ does not mean it’s not ‘real’. So I believe Jesus was speaking directly and clearly to the disciples’ question.
They surely knew, or realised when Jesus taught about this, that ‘adultery’ had a semantic domain that included human marriage covenant unfaithfulness. I am not suggesting that Jesus in Matthew 19 or Mark 10 was talking about spiritual unfaithfulness.
My thesis ultimately came to the view that Jesus reinforced OT teaching — note Matthew 5:31–32 where the antithesis, the new covenant teaching — in this couplet — is the OT teaching.
Nothing changed. Men could divorce their wives for sexual immorality ONLY (the question Jesus was asked) — the Hillelites had wanted husbands to have the wider grounds of divorce that wives had.
The position of the wives was not changed — they could divorce their husbands for a wider range of issues which basically amounted to neglect (Exod 21:10–11).
The Judaean Desert Documents — a collection of marriage and divorce certificates from across Palestine directly contemporary to the NT times demonstrate that this was the widespread understanding. If this was being radically changed it would have to be spelled out.
We can only assume Matthew and Mark knew what they were writing about and had thought their audience would understand it.
That audience would certainly not understand a radical new concept of marriage and divorce based on these few sentences.
But isnt Jesus speaking against the allowances of Moses? It might have been ok for a time, due to the hardness of their hearts, but that is not how it was supposed to be from the beginning, and he is now reinstating that. No more excuses. That time is over.
I think this is addressed to me! Dear PP, I notice you do not adduce Biblical texts to state your case; otherwise you would have seen that your final statement “No more excuses. That time is over.” makes little sense.
The NT statements on divorce cover much more than ‘excuses’.
There are two NT passages which assert the bases on which divorce is
permissible and the first of these emanates from the lips of Jesus ( Matt 5:32 and 19:9). The second comes from the pen of Paul – ( 1 Corinthians 7:15). And note how Jesus links the passage in Matt 19:9 to what you say in your first sentence! Read Matt 19:7 & 8!
So I meant metaphor when I wrote allegory; the point, obviously, is that in neither case do the words mean what they say. You claim that, in an extended passage about human marriage, divorce and remarriage (Mark 10), Jesus jumped without notice or explanation to a metaphorical meaning in which ‘adultery’ means spiritual adultery; and you claim he did this while doing his best to clarify the situation for his own followers. This is absurd. I am repeating myself to make clear to readers what is at issue between us and to present my position, and let readers make their own decision. I wonder if you do not wish to understand what I am saying. That is one way of disagreeing with it without actually coming to grips with it.
I don’t think much of George Caird’s book on the Book of Revelation, by the way.
Anthony, thank you for telling us that you ‘don’t think *much* of George Caird’s book on the Book of Revelation’ (my emphasis). Yet you, ‘without notice or explanation’, expected us to realise that you weren’t talking about the *quantity* of your thinking *time*.
So maybe you need to rethink what you mean by metaphor and how ubiquitous (and unmarked) it is in human communication. Maybe something more along the lines of what Colin H was saying about it (although, Colin, I do wonder if *marriage* can be *the* conceptual metaphor of the OT).
Bruce,
I considered that Colin Hamer was waving Caird at me (as he had Keener and Instone-Brewer), and I was showing him that I was familiar with Caird and was not intimidated. This is not the thread to discuss Caird’s eschatology, of course.
I have no idea what you mean by saying to me that “you, ‘without notice or explanation’, expected us to realise that you weren’t talking about the *quantity* of your thinking *time*.” Feel free to clarify.
I too don’t understand the sentence, nor would most people I think, though to be familiar with Caird’s commentary is not to be familiar necessarily with his whole oeuvre.
Anthony, I was trying to illustrate how ubiquitous ‘metaphor’ is in language — that metaphorical language is actually *not* a different ‘type’ of language to be understood or interpreted *differently* from the way we understand and interpret language generally.
You used ‘much’ (something about *quantity*) with ‘think’. Yet, I was able to infer (naturally, automatically) that you were not telling us about *how much* time (conceptual metaphor) you had *spent* (more conceptual metaphor) thinking about Caird’s *work* (or as Christopher prefers, ‘oeuvre’ — metonymy).
You suggested that Jesus didn’t signal or explain that he was ‘using metaphor’. I think you even used the word ‘absurd’. My suggestion is that he didn’t need to, because that is the way human beings seem to use language with *massive* amounts of metaphor and metonymy.
On the discussion in question, I think one of your suggestions was that ‘”in order to” marry another’ is ‘adultery’. How so, if you are only going with (so-called) ‘literal (or, as Christopher likes ‘accurate’) word-meaning’? The issue is not literal vs metaphorical word-meaning, but what was Jesus saying in his whole utterance — surely, that adultery is extended *beyond* its ‘literal’ meaning.
Metaphor is common but not ubiquitous.
Are you saying that you agree with Colin Hamer that moicheia in at least one of its two appearances in Mark 10:11-12 does not refer to a physical act of sex in which the marital status of the man and the woman are taken into account? Please include a Yes or No in any answer. I believe that this is its sole meaning in these verses as Jesus was speaking to his disciples specifically to clarify what he had said to the Pharisees. This isn’t one of his riddles designed to polarise his audience according to their faith.
No, Anthony, metaphor is ubiquitous. At least, google ‘conceptual metaphor’ and maybe read Margaret Sim’s *Relevant way to read* to see what I mean.
And, yes, I think Jesus is broadening the ‘meaning’ of ‘adultery’ to include more than sexual relations in the verses in Mark as you, yourself, said. That is: DIVORCE=ADULTERY (not shouting, but signalling CONCEPTS). All that Colin H did was draw further implicatures (following Sim rather than Google) than the obvious one — hardly ‘absurd’.
To be clearer:
‘All that Colin H did was draw further implicatures* than the obvious one — hardly ‘absurd’
*I’m following what Sim means by ‘implcature’ rather than what Google says.’
They understood the metaphor because it was base on reality.
For it to be heinous when used as a metaphor, it had to be heinous in marriage.
Hosea, the prophet was a living reality for a the metaphor.
Ordinary folk knew what real -life marrital adultery was.
As did Jesus.
1.The woman wasn’t caught in a metaphor!
2. The woman at the well.
3. Didn’t Herodias divorce her first husband Philip? (Josephus). What troubled John the Baptizer?
Is Jesus likely to have known about these metaphors?
Isn’t this whole thread being adulterous to the the blog article from Martin Davie?
Geoff I was wondering if you are employing the terminology “being adulterous” here in its literal or its metaphorical sense?
Seriously, you have hit the nail on the head! Much of the conversation at this stage has now logged into exegetical matters. Towards the beginning however, it focussed on what I believe is Martin’s major point : “the real issue is — if we can rightly hold contradictory doctrines simultaneously?”
In this context, the ongoing question is one of doctrinal authority. Martin Davie upholds scriptural authority; others, even if they suscribe to the importance of scripture, somewhere along the line, whether an issue is of intellectual or personal significance (or both) will introduce another source of authority . And when it comes to issues of human sexuality? Then on this blog, the fur starts flying!
Nevertheless, in this particular post, I’m sorry to say that among those who see themselves as loyal to “the Word” there has been a susceptibility to self righteousness. I personally would prefer the presence of a woman of ill repute wiping my feet with her hair than a Simon denting my ego with his priggish questioning of my motives (Luke 7: 39 f).
Hello Colin,
I get lost off in the cascading comments format invariably on my phone.
I think the only person to push against the logic of none contradiction is Tim Evans above.
There is a shortish but broken chain of comments on that with responses to Tim, by Ian, James, and self, concluding with Tim glowingly, effusively citing RC theologian/ philisopher, Rahner for his underlying conviction. There were further responses to that again from James, self, and Christopher, without any reply from Tim. If you are or are not familiar with Rahner, the linked lengthy article on First Things, provided a critical sweep of Rahner.
Are red herrings adulterous and do they swim in shoals?
Geoff I virtually glossed over Tim Evans’ quote from Rahner ( I assume he is referring to Karl Rahner whose aim, I believe, was to interpret traditional RC dogmas into existential terms linked to human experience). I take the sbove citation of Tim Evans to be true to what Rahner said: ” All theology is like playing with pebbles on the edge of the sea of mystery.”
Now according to Tim,”that’s exciting because we have so much more to discover,”
If so, it speaks volumes of a period in which theological subjectivity was strong. Perhaps “playing with pebbles” expresses its essence. If not ” sea of mystery” seems to speak of an ethereal mass rather than something substantial. However I have to admit that I was tempted to “swim” in the thoughts of the great theological giants of that period. But no more!
Perhaps your reference to ‘red herrings’ Geoff reminds us that even such ‘creatures’ can have an affinity for the appropriate medium for all fish -water, including the human variety whom Jesus sought . Yes they do swim in shoals, but some rejoice in the vast net that draws then towards the messianic fisherman . But later (pardon another pun) some cannot see their rightful plaice. I see too many herrings ending up more like fish of prey!
Reverting to anthropology, but altering the metaphor: a Christian is someone who has been grafted into Christ the true vine . ” No branch can bear fruit by itself” —- . Neither can you bear fruit *unless you remain in me —–apart from me you can do nothing*. Of late, I have seen more evidence of sinners who have been grafted into the vine and yet have a greater comprehension of divine grace and repentance than the censorious, “We’ve got it taped ” shoal; reminding me of what Hugh Latimer said concerning his fellow Elizabethan bishops accusing them of ” lording and loitering”. Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
Hello Colin,
I’ve come to faith in Christ from an existential crisis, the meaning of life and death, through death of parents.
I had studied some philosophy as part of my law degree, in the subject of jurisprudence, but ultimately none of it was a peg to hang my life on; sure plenty to debate, an arguments into the night, but of no real life substance.
Then after conversion and some study, it was there again in various guides, with postmodernism front and centre, which had not made may inroads into the law at that stage.
However, “me, myself, I” was becoming the burgeoning, dominant cultural theme, particularly in sexual matters, moving from a dominant sex before marriage is sin.
(BTW, my wife has just now read out a quote from a chartered psychologist: ‘I love honouring my needs’. )
A emphasis on, The whole Counsel of God led to Systematics and then to Biblical theology with its theological hermeneutic. (Ultimately Jesus hermeneutic). I find both to be complementary.
Through it all I’ve sought out reliable guides from any denomination, but have found most depth from presbyterian and some baptist teaching. Having said that Anglican, Mike Reeves with his talks on an earlier UCCF site, and Word Alive and his lay books, The Good God, and Christ Our Life were redirective.
Some substantial time was spent in predestination and the whole Pelagius v Augustine conflab, even as it spread out down the years into streams of open and process theology and in some quarters is alive and kicking today.
(As an aside, a friend changed church from a URC to an independent reformed evangelical church, that subsceibed to the five points, but was disappointed as they didn’t teach it, so he asked me. We spent 2 years 2 hours a week going through arguments, scriptures for and against. Having visited the church, the preaching was all Christocentic and the rest was enfolded highly in Christology.)
Your mention of John 15, vine passage, reminded me of Jock, now with our LORD, ( not the one who has commented here) a retired pitman, who regularly quoted it much to the annoyance of a nationally prominent senior Methodist local preacher. It also reminded me of the substantially ignored teaching of “Union with Christ” which seems to be more weightily developed in Presbyterianism.
Where my wife and I in older age, when infirmity is becoming less of merely a word in the dictionary, are finding great depth is in the work preaching and teaching of Sinclair B Ferguson, Biblical Scholar. At times, and I don’t think he’d appreciate this comparison, it is verging on Pentecostal.
Anglican friends from church found his week of teaching at the Keswick Convention this year was excellent. One of the friends was previously a regular yearly attender at Ian Paul’s Anglican convention ( name escapes me).
Yes this is an Anglican site and our host regularly seeks to position CoE as distinct in Christianity, but at heart I’m none denominational, worshipping in an Anglican Church. And this present termoil on ssm/b is so much larger than one in-house dispute: it is Christian -wide, across all denominations.
But to close where we opened with the quotation from Tim Evans. Yes there is so much to know. But it is already there, as I continue find.
And I leave with just one. Jesus was baptized into our sin. Until a few months ago I had not come across that.
Uppermost in this depth, is the Jesus hermeneutic, Jesus in Trinitarian, centricity. Eternal Glorious beyond our vain glory.
This is far, far beyond anything human philosophies can devise.
But this is far too much from me I’m sure all will agree, impinging on our hosts forbearance .
Now remembered: ‘New Wine’ was a CoE annual gathering my friend used to attend.
Bye