More Perfect Union? another view (ii)
Here is the 2nd part of Martin Davie's review of Alan Wilson'sMore Perfect Union? Martin was for several years Theological Secretary of the Quango for Christian Unity of the Church building of England and Theological Consultant to the Business firm of Bishops. Part one can be found here.
Strand four – interpreting the key biblical texts.
Moving on to what Wilson says about the five specific biblical texts that he looks at, what nosotros find is that he misinterprets each of the v texts.
Genesis 19
On Genesis 19 Wilson argues that:
The prime sin of Sodom arose from the intent of the rapists. This was a gang rape, not an orgy, which indicated a generally sinful way of life within the urban center. Its essence was moral recklessness and violence, than its sexual orientation. The gang rape of female strangers would take been as bad. (p.70)
Notwithstanding the idea that the men of Sodom were intent upon rape is something that Wilson (like many others) had read into the text. As Victor Hamilton has pointed out in his commentary on Genesis, Hebrew has a vocabulary to describe rape and information technology is not used in this text. All that Genesis 19:5 tells us is that the men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with ('know') Lot'southward visitors.
The fact that the text leaves information technology at that and that it says zip about the motivation of the oversupply, or, about whether they were homosexual or bisexual, is theologically significant. In gild to make it clear that Sodom was a gravely sinful place all the text has to say is that its inhabitants wanted to have sex with men. That in itself constitutes a wicked deed (Genesis 19:6) which illustrates the more full general wickedness for which Sodom, Gomorrah, and two neighboring cities are going to be destroyed.
In Genesis 19, and also in Judges 19, the desire for homosexual sex is in itself testify of the wider sinfulness of a society that has turned from God. This is the same indicate that is made on an fifty-fifty wider canvas by Paul in Romans i:26-27.
Wilson is as well wrong to suggest that the author of Jude 7 thinks that the sin of Sodom has to do with sex activity with angels. This reading is not demanded by the vocabulary or grammar of Jude 7 and is a reading that pits Jude seven confronting the fact that in Genesis the angels are thought to be men, that introduces a reading of Genesis nineteen that is at odds with subsequent Jewish interpretations of the Sodom story both in the Bible and in other Jewish sources, and that contradicts the way that Jude is understood by Peter 2:7 -10 which talks most the 'licentiousness' and 'lust of defiling passion' which were characteristics of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, but says nothing about sex with angels.
The most likely readings of Jude vii are either Peter Davids' suggestion that 'going afterward other flesh' means 'desiring homosexual sexual practice' or Robert Gagnon's grammatically possible proffer that it means that 'in the course of committing sexual immorality they inadvertently lusted subsequently angels.' In both cases homosexual want is seen as a reason for God's judgment.
Leviticus xviii:22 and 20:13
On Leviticus 18:22 and xx:13 Wilson suggests that 'the essence of the offence seems to be a homo taking a female sexual position in bed with another homo.' In other words, what Leviticus is talking about is anal penetration and all other forms of gay sex (and all forms of lesbian sexual practice) do not autumn inside the telescopic of this prohibition.
Nevertheless, as Richard Davidson notes in his exhaustive report of the Former Testament fabric on sexuality, Flame of Yahweh, the vocabulary used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 is in fact general in character. He writes that is has been suggested that the phrase that is used 'the lying of a woman' includes 'only homosexual acts that approximate heterosexual coitus and include penile intromission, but the Hebrew is clearly a euphemism for sexual intercourse (cf the female person equivalent of this passage in Judg 21:eleven-12). Thus this passage is a permanent prohibition of all sexual intercourse with another male (za ka r). This would as well prohibit pedophilia, since the term za ka r refers to any male person, not just a grown man' (p.150).
On the question of whether the text only forbids gay rather than lesbian sex, Davidson may well exist correct in his suggestions that a prohibition of lesbianism may be implicit in the full general prohibition against following the practices of the Egyptians and the Canaanites (Leviticus xviii:3) every bit the Rabbis idea, or that the prohibitions in the masculine singular may have been seen as applying generically to both men and women. Certainly St. Paul sees lesbianism as forbidden alongside male homosexuality, while would seem to betoken that he understood the Levitical prohibitions inclusively.
Wilson besides fails to note that the presupposition underlying the various prohibitions of sexual activity in Leviticus 18 and 20 (equally also what is said about sexual activity in the Torah as a whole) is marriage between one man and one woman in line with the way that God created the human being race. Almost all the prohibited sexual offences are offences because in diverse means they involve sex exterior this context, sex before marriage, sex with someone other than your wife, sex with someone of the same sexual activity, or sex with another species. The one exception is the offering of children to Moloch which is wrong use of sex because information technology is a misuse of God's calling to reproduce (Genesis 1:28). The issue in Leviticus is therefore the way that God has created the globe and the calling of homo beings to behave in a fashion that corresponds to that.
Romans 1:26-27
On Romans 1:26-27 Wilson argues that the term 'nature' in these verses 'denotes man convention, custom or expectation' and 'can only refer directly to people nosotros would call 'bisexual' '(p.76). He also says that is 'hard to see' how what St. Paul says can utilise to non-idolatrous Christians today, considering what Paul see as the 'crime' is not homosexual conduct but idolatry (p.77).
In relation to the first point, Wilson's argument contains internal contradictions. Firstly, the argument that Romans one:26-27 only applies to bisexuals goes back to Derek Bailey'due south contention that 'nature' means the personal orientation of the individuals concern. For Bailey this meant that only men and women who were naturally heterosexual could acts confronting nature in the way described by St. Paul. If Wilson is following Bailey so information technology would not be against the nature of bisexuals to engage in sex with members of the same sex because that would be natural for them. Secondly, if 'nature' ways the orientation of the people concerned then it cannot hateful 'human, convention, custom or expectation.' Wilson cannot have information technology both ways.
Moreover, the vast majority of commentators on Romans concord that neither of these meanings of 'nature' is the correct ane. They would contend that both the focus in Romans ane on the witness to God borne by the created lodge and the way that 'nature' was used by Jewish and Greco-Roman writers shows that 'nature' refers to the way things have been created by God.
As Ian Paul explains in his Grove booklet Same-sex Unions, when Paul talks about 'nature' he is not referring to the experiences of sexual allure of particular individuals or their 'innate preferences.' Instead, what he is referring to is:
…the fashion the earth was meant to exist, as created by God; his categories are theological, not psychological and corporate rather than individual. Information technology is 'the lodge intended by the creator, the social club that is manifest in God's creation.' In the same way that Ps 106 tells the corporate story of the failure of God's people. Paul is telling here the cosmic story of the failure of humanity. And he is not simply referring to civilization; he does appear to think (in 1 Corinthians 11:14) that women having long hair is the mode that God intended information technology. Instead he is borrowing terms from existing ethical thinking (particularly in Stoicism) about what is 'natural (kata phusin) and what is unnatural (para phusin), which therefore rejects God's intention in cosmos (p.25).
In addition, contrary to Wilson'due south 2d point, St. Paul is not suggesting that only idolaters engage in same-sex activity or that the real sin is non same-sexual activity action but idolatry. Equally Tom Wright puts it in his commentary on Romans in his Paul for Anybody serial the point that St. Paul is making:
…is non simply 'we Jews don't corroborate of this,' or, 'relationships similar this are always diff or exploitative.' His betoken is, 'this non what males and females were made for.' Nor is he suggesting that anybody who feels sexually attracted to members of their ain sexual activity, or everyone who engages in actual same-sex relations, has got to that signal through committing specific acts of idolatry. Nor, again, does he suppose that all those who find themselves in that situation have arrived at that place by a specific choice to give upwardly heterosexual possibilities. Reading the text similar that reflects a modern individualism rather than Paul'due south larger, all-embracing perspective. Rather, he is talking about the human race as a whole. His point is not that 'there are some exceptionally wicked people out there who exercise these revolting things' but 'the fact that such clear distortions of the creator'southward male person-plus-female intention occur in the world indicates that the homo race as a whole is guilty of a character twisting idolatry.' He sees the do of same-sex relations every bit a sign that the homo earth in general is out of articulation. (pp.22-23)
This means that Wilson'due south non-idolatrous Christian same-sex couple are notwithstanding behaving wrongly if they engage in same-sex sexual activity because they are not living in the way for which God created them, but are rather giving expression by their sinful activity to the mode in which the homo race as a whole has turned away from its creator.
1 Corinthians half dozen:nine and i Timothy 1:10
On 1 Corinthians 6:ix and 1 Timothy 1:10 Wilson argues that St. Paul is referring 'to men who practise abusive or exploitative sexual activity, perhaps some form of trafficking' (p.79). This argument ignores two fundamental facts. The start is that the two Greek terms that St. Paul uses, arsenokoitai and malakoi, are general terms for active and passive same-sex sexual practice. They carry no overtones of sexual exploitation. The second is that there is cypher in the context to suggest exploitation. The vice lists in ane Corinthians 6 and i Timothy 1 are based on the second table of the Ten Commandments and the references to same-sex activity come under the scope of the prohibition of adultery in the seventh commandment. This ways that such activity is wrong because information technology involves sexual immorality not because it involves some form of exploitation. The references to robbery and kidnapping which the proponents of the exploitation thesis appeal to (on the grounds that people were stolen to human action every bit male prostitutes) come up afterwards in these vice lists and refer to carve up and distinct offences that violate the eighth commandment confronting theft.
Wilson is stating the obvious when he says that the New Testament passages that refer to same-sex activity 'can be understood in many different ways' (p.79). All texts are open to multiple interpretations. The question is whether they should be interpreted along the lines Wilson suggests. For the reasons given higher up the answer to this question is 'no'.
Furthermore, Wilson's suggested interpretation is non in accordance with the principle of love to which he appeals. As love is almost helping people to become the people God made them to be so a loving interpretation is a true ane because only a truthful estimation volition aid people to understand properly how God wants them to live.
Strand 5 – the way marriage has changed and developed.
a. In the Bible
Moving on to the mode in which marriage has inverse and developed, it is true that nosotros practise see a variety of different forms of relationships betwixt men and women in Scripture. However it is important that nosotros are precise about this. Wilson suggests that there 'are at least seven different definitions of union' (p.84) and there is a famous infographic on the internet (http://visual.ly/union-according-bible ) that goes one improve and suggests that there are eight versions. However, whether nosotros consider Wilson'due south seven variations or the eight on the infographic, in both cases ii points stand out. First, all of the relationships that are mentioned are heterosexual. Marriage in the Bible is exclusively male-female person. Secondly, with the exclusion of polygamy, all the forms of human relationship are variations of heterosexual monogamy. In that location are all variations of a marital human relationship betwixt 1 human being and one woman with the differences being the circumstances in which the marriages are entered into and whether there is a concubine(due south) alongside a wife (for this signal see the helpful response to the union infographic at http://www.youtube.com/watch?5=JyjMMbB5KV4).
The big biblical picture show is that in the creation narrative in Genesis 2:18-25 matrimony is established equally a permanent, heterosexual, monogamous relationship which is freely entered into. From the time of Lamech (Genesis four:19) polygamy and concubinage are found, only they are seen every bit being a upshot of the Fall and the Erstwhile Testament 'consistently condemns plural matrimony either explicitly or implicitly' (Davidson p.211). The Old Testament as well allows for divorce, but this is because of 'your hardness of heart' (Matthew xix:viii) rather than because information technology is what God desires. In the New Testament the standard for marriage is reset to the norm established in Eden and marriage is exclusively seen as permanent, monogamous, heterosexual human relationship that people chose to enter into or not (see 1 Corinthians seven). Also, information technology is not true that in the Old Testament a wife 'is defined every bit her hubby'due south property' (Wilson p.86). Davidson examines this merits in detail and shows that information technology has no substance (pp.249-51, and chapters 8 and 12).
As Wilson correctly notes, Jesus and St. Paul teach that marriage is role of the temporal rather than the eternal guild (Matthew 22:30, I Corinthians 7), that even the marital relationship has to have 2d place to a willingness to follow Jesus (Matthew 10:35-37) and that celibacy is a legitimate alternative to matrimony for the Christian disciple (Matthew 19:ten-12, 1 Corinthians 7). However, none of this ways that either Jesus or St. Paul (or anyone else in the New Testament) allowed for whatever other form of marital relationship other than the one established at creation or that at that place is the slightest evidence that they relaxed the Old Testament prohibitions against sex activity outside the marital relationship. Indeed, Jesus went beyond the teaching of the Old Testament in warning confronting not only illegitimate sexual activity, only also illegitimate sexual desire (Matthew 5:27-30).
What all this means is that in the Bible spousal relationship is non defined by the irresolute social mores of the ancient globe, but by an understanding that God has created men and women to relate together sexually in monogamous wedlock, that variations from this pattern are due to the Fall and that in the New Testament there are ii clear alternatives, permanent, heterosexual, monogamous union or celibacy.
Information technology is truthful, as Wilson says, that in a number of places in the Bible (e.thou. Isaiah 54:iv-viii, Hosea 2:xvi-twenty, Ephesians v:21-31, Revelation 21:2 and 22:17) marriage is seen every bit an analogue for the relationship between God and State of israel and Christ and His Church. However, this does not mean, as Wilson suggests, that this points to a form of marriage that is not defined 'by sex, gender and reproduction.' The only course of marriage in Scripture that is seen as a proper symbol for God'due south faithful, self-giving love for His people is sexually true-blue, monogamous heterosexual wedlock. Sexual practice outside matrimony is seen as an expression of the way in which God'southward people have turned away from Him (run into Hosea i-ix, Ezekiel 16) and aforementioned is true of same-sexual practice activeness in both its lesbian and gay forms (Romans 1:26-27).
b. In the history of our society
If we turn to the history of marriage in our order what nosotros find that it is indeed the case that in that location has been change and development. Dissimilar aspects of union have been emphasised in different points in history, how spousal relationship has been entered into has varied, who is allowed to be married has varied, the kind of behaviour permitted inside the marital relationship has varied and there has been variation over whether divorce is immune and nether what circumstances.
However, it is only untrue to say that marriage has not been defined by 'Church building or Land.' Both the Church and the state have laid down laws about what constitutes union and who may be married and in what circumstances. Furthermore, the definition of marriage since Saxon times has been that summarised in Canon B.30, 'a union permanent and life-long, for better or worse, till decease do them part, of one human being with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side.' Information technology has likewise been the expectation that, except in the instance of elderly married couples, matrimony would lead to having children. It is only in very recent years, with the growing pressure for the recognition of same-sex relationships, that this basic, biblically based, definition of marriage has been challenged. The study of history shows that same-sexual practice 'spousal relationship' is in fact an entirely novel idea. Information technology is a revolution in the understanding of the fundamental nature of matrimony, a revolution that involves a deviation from the pedagogy of the Bible.
Information technology is also worth noting that contrary to what Wilson says on page 121, UK police force does non foreclose 'arranged spousal relationship.' An bundled marriage which has the free consent of the parties involved is perfectly legal. It is 'forced marriage' where the consent is lacking that is illegal (see https://world wide web.gov.uk/forced-spousal relationship).
Strand 6 – treatment differences over aforementioned-sex relationships.
On the question of how to handle the difference betwixt churches over same-sex relationships, there are two central points which Wilson has overlooked.
The first is that while the concept of 'adiaphora' – things indifferent – means that it tin frequently be legitimate to simply hold to disagree in the manner that St. Paul recommends in 1 Corinthians 14, all the same, equally the Windsor Report of 2004 notes:
This does not mean, even so, that either for Paul or in Anglican theology all things over which Christians in fact disagree are automatically to be placed into the category of 'adiaphora'. Information technology has never been plenty to say that we must celebrate or at least respect 'difference' without further ado. Not all 'differences' can be tolerated. (Nosotros know this well enough in the cases of, say, racism or child abuse; nosotros would non say "some of us are racists, some of usa are non, and so permit's gloat our variety"). This question is frequently begged in current discussions, as for instance when people suggest without further argument, in relation to a particular controversial issue, that it should non be allowed to impair the Church building's unity, in other words that the matter in question is not as serious equally some suppose. In the letters already quoted, Paul is quite clear that there are several matters – obvious examples being incest (1 Corinthians 5) and lawsuits betwixt Christians before non-Christian courts (ane Corinthians vi) – in which there is no question of saying "some Christians think this, other Christians think that, and y'all must learn to live with the divergence". On the contrary: Paul insists that some types of behaviour are incompatible with inheriting God's coming kingdom, and must not therefore be tolerated inside the Church. 'Deviation' has get a concept within electric current postmodern soapbox which can easily mislead the contemporary western church into forgetting the principles, enshrined in scripture and often re-articulated within Anglicanism, for distinguishing 1 type of difference from another. (Section B.ninety)
Secondly, every bit the Windsor Report goes on to say, in ane Corinthians 8-ten St Paul lays downward another principle that needs to be taken into account, that of not causing a stumbling block to our young man believers:
Even when the notion of 'adiaphora' applies, information technology does non mean that Christians are left free to pursue their ain personal choices without restriction. Paul insists that those who take what he calls the "strong" position, challenge the correct to eat and drink what others regard as off limits, must take care of the "weak", those who notwithstanding have scruples of conscience well-nigh the matters in question – since those who are lured into acting against censor are thereby drawn into sin. Paul does not envisage this as a static state of affairs. He conspicuously hopes that his ain didactics, and mutual acceptance within the Christian family, will bring people to one mind. Just he knows from pastoral experience that people practice not change their minds overnight on matters deep within their culture and experience.
Whenever, therefore, a claim is made that a item theological or ethical stance is something 'indifferent', and that people should exist free to follow information technology without the Church building beingness thereby split, there are ii questions to be asked. Commencement, is this in fact the kind of affair which tin can count as 'inessential', or does information technology impact something vital? 2d, if it is indeed 'adiaphora', is it something that, nevertheless, a sufficient number of other Christians will find scandalous and offensive, either in the sense that they volition be led into interim against their own consciences or that they will exist forced, for conscience's sake, to break fellowship with those who go alee? If the answer to the latter question is 'yes', the biblical guidelines insist that those who have no scruples about the proposed action should nevertheless refrain from going ahead. (Sections B 92-93)
Wilson's proposal fails on both these counts.
There is no question that for millions of Christians the acceptance of same-sex activity relationships by the Church is indeed 'scandalous and offensive' and it follows that if, equally Wilson argues, it is a thing that is adiaphora those that favour such a form of activity should 'refrain from going ahead.'
However, it is in fact incommunicable to argue that same-sex relationships are a thing that is adiaphora. According to the witness of the New Attestation sexual immorality, of which aforementioned-sex activity sexual activity is one form, is something that is opposite to basic Christian teaching (one Thessalonians 4:1-8), that defiles people before God (Mark 7:21-23), that is a bulwark to inheriting God's kingdom and that contradicts the new life of holiness that is God's gift to believers, through Christ and the Spirit (1 Corinthians six:9-11)
Strand 7 –the impact of aforementioned-sex 'marriage' and what makes a Christian marriage distinctive.
The final strand of Wilson'south statement also overlooks some important issues.
Commencement, his contention that same-sex 'marriages' volition enrich rather than diminish the institution of wedlock fails to take into account iii serious concerns:
- That rather than leading same-sex activity couples to prefer a less promiscuous and more conventional life style aforementioned-sex 'marriage' will over fourth dimension pb to wider social acceptance of the more 'open' forms of sexual human relationship that have typified big parts of the gay community.
- That the establishment of same-sex families will have a detrimental effect on whatever children involved – an outcome raised, for case by the report on new family unit structures undertaken past the American sociologist Marking Regenerus.
- That the acceptance of aforementioned-sex activity 'marriages' will inevitably pb to moves towards the acceptance of other forms of non-conventional marriages such equally polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages and temporary marriages on the grounds that these tin can also exist examples of loving relationships. Such moves are already outset in other parts of the world.
Wilson fails to address, or even admit, any of these concerns.[1]
Secondly, he does not address the result of the greater public acceptance of homosexuality which will result from the legalisation of same-sexual practice 'matrimony.' The idea that the number of people involved in same-sex activity is a fixed quantity is a fallacy. The reality is that the greater the public acceptance the more likely it is that people who would not otherwise have done then will engage in same-sex activity. That is why historically in some societies aforementioned-sex has been widespread and in others it has been near not-real. The growth in the number of people involved in same-sexual practice would not, of course, worry Wilson, but it is a legitimate concern for those who believe such action to be morally incorrect and harmful to the people involved.
Thirdly, his claim that the distinctive thing about Christian marriage is only 'the cocky-giving love between the parties' fails to do justice to the fact that a Christian marriage, like any other class of Christian discipleship, will be a mode of life that is lived in obedience to the will of God. As has been argued throughout this review, God's will with on this matter is clear both from Scripture and from the witness of nature. God has created man beings every bit male and female and his volition is that they should relate to each other sexually in an exclusive, life-long, heterosexual union that is open in principle to the procreation of children. A same-sexual practice 'marriage' is by its very nature contrary to this and tin never therefore constitute a genuinely Christian matrimony.
Conclusion
Having looked critically at the seven strands of Wilson'due south argument it has become clear that none of them stands upwards to scrutiny. His argument for the credence of aforementioned-sexual practice 'marriages' is therefore completely unconvincing both in its parts and as a whole. His example simply does not add upwardly.
[ane] For more on these concerns see the helpful Y'all Tube video 'Making marriage meaningless' at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QNxVbE6Bvc
This review was outset published on the CEEC website, and is reproduced here by permission.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If y'all take valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a calendar month to support the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, practise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance basis. If you accept valued this post, you can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, can add real value. Seek offset to understand, then to exist understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence as a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/more-perfect-union-another-view-ii/
){kind=link}
Post a Comment for "More Perfect Union? another view (ii)"