Sunday, September 30, 2007

Scripture cuts both ways on this

In a news report on Saturday, June 23, the CBC interviewed David Neelands, Dean of Divinity at Trinity College Toronto, on the question of same-sex blessings and the ongoing debate at General Synod. He pointed out that both sides had been using the Bible to make their case and added: “The Bible really cuts both ways on this.” Several correspondents wrote to him to question this assertion. Below are a few of the questions, and his reply.—Ed.

“I recently read in the paper that you think that same sex blessings are mentioned somewhere in the Bible. I believe your quote was ‘it cuts both ways’. As a student of the Bible, I would like the passages that promote this way of thinking that it is acceptable to the Body of believers.”

“I just read on CBC.ca, this quote attributed to you, ‘The Bible really cuts both ways on this’ in connection with the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada deciding on the question of blessing same-sex unions. I would really appreciate knowing how you believe the Bible cuts both ways on this issue.”

“Re CBC article Anglicans delay vote—D. Neelands states both sides are using the Bible to make their case—‘The Bible really cuts both ways on this’—What does he mean?”

I. What were Anglicans talking about at General Synod?

My comments were made as a background observation with respect to a series of debates at the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada at its meeting in Winnipeg, June 18th to 25th, 2007. At issue, among other matters, was the question of whether the General Synod should allow local churches to approve church ceremonies of blessing of committed same-sex unions of men or women.

For Anglicans, a scriptural warrant is normally not required or expected for the approval of ceremonies. As Article 20 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion puts it, “The Church hath power to decree Rites and Ceremonies . . . Yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written.” This principle we share with a broad range of Christian groups.

With respect to the relation of Scripture to human behaviour of all kinds, Anglicans (like most traditional Christians) hold that the civil precepts of Mosaic law, like the laws touching ceremonies and rites, do not bind Christians. On the other hand, we hold that all Christians are to obey the moral commandments, which are the Ten Commandments as summarized by Jesus—the love of God and the love of neighbour. In addition, Christians read the Bible, not just for doctrine, but for [good and bad] “example of life and instruction of manners”, that is, illustration of examples with respect to how we are to behave that may be inconsistent with the precepts of the law and may go beyond them (Articles 6 and 7). Further, Christians ought to be guided by Scripture, even when they recognize that the laws promulgated in Scripture do not automatically apply to them, and that they are left with a wide range of judgement and discernment in formulating their principles of action.

Thus Anglicans believe that their church has the authority to create new services, such as services celebrating blessings, and they believe that, in doing so, the Church should not, according to its own principles, create services that involve anything forbidden in Scripture. In making these decisions, I believe that Scripture “cuts both ways”, that is, that there are passages in Scripture that could be used to justify such services of blessings and passages that could be used to argue against such blessings. It was interesting to note during the debates that both “sides” referred to Scripture, which is just what I would have expected.

II. Traditional Condemnation of male-male same-sex behaviour

It will not be a surprise to many that there is scriptural basis for a negative evaluation of male-male same-sex behaviour, since this is often pointed out. There is a well-developed tradition within the Church that reinforces societal suspicion of homosexuality, and this suggests that the Church should not authorize blessings of same-sex unions if some forms of sexual behaviour might be involved.

The passages in question begin with the incident narrated in Genesis of the apprehended male rape of Abraham’s visitors in Sodom (Genesis 19). They continue with the legal prohibitions against certain male-male sexual behaviour in Leviticus (18.22; 20.13); the removal of the male prostitutes from the first Temple in Jerusalem praised in Kings (1 Kings 14.23-24; 15.12-13; 2 Kings 23.5-7, cf. Deuteronomy 23.17, 18); Paul’s reference to some pagan same-sex sexual behaviour as an illustration of the sinfulness of pagans (Romans 1.26-27); Paul’s inclusion of this behaviour as typical of Christians’ earlier behaviour and behaviour incompatible with inheritance of God’s promises (I Corinthians 6.9-11); and the Pastoral Epistles’ identification of the proper as opposed to the improper use of the law (I Timothy 1.8-11). For most of Christian history, when questions of male homosexual behaviour were considered, these passages, taken as a whole, and some taken alone, suggested that all such behaviour was sinful and sub-Christian. Only occasionally were same-sex relationships held up for approval and church recognition, and it is not clear what the physical sexual assumptions were in those that were recognized.

About fifty years ago, these conclusions came to be questioned consistently by Christians. One early contribution to this movement was a pamphlet published in Britain, Towards a Quaker View of Sex. This pamphlet was followed by a number of other works, and by now there is a considerable body of literature, popular and scholarly, on the subject. With respect to the list of passages I have just given, several things became clearer, and especially careful consideration suggested that they may have been addressing different matters, but there was no clear indication that they referred to behaviour that was based on a homosexual orientation or committed friendship, but rather that they were concerned with rape, cultic practice, prostitution, or promiscuity, none of which had much to say about same-sex sexual unions. I, and many others, have concluded that Scripture knows nothing of homosexuality as an orientation (as opposed to certain kinds of male-male sexual behaviour) and that it never clearly addresses same-sex committed relationships.

III. Scriptural support for proceeding with blessings of same-sex unions

It appears less well known that there are a considerable number of Biblical passages that are cited in support of developing church services to provide for the blessing of same-sex committed couples that are part of the Christian community.

(a) Scripture describes cases of passionate friendship (1 Samuel 18.1-5, 20; 2 Samuel 1:17-27), apparently with approval and despite criticism that they are perverse and a source of sexual shame (1 Samuel 20.30).

(b) The Gospels are full of descriptions of Jesus’ reaching out and including those relegated to the margins by religious authorities and society, even to the point of treating their impurity under the accepted religious legal standards as irrelevant, as with a woman with a hemorrhage (Matthew 10.18-26; Mark 5.24-34; Luke 8.43-48) and several lepers.

(c ) Scripture describes Jesus’ own attitude, scandalous to some religious authorities, to the sacred traditional law and its regulations, and sets an example for others, “who have the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2.16); consistently, Jesus makes clear that the regulations are made for people and not people for the regulations (Mark 2.23-28; Luke 6.1-11; John 5.10-18).

(d) In its mission to the Gentile world, the church of the New Testament was guided by what has been called a “missiological pragmatism”: (1) acknowledging that the role of Old Testament law had changed with the coming of Christ (Galatians 3.23-27); and (2) accepting the social arrangements and accepted roles of the culture, rather than inherited religious cultural standards (I Corinthians 11.1-16); (3) despite the fact that all things are lawful (I Corinthians 6.12; 10.23); and (4) despite the fact that in Christ all the social distinctions of these cultural standards have been broken down (Galatians 3.28; Colossians 3.11). The Acts of the Apostles describes a decision by a definitive apostolic council in Jerusalem, acting through the Holy Spirit, that Gentiles who adhere to the way of Christ are not to be required to observe the strict demands of the Law, including the purity codes, but are simply to refrain from eating meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from “fornication” (15.13-30). Many of these practical standards of the Gentile mission became a new Christian law, but even of these many have changed over time. Thus, although “fornication” is still now considered incompatible with the Christian way, the prohibition from eating blood is apparently not now considered binding, especially in cultures where such food as blood sausage is eaten. And marriage of a man with his father’s widow, once considered scandalous to pagan and observant religious person alike (1 Corinthians 5.1-5, compare Leviticus 18.8; 20.11) and until recently forbidden in Church and secular law, is now permitted. But above all, when there is a difference of opinion on these things in the Church, Christians are to live lives of acceptance despite their lack of agreement (Romans 14.1-15.13).

There is much that has been written about the matter of living in loyalty to Scripture as we debate these issues and perhaps make changes to our common practice and understanding. I have been particularly moved by two books, Strangers and Friends: a New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible (Hodder & Stoughton, 1995), by an English Evangelical Michael Vasey, and A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality (Continuum, 2003), by a Roman Catholic Dominican Gareth Moore.

I hope this is helpful to you.

David Neelands, Toronto

No comments: