Hermeneutics and Human Dignity

What does PORNEIA mean? (3)

2012-01-08T07:50:00.000+13:00

Why seek a definition of porneia? Why not stick with (say) the definitions as given in good dictionaries, or follow what the best of the recent translations offer?

In his book Haller raises some questions which I think are good questions, and in following up some subsequent exchanges re reviews of his book I have found at least one other question, so the seeking of clarity about the definition of porneia includes at least the following issues:

(1) How wide is the scope of porneia when it is used in lists of objectionable/prohibited actions/attitudes (e.g. Jesus speaking about what defiles a person, Matthew 15:18-20, or Paul writing about sins which may be problematic about fellowship with sinful Christians, or are going to prevent entry to the kingdom of God, 1 Corinthians 5:1-6:20)? Specifically of interest in respect to current issues in human sexuality is whether porneia covered both heterosexual illicit sexual intercourse and same sex illicit sexual intercourse.

(2) In the end, is the weight of Scripture against 'sex before marriage' in general, or just in cases where sex between two people does not lead to their marriage? Specifically, does porneia mean 'fornication' (or include 'fornication')? A Malina article in 1972, vigorously disputed by a Jensen article in 1978, argued that porneia did not rule out sex before marriage where marriage later follows.

In other words, while translations which offer 'fornication' or 'sexual immorality' as translations of porneia are entirely laudable measured against the definitions provided by the better dictionaries, the question is whether they are sufficiently accurate for readers today who might (say) rule out more sexual activity than Scripture requires, or (say) misunderstand the historical background of the life situations into which porneia spoke.

So, it is worthwhile taking time to tease out what is going on with the use of this word in Scripture.

What does PORNEIA mean? (2)

2012-01-07T11:38:00.000+13:00

How do we determine what a word means in the Bible? This simple question has a complicated answer!

(1) Many words have one meaning and no great controversy attaches to that meaning.

(2) Some words have more than one meaning so the question arises what meaning the word has in verse X (compared to verse Y). The answer will often be determined by the context (what the whole verse says, what the verse means in the context of a larger passage, etc). Sometimes the answer is indeterminate (i.e. scholars and translators disagree). Porneia is one such word.

(3) A few words are unique to the Bible so working out what they mean can involve much argument because usage of the word in other literature cannot be cited for comparative purposes.

(4) Some words appear to have a (slightly) different meaning in the Bible compared to usage outside of the Bible; some words in one part of the Bible are used in a standardized manner, but in another part of the Bible are used in a new way; in some instances this variation is within one book of the Bible. Arguably this last phenomenon occurs with porneia in 1 Corinthians.

Something tempting can happen within the complexities of seeking a word's meaning: we can (IMHO) become over enamoured with how words are used in literature outside of the Bible. On the premise that the Bible writers could develop their own meaning for a word, we need to be cautious about the weight we put on word usage in other literature. (One criticism I have of Haller's book is that he places a lot of weight on word usage (or non-usage) in rabbinical literature: there is value in considering this literature, but it is literature which (a) is not the Bible (so usage may be different, especially in respect of the New Testament), (b) difficult to date so that citing Rabbi X re word Y may, at best, give us the usage of a word in an era after the closure of the New Testament. What is surprising in this amount of weight being placed on rabbical literature is how little weight is placed on New Testament scholarship by Christians).

Enough for now.

What does PORNEIA mean? (1)

2012-01-06T23:06:00.000+13:00

If you have read the preceding posts below you will have seen the beginnings of a discussion about the meaning of the Greek word porneia which is joined by the author of the book Reasonable and Holy, Tobias Haller, especially in comments to the fourth post in the series.

Engaging with the book and with Haller's comments has led me to read 'around the traps' including Thiselton's major commentary on 1 Corinthians as well as Gordon Fee's NICNT commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians, bits and pieces on the internet, and, of course, the Bible itself.

Among problems, or challenges with this word are the question of what is an accurate translation of it into English, whether it has a uniform meaning, and what its scope is if we accept that in some places at least it has some kind of general meaning (e.g. illicit sexual intercourse).

So, we might find that if we look up a number of translations it is translated as (say) 'fornication' (which seems quite particular, about sex before marriage) or as 'sexual immorality' which seems quite wide-ranging (any sex outside of (legal) marriage. But porneia has a strong root-link to porne or prostitute, so the question arises whether we read a word such as 'fornication' in our modern terms as (say) a boy friend and girl friend sleeping together, or two people hook up at a party and find a hidden place to have (casual) sex together, but should understand it as 'consorting with a prostitute', a not-frowned upon activity in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, and moreover something not considered adultery in that world if engaged in by a married man. (I want to acknowledge Haller for opening my eyes to the different contexts, at least in certain ways, in respect of how we might too readily read porneia one way today with insufficient regard for the ways of the days of the Bible).

As we read across the Bible (both Old Testament in Greek, and New Testament) we can also see situations in which porneia may have meant one thing in one place and another thing in another place. Some translations seem to show little understanding of this (e.g. using 'fornication' or 'sexual immorality' uniformly), others are more alive to this possibility (e.g. I happened to flick through the REB recently and noticed 'fornication' (used fairly uniformly by the NEB) and 'sexual immorality' (used fairly uniformly by the NRSV). Some interesting questions arise about how we determine a word's meaning when used in the Bible, especially a word which is controversial, relates both to a detailed Old Testament background as well as having a particular currency in the Gentile world outside the Bible.

Finally a third issue (one worked over quite a bit in my discussion-via-comments with Haller below) is the scope of the word: is it a 'fat' word (including quite a bit of illicit sex in its scope?) or a 'thin' word (narrow in scope such as prostitution or incest?)? That is, if it is not as general as the English translation 'sexual immorality' implies, what are its limits? The reading I have undertaken suggests some inadequacy with 'thin' meanings because such meanings imply that Jesus, Paul and others were quite concerned about (say) incest but felt no need to speak about other sexual failings. Conversely, we moderns who look down our noses at prostitution may need to reckon with prostitution (and temptations to consort with prostitutes) as a widespread difficulty as Christianity spread into the Gentile world (that is, what seems a 'thin' meaning for porneia to us may have been a broad issue for most Christian men (young men, older men, single men, married men)). As for a 'fat' meaning, is my interest in the possibility that porneia, when used by Jesus and Paul, invokes the full extent of the Law of Moses regarding illicit sexual behaviour, misplaced (as Haller argues)?

Well, that's enough for tonight!

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (5)

2012-01-02T17:31:00.002+13:00

These are my final ‘review’ reflections on this book. I may come back to it another day, but I have promised to pass the book onto a friend. I am not pretending that these five posts add up to a comprehensive, thorough review.

I suggest the context for my reflections is this: in the 21st century Christians are engaging with the question whether God might, despite some indications to the contrary in Holy Scripture, be favourably disposed towards same sex partnerships which exhibit qualities cherished in marriage: faithfulness, permanency, stability and, above all, unconditional and abiding love. A very sharp engagement is taking place in the Anglican Communion and in member churches of the Communion. The author, Tobias Haller, is a person (so it seems to me) of influence in his Anglican church (TEC), and I am someone reasonably well known in my Anglican church (ACANZP) for engaging with the question described above. So he writes and I review in the midst of the general engagement with the question as well as in the midst of a particularly sharp Anglican debate.

The context then is not an abstract piece of research because this just happens to be the academic area of shared interest for us: rather the context is one in which attempts are being made to persuade people to come to one commitment or another about the answer to the question, in the hope that a way forward can be found for the Communion to remain a union of churches, and for individual churches to be of a common mind.

For some of our brothers and sisters the question is a ‘no brainer’: it doesn’t even need discussing, it is so obvious that same sex partnerships are right / wrong. It is scarcely credible that Haller has written for this group: he has spent a lot of time and energy on a detailed and complicated argument.

For others the answer to the question is not so obvious, meaning that for some they would like to be made more sure of their decision that such partnerships are right, and for others they are open to being convinced that such partnerships are right but currently think they are wrong. I take it that Haller is writing for such people. In turn, that means that in part a response to the book can properly be concerned with the reviewer’s assessment of the power of the main argument and lesser arguments to convince the reader. Given that I have read a number of adulatory comments from some readers whom I judge to be disposed to agree with Haller’s conclusions, I am in no doubt that readers wanting to be made ‘more sure’ in their convictions are well convinced by the book.

But for myself (as someone ‘open’ to being convinced otherwise than my convictions currently stand) I am left unconvinced by some of Haller’s arguments but more importantly left wondering whether this book will convince any ‘open’ conservative to change their mind. For example, as implied in posts below, I think it wrong-headed to argue the rightness of same sex partnerships by drawing so many negative outcomes to questions posed about a biblical understanding of marriage.

Not mentioned in posts below, but relevant to this concern about a wrong-headed approach re marriage is this reflection: when Haller argues about ‘complementary’, ‘differences’, ‘similarities’ and does so in such a manner as to minimise differences between men and women, he misses a rather large point about the reality of marriage between a man and a woman: the significant bits of marriage are precisely about the differences between a man and a woman. Very few heterosexual marriages work well and present well without immense effort, often hidden from sight of others, to face, learn from and overcome the difficulties which differences between husband and wife cause. The similarities between husband and wife are the straightforward aspects of wonderful married life. The differences, especially the gender differences are where marriages grow (or fail). In short: Haller would be (I suggest) more convincing in some things he says about marriage if he conveyed a more accurate description of how marriage works between a man and a woman, a description which might show more appreciation of the role gender difference plays in the achievement of a successful marriage.

Additionally, though this is less of an issue, I also suggest Haller would also be more convincing if he did not downplay the role of procreation for marriage (e.g. the phrase '... in some cases, to procreate ...', p. 22). Some marriages are infertile - an undeniable fact. But most marriages have procreation at their centre, whether driving the years of paying off a mortgage on the house which will be the home to children, filling the years in which children come, grow, and even in maturity require nurture and support, or driving months and years of striving to conceive by one means or another. If I am to speak more frankly, I find Reasonable and Holy to be quite off-hand about procreation and its importance to nearly all marriages. That could be just me. But if not, then I suggest such off-handedness is unlikely to win the readers to Haller's cause whom he seeks to persuade.

Then, thinking about convincing readers, I also wonder how many readers will be convinced that Jesus (on the one hand) said nothing about same sexuality and (on the other hand) if asked would have said something which went against Leviticus 18:22 (or any other part of Leviticus 18). I have explored this in the previous two posts, and Haller has responded in a long comment to post (4). I remain unconvinced. But more importantly: are readers going to be convinced or unconvinced? Readers, that is, whose starting point is that Jesus by no means has been neutral about homosexuality.

There are then three other observations I wish to make in this final post about ways in which this book fails to convince me. Again, I am trying to raise matters which I think are worth noting because I wonder if they are also ways in which others will fail to be convinced:

- What is Haller’s main argument in this book towards justifying same sex partnerships? At times the main argument seems to be about what Scripture does and does not say about same sexuality, and towards this argument is brought a great deal of detailed commentary, not a small amount of speculation (e.g. p. 139), and a preference for what Rabbinical Judaism had to say about the meaning of biblical texts. At other times the argument seems to be that if we only distil from Scripture the imperatives of love (the Golden Rule, the centrality of Love your neighbour as yourself, showing mercy, finding within people the intent of their heart), then all is well for all loving, faithful, permanent relationships. As adduced in posts below, I find Haller unconvincing on many aspects of the detailed argument (and, prompted by noting some other reviewers’ comments, bemused by the preference for what Rabbinic Judaism had to say when so many Christians fathers had things to say ... but in any case both groups were speaking a long time after the last New Testament document was written); and the imperatives of love approach offers nothing new which has not already been said before.

- Haller has a (to me) surprising view of the authority of the church in relation to sin: ‘The church has the authority to declare whether a given act or relationship is sinful or not’ (p. 174). Yes, the church at different times and places has declared this and that, and it may have acted as though it had the authority to declare a given act or relationship to be sinful or not. But, in the end, the determination of what is sin is God’s business and those determinations are declared to us in ‘God’s Word written’ (which Haller, on the same page, acknowledges the church must not ordain anything which is contrary to that written Word). On those matters where the church has expressed a view contrary to (or, arguably, contrary to) God’s Word written (for example, usury, which Haller rightly mentions on that page), then the matter is far from authoritatively settled. The church in its councils can ‘err’ and time is not yet finished on the question of whether the church is in error or not on usury.

- The book as a whole has an approach to Holy Scripture which begs a question or two. In particular it begs the question whether Holy Scripture is God’s Word written or the writings of God’s people. Again and again the approach taken is that Scripture is a document we scrap over more than a document we come before in order to obey its commandments and to receive its instructions. ‘Scrap over’ is my term, Haller would put it quite differently, and talk about the engagement of reason with the material in Scripture. Again, I suggest that the people Haller might be most interested in winning over to his conclusions include those whose general understanding of Scripture is different to his, but to that different understanding little accommodation is made.

Nevertheless I have appreciated and wonder if other readers might join me in that appreciation of the simple point that Haller makes in Chapter 7. I cite what I wrote in my second post on the book:

“I think Haller's best point and strongest argument in favour of same sex relationships being accepted in the church is made in chapter 7. Working from St. Paul's 'better to marry than burn' (1 Corinthians 7:9), that is 'Marriage, for Paul, was among other things a remedy for desire' Haller asks the question, 'So can we in our present day make a similar allowance for same-sex relationships?' (p. 59). He further says, p. 61, 'A more tolerant view within church or state does not necessitate the recognition of same-sex relationships as either marriage or matrimony, that is, as either civil or sacred in exactly the same was and to the same extent as mixed-sex marriage. But some form of recognized permanent commitment can be seen to be appropriate as an application of Paul's teaching that "it is better to marry than to burn" to a situation which Paul himself may well have found inconceivable.'

Here is, indeed, a reasonable point (sexual desire in most people is too strong to contain), a responsible question (what is the remedy for homosexual desire when celibacy is not a gift given to all?), and a moderate request (can some form of recognized permanent commitment be offered by the church?).”

Is this the 'last word' on the subject (at least in Anglican circles)? No.

Is this an important 'must engage with' word on the matter? Yes!

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (4)

2012-01-02T08:52:00.002+13:00

[Continued from previous posts below]

Mixed in here (i.e. in our reflection on what Jesus said about marriage, divorce, adultery, lust, the Law of Moses, eunuchs) is a sense that when Jesus spoke about sexual immorality he was speaking about all the possibilities addressed in the Law of Moses (i.e. those listed in Leviticus 18). Haller denies this. In particular he challenges invoking the word porneia as a coverall term for sexual immorality including same sex sexual relationships (pp. 126-132). This word, translated ‘sexual immorality’ in the Bible I have at hand (ESV), appears both in a saying of Jesus (‘For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality [porneia], theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.’ Matthew 15:19-20), in the declaration of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20), and in Pauline sin/vice lists (1 Corinthians 5:10-11, 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). To quote Haller’s summary of Gagnon: “The argument goes that porneia is a relatively generic term that includes any form of sexual behaviour judged irregular, with specific reference to Leviticus 18.” (p. 126)

Haller goes on an immediate offensive against this understanding of porneia stating clearly,

‘In fact, in biblical usage, porneia (or its Hebrew equivalent z’nut) has two primary meaning for the great majority of instances, and it is usually clear from the context which is intended:

1) actual prostitution, in relation to the root word zonah / porne = whore, harlot, and

2) figuratively as a metaphor for idolatry ...’

He then develops quite a complicated argument which is focused on whether zonah / porne is ever associated directly with any form of same sex sexuality in either the Hebrew or Greek Old Testament or the Greek New Testament: with the exception of a possible reference in Deuteronomy 23:18 LXX no such reference is found. I suggest this, however, misses the key question about porneia and that is (whatever the ‘great majority of instances’ are about) whether there are even a few examples of porneia being used as a general term for ‘sexual immorality’ or, as stated above, ‘any form of sexual behaviour judged irregular, with specific reference to Leviticus 18.’

The answer is affirmative and this is the reason why. First, there were multiple concerns about sexual immorality in those days, especially as Christianity spread into the Gentile world: fornication, adultery, prostitution were all concerns. The apostles were concerned for correct and appropriate behaviour on the part of the believers whom they taught. Despite what some say, fornication was a concern (and marriage was the remedy, 1 Corinthians 7, see especially 7:36), as was adultery and consorting with prostitutes. When speaking generally about sexual immorality, porneia was the term ready at hand. We may understand it being used in this way in the Jerusalem statement (Acts 15:20, and note how 15:21 goes on to speak about Moses’ Law being read and proclaimed in the cities of the Gentile world), as well as in warnings about Christians not behaving badly (e.g. Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3). There is no reason to think in these situations that either only prostitution was in view or that idolatry was the problem. Secondly, understanding porneia as sexual immorality fits one specific and important context well: 1 Corinthians 5:1.

‘It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality [porneia] among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.’

The sense here is that (a) there is sexual immorality present within the Corinthian congregation, which (b) is of a particular kind that (c) is distinctive because it is a form of porneia which not even the pagans tolerate. The implication is that porneia means sexual immorality (general) and covers various (particular) forms, including some things tolerated by the pagans (which in Corinth appeared to be quite a lot!) and some things not. (Incidentally Haller, pp. 130-131, is quite unconvincing when he attempts to argue that it was not the father’s wife but the father’s prostitute which is being referred to. Paul refers to the woman concerned as gunaika and not as porne.) Consistent with this understanding that porneia covers (to coin a phrase) ‘a multitude of sexual sins’ and thus is used in the Greek New Testament as a general term for ‘sexual immorality’ we find Paul a few verses further on in 1 Corinthians 5 explaining an earlier letter in which he wrote about not associating with ‘sexually immoral people’ [pornoi] to not mean that they were not to associate with the ‘pornoi of this world’ (5:9-10). At these points in his writing Paul is speaking in general terms using porneia to speak for all sexual immorality / all sexually immoral people.

What relationship might porneia then bear towards a Jewish Old Testament description of sexual immorality, such as Leviticus 18? Three observations can be brought to bear. First, when Paul gets to 1 Corinthians 7, he effectively and comprehensively lays out a sexual ethic compatible with what Jesus has taught (as stated in the previous post) that sexual intercourse should take place within marriage between a man and a woman and not outside such marriage. If porneia is Paul’s general term for sexual immorality it is a term applying to all sex outside of marriage and thus is a useful summary term for the behaviours prohibited in Leviticus 18. It does not have to have a specific linguistic relationship to any one of those behaviours to touch on all of them (contrary to Haller’s detailed attempts to show the lack of (or at best, thinness of) relationship of porneia to Leviticus 18).

Secondly, if context is important (as Haller says, and it is so) then the context of 1 Corinthians 5 in relationship to porneia is fascinating: in 5:1 Paul says porneia covers a behaviour not tolerated by the pagans which by implication means that porneia covers sexual relationships tolerated by the pagans, that is, porneia covers a wide range of sexual relationships. For Paul, as a Jewish expert in the Jewish Scriptures, the obvious starting point for his understanding of what constituted ‘a wide range of sexual relationships’ outside of marriage is Leviticus 18 (with, as Haller acknowledges, pp. 130-131, the case in 1 Corinthians 5:1 being directly related to Leviticus 18:8).

Thirdly, with respect to Haller’s point (see previous post) that many instances of porn-root words relate to idolatry, in 1 Corinthians 5-6 Paul lists idolatry (or idolater) alongside porneia (or pornoi), thus distinguishing between concerns about idolatry and concerns about sexual immorality (5:10, 11; 6:9).

In sum: Porneia is properly understood as a term concerning irregular or immoral sexual activity and is rightly translated in general terms as ‘sexual immorality’ (e.g. ESV).

There is a little further to be said about porneia in 1 Corinthians because the above summary could be challenged. Paul writing in chapter 5 begins with a specific and quite outrageous instance of a porneia (5:1), he then moves on to speak generally about Christians’ association with sexually immoral people within and outside the congregation (5:9-13), but in chapter 6 porneia (or pornoi) is used in discussion of prohibited sexual behaviours which also include specific behaviours. Thus the list in 6:9 runs, ‘neither the sexually immoral [pornoi], nor idolaters, nor adulterers [moikoi], nor men who practice homosexuality [malakoi ...arsenokoitai]’, and in 6:12-20 when Paul speaks about the character of porneia, the specific instance of porneia cited is joining the members of one’s body with a prostitute [porne](6:15-16). Thus two questions arise.

First, does 6:9 imply that no matter how general porneia is understood to be, it excludes certain behaviours which need separate listing in a large list of prohibited behaviours?

Secondly, does 6:16-17 imply that the usual concern marked by porneia is consorting with prostitutes, and thus that the use of porneia to describe sexual immorality in general (as in chapter 5) is an unusual usage of the word?

Both questions can be reasonably answered in the negative.

The list in 6:9-10 compared with the lists in 5:10,11 adds in ‘thieves’ which means Paul is making 6:9-10 both more extensive and more precise than the earlier lists. Later Paul will congratulate his readers as being those who fitted this list but have now changed (6:11). The implication is that Paul added moikoi, malakai and arsenokoitai to the earlier lists because some in the Corinthian congregation once fitted those specific categories (also ‘thieves’) but now do so no longer, ‘such were some of you.’ That is, porneia would be sufficient on such a list to cover all kinds of sexually immoral behaviours, but Paul makes a point of noting the specific behaviours which once featured in the lives of some of the congregation.

6:16-17 occurs within a larger exposition on the theme of sexual immorality in connection with the physical body, 6:13b-20. The theme moves from the general, ‘sexual immorality’ (6:13b) to the particular, consorting with a ‘prostitute’ (6:15), then back to the general, ‘sexual immorality’ (6:18). There is a word play which occurs (porneia /porne/porneia) reflecting the etymology of porneia in relation to prostitution, but there is no reason to conclude that porneia has a narrow meaning here. In 6:18 Paul distinguishes between ‘Every other sin’ and ‘the sexually immoral person’, with the former being sins ‘outside the body’ and the latter sinning ‘against his own body.’ That is, sexual immorality here includes consorting with a prostitute, but is not confined to it. We understand, for instance, that the offender in 5:1 is also sinning ‘against his own body’ rather than committing a sin ‘outside the body.’ Consideration of the whole context, in which Paul is concerned that his readers understand the relationship of their bodies to the Lord, that their bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that they are to glorify God with their bodies, makes the singling out of prostitution very apt as the one example of porneia cited: the worst case (so to speak) of offending Christ as Lord and the Holy Spirit within their ‘temple’ bodies is to participate in prostitution associated with worship in idolatrous Corinthian temples.

Where has this excursion on porneia led to in respect of the greater discussion which Reasonable and Holy engages its readers in? It underlines, I suggest, the first sentence above in this post:

‘Mixed in here (i.e. in our reflection on what Jesus said about marriage, divorce, adultery, lust, the Law of Moses, eunuchs) is a sense that when Jesus spoke about sexual immorality he was speaking about all the possibilities addressed in the Law of Moses (i.e. those listed in Leviticus 18).’

I want to say again that there is much more to be said about Jesus’ teaching and current issues in human sexuality. For instance we have much to engage with in respect of Jesus’ attitude to the Samaritan woman who had many husbands and seemed to be living with a man who was not her husband (John 4), likewise the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 8), along with other episodes in the life of Jesus. That porneia in both the teaching of Jesus and the teaching of Paul may reasonably be construed as presuming Leviticus 18 is a modest point. But it is an important point: Jesus was not silent about sexual immorality in general, and thus we must not presume to deduce that Jesus would have said something contrary to Leviticus 18:22 if he were asked a direct question about it.

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (3)

2012-01-02T08:51:00.004+13:00

In this part of my response to Tobias Haller’s book Reasonable and Holy and in the next part I am going to tackle a couple of arguments Haller mounts. I think these arguments lack strength so my response could be taken in two ways: dismissing the arguments (end of story) or reconsidering the arguments (beginning of making them stronger). Naturally I recommend the second way of receiving my response! But at the outset I want to recall where my last post went in terms of appreciation of strengths of the book, noting that some quite reasonable points can be made and questions raised about what the church’s response is to same sex desire when framed in terms of the church and St Paul’s understanding of marriage being (among other things) a remedy for sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:9). The highway forward for a ‘reasonable’ approach to understanding today’s same sex sexuality issues in relation to Holy Scripture lies here (I suggest) and not elsewhere in the book.

Naturally Haller and the book’s readers are interested in what Jesus had to say, whether by implication or explication, about same sex sexuality. This is mainly discussed by Haller in Chapter 11 (pp. 121-148). Haller’s conclusion is that Jesus (a) said nothing about same sex sexuality (b) if he had he would have treated it like he treated other moral issues such as the dietary laws and, in essence, this treatment boils down to the Golden Rule. But to get there Haller explores the meaning of the word porneia in a way which is controvertible and downplays some of the things which Jesus did say which can be reasonably construed as saying something about same sex sexuality either by speaking generally about all sexual behaviour or offering clues as to what he would have said if asked a direct question.

An important text in relation to Jesus’ teaching about the Law of Moses is Matthew 5:17-20. Strangely this is not discussed in Chapter 11 but it is relevant to what Chapter 11 discusses because it is Jesus speaking about the Law, upholding it, and supporting what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount where in relation to some laws Jesus speaks in a manner which intensifies the demands of the Law: do not murder also means do not hate (5:21-22); do not commit adultery also means do not lust (5:28). With respect to the latter Haller does have a comment to make, p. 109, Chapter 10, but that comment says nothing about Jesus upholding the Law of Moses. The point to draw out here is not that Matthew 5:17-20 and related parts of the Sermon on the Mount are the final word of Jesus on the Law – there is much more to say about Jesus and the Law, as we explore what Jesus said about dietary laws, the Sabbath, and the summary of the Law. Rather the point is, noting 5:17-20 in association with 5:28, we cannot presume that Jesus would have said anything different about (say) Leviticus 18:22. If we are going to conclude that Jesus would have said something different if asked a direct question about Leviticus 18:22 we need to specifically engage with Matthew 5:17-28, not to avoid discussion of it.

Indeed we could go quite a lot further and put everything Jesus said about marriage, divorce, adultery, lust, the Law of Moses, eunuchs together and reasonably draw this fair conclusion: Jesus taught that sexual intercourse should take place within marriage between a man and a woman and not outside such marriage. Note I am not asking Haller or any reader here to agree that this is the incontrovertibly true summary of Jesus’ teaching; but I am suggesting this is just as reasonable a conclusion to draw as any other. Jesus was (in terms of the use of the word today) conservative about matters to do with sex!

[to be continued with specific discussion of porneia]

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (2)

2011-12-31T08:35:00.002+13:00

Quite a bit of disruption later I am returning to this book. Here I am offering some general impressions. One aspect of the character of the book is its attention to detail: I am not sure that I have the time to sift through the details.

Impression A: the first part of the book, Chapters 1-6 really annoyed me. I want to encourage any readers here who read the book to press on because it has gotten less annoying for me.

What's up with Chapters 1-6? In general it is the relentless negativity of the approach taken. Are children necessary for a valid marriage? No. Is sexual intercourse necessary for reproduction to take place? No. Are male and female together made in the image of God? No. Are male and female complementary of one another? No. Is 'complementary' a positive concept? No, it implies defects which are remedied by the one who is complementary. Are a man and a woman necessary for a marriage? No. On and on, always whittling marriage towards to the 'nothing buttery' of 'nothing but a faithful, lifelone, monogamous union'. Since sexual difference is not essential to the character of a couple in marital union such union is open to a same sex couple.

But to get to that point (IMHO) Haller skirts certain issues, and also offers some observations which, frankly, are weird.

One issue which is skirted is Scripture's own relentlessness in always speaking about marriage in terms of a man and a woman (or several women where polygamy is involved). Thus on page 15 where Haller argues that Jesus prohibition on divorce simultaneously downplays the role of procreation in marriage (because Jewish custom allowed divorce so a husband could replace an infertile wife) the fact that Jesus emphasises repeatedly the male/female and husband/wife differentiation in marriage is passed over.

Another issue is the possibility that complementariness between male and female is positive rather than negative. Husbands and wife bring gifts to the marriage union which makes the whole relationship greater than the sum of the parts. Far from one remedying defects in the other (though that may take place), each joined together makes for a productive contribution to life, not only in procreation but in work, in creativity, and in the building up of church and community. A related issue concerns the imago dei which Haller argues is complete in each individual and is undermined if we suggest (as some eminent theologians have done) that the image of God is also represented in a married couple. Haller simply overlooks (or skirts past) the possibility that the image of God is complete in individual persons and in married couples, especially when we consider the imago dei of the God who is Trinity or Unity-in-Diversity, which is imaged (to a degree) in a union of man and woman.

A further skirted issue concerns the physical complementarity of male and female. Here Haller argues that a 'tab and slot' approach is childish and barely worth discussing. But this approach itself is scarcely credible. The act of sexual intercourse is the act of complementary (in the sense of mutally corresponding parts, not in the sense of something defective being completed) male and female genitalia joining together, where such action can be mutally pleasuring and pleasurable as well as procreative, each part playing its part in drawing two bodies together into the intimacy and potentiality of 'one flesh'. From both a theological and a biological perspective the complementarity of male and female bodies are hugely important: without that complementarity there would be no human life. Life itself depends on this complementariness. To reduce its importance to the phrase 'tab and slot' is unconvincing.

All the way through these chapters Haller is arguing for the morality of couplings between humans, and this leads to the significant question whether there is any moral value attached to the differentiation between the members of the couple, i.e. to one being male and the other being female. Haller thinks there is no such value (because procreation is not essential to marriage, and because complementariness does not actually exist between male and female, rather supplementariness which can also exist between two men and two women). I suggest this focuses on the non-essentiality of procreation to invidividual marriages with loss of sight of essentialness of procreation to marriage in general. Some marriages do not lead to children but if all marriages led to no children the human race would die. If we accept that continuing the human race is a morally good thing then procreation is essential to achieving that moral good. If we accept that the well-being of the human race is better through stability of family life, that is, through as many couples rearing children as possible being faithful, stable, monogamous, life long married couples, i.e. it is a morally good thing that procreation occurs within marriage rather than without, then it is not a morally neutral matter that a married couple consist of precisely the differentiation which is most efficient in procreation, a male and a female.

There is, of course, another aspect here, which Haller definitely skirts. The moral perspective works at a human level: what do we humans think is moral and what do we think is not moral? But a theological perspective works at a divine level and asks, has God spoken on this matter and given an ordinance? Most Christians most of the Christian era have readily accepted that God has pronounced on the matter, and most still think so today: namely, irrespective of moral arguments about whether a man and a woman are necessary to constitute a marriage, God has deemed that it is to be so.

What is frankly weird? Here is an example: on p. 26-27 Haller has a shaded box headed 'Prongs and Holes' in the course of which he says, p. 26, 'a married couple are "united biologically" when they have sex. Speaking anatomically, the two bodies, however intimately embracing, do not actually enter into or connect with each other, or even one into the other, anatomically.' Yeah, right! This is playing with words: yes, technically the man does not (say) cut open the skin of the woman and then poke his finger into the wound; yes, 'topologically' (a word Haller uses) the above sentence can be read as true. But for ordinary uses of words, indeed, with respect to the word 'connection', for legal uses of words, sexual intercourse is connection, the man enters the woman, sex is biological uniting. Or, for an alternative consideration, imagine an adulterous man attempting to convince his angry wife that he did not actually connect with the other woman or enter her or biologically unite with her. Yeah, right!

Impression B: beyond the first six chapters (I have completed ten chapters to this point), Haller makes some telling and important points. Here I mention just two.

First, I like the way Haller takes on Robert Gagnon (and others), particularly in chapter 8 where he exposes difficulties in trying to offer 'a kind of Grand Unified Theoery of sexuality that will cover all of the various sexual offenses listed in Scripture.' I would be interested to see if Gagnon himself has made a response (I could not readily locate one via a Google search). Haller here demonstrates his knowledge of Scripture as well as his logic and his grace in willing to gently but firmly tackle the robustness (and, no doubt for many gays and lesbians, offensiveness) of Gagnon's arguments. I withhold final judgement here on who I think is right or wrong, not least because I would be closer to Gagnon than to Haller in how I understand Genesis 1-2 in themselves as chapters, and in their paradigmatic relationship to the rest of Scripture.

Secondly, I think Haller's best point and strongest argument in favour of same sex relationships being accepted in the church is made in chapter 7. Working from St. Paul's 'better to marry than burn' (1 Corinthians 7:9), that is 'Marriage, for Paul, was among other things a remedy for desire' Haller asks the question, 'So can we in our present day make a similar allowance for same-sex relationships?' (p. 59). He further says, p. 61, 'A more tolerant view within church or state does not necessitate the recognition of same-sex relationships as either marriage or matrimony, that is, as either civil or sacred in exactly the same was and to the same extent as mixed-sex marriage. But some form of recognized permanent commitment can be seen to be appropriate as an application of Paul's teaching that "it is better to marry than to burn" to a situation which Paul himself may well have found inconceivable.'

Here is, indeed, a reasonable point (sexual desire in most people is too strong to contain), a responsible question (what is the remedy for homosexual desire when celibacy is not a gift given to all?), and a moderate request (can some form of recognized permanent commitment be offered by the church?).

I shall continue reading.

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality (1)

2011-09-23T16:39:00.000+12:00

Tobias Stanislas Haller's 2009 book published by Seabury Books, New York, is a book often referred to these days, I find. The reference is often of the 'Haller's arguments carry the day' kind, which means that not engaging with the arguments looks like one is avoiding the one argument or set of arguments which now controvert one's position.

So, here is a bit of engagement. But, watching some other time commitments, I will start slowly, and not argue back.

Chapter One "Where the division lies" notes, p. 3,

"So it appears that the argument from the conservative position is reducible to the irreducible fact of the sex of the couple - the sex difference must be present for a sexual relationship even to be capable of being moral, so that even if a same-sex couple possesses all of the other moral values, the lack of sex-difference still renders the relationship, and any sexual activity within it, immoral."

Haller then goes on to state two qualities inherent in the "sex-difference that is morally determinative in and of itself". These two qualities are, p. 4:

"that the purpose of sexuality is procreation, and only heterosexual sex is capable of it; that heterosexual sex represents a joining of two distinct complementaries."

This sets up Chapter Two which looks at the first of these qualities.

The 'great argument' continues

2011-04-15T07:26:00.000+12:00

As we, very slowly, work our way towards our church's next Hui on Hermeneutics (of Human Sexuality), I will try to post a bit more often here. However, for the time being, I will try to be disciplined about two matters of method: (1) I will post links to other internet items worth reading (and, perhaps, as a bonus, offering links from the item selected to a wider debate going on at that site), (2) I will publish comments made (with usual standards of courtesy applying to the moderation process) but make no attempt to engage with them myself).

Further I ask readers tempted to presume that something I link to expresses my own personal view on the matter at hand to resist that temptation. I will post to things I think worth reading, they may or may not accord with my own thinking, in part or in whole, but this site is not about me!

So, here is John Richardson.

Do not know where, do not know when

2011-03-27T12:52:00.000+13:00

The plan has been to have another, a fourth hui, to draw the threads together of our explorations into the Bible on homosexuality. What with one thing and another, including the derailing effects of the Christchurch quakes, I was not sure whether we still had the fourth hui in our collective mind or not.

But it is and there is going to be an initial planning meeting soon-ish. Do not ask where or when the hui will be held. It could be coming to a mjor city near you. Probably not Christchurch. The first two were held in Wellington and the third was held in Auckland.

Noting two important papers

2011-01-22T15:51:00.000+13:00

Haven't posted here for a long time, but having been alerted to two excellent papers here, I thought I would note them. (I may have done so before ... but twice won't hurt).

Still Thinking Post-Hui Thoughts

2010-07-13T10:38:00.002+12:00

Not quite the right time at present to do much writing re the Hermeneutical Hui and reflections after the event. But I am still thinking, and listening to what people are saying.

I am impressed by the following, at this time:

the resistance of some to change

the openness of some to the pastoral dimensions of the situation

the apparent irrelevance of the Hui to many in the church (for whom a host of other issues are urgent).

Published Papers from Hui

2010-07-09T06:09:00.002+12:00

Some readers here have worried about the lack of available papers from previous Hermeneutical Hui in our church.

Well, here we are. Some from the latest Hui are available. Thanks Taonga!

Further note re Leviticus and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

2010-07-03T15:12:00.002+12:00

In a recent posting I drew attention to the background in Leviticus 18:22 LXX for the (then) new word arsenokoites (a man who lies with a man) in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, suggesting (with many scholars) that Paul uses this word with Leviticus 18:22 in mind.

But at the Hui the presenter of one paper drew attention to a better candidate, Leviticus 20:13 (which is effectively Leviticus 18:22-plus-punishment).

Here, courtesy Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft are the two verses in Leviticus LXX:

18:22 καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν.

20:13 καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός, βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι· θανατούσθωσαν, ἔνοχοί εἰσιν.

In the former arsenos and koiten are separated; in the latter they are side by side.

Second Post Hui Thoughts

2010-07-02T07:45:00.004+12:00

For me, from the Hui, thanks to the thinking of others, especially some excellent theologians in my small group, these three (sets of) questions are topmost in my mind the day after the Hui:

(1) Are we in a 'new situation' today where stable, faithful, permanent, covenanted same sex partnerships, including those socially ordered via state civil law, constitute an expression of sexuality both unknown and not addressed by the New Testament (and the Old Testament viewed through a christological lens)?

(2) Are we stuck in a polarised debate which serves no useful purpose because if one side were to win the debate it would not change the presence of gay and lesbian people in the life of the church, and if the other side were to win the debate it would not change the presence of conservative Christians in the church (and in surrounding churches)? Can we move beyond this unresolved if not unresolvable debate by a re-envisioning of the situation, for example, by beginning a conversation about a theology of friendship which offers a Scripturally framed account of same gender relationships?

(3) Can we be honest to ourselves as a whole church and acknowledge that on matters such as usury and remarriage of divorcees we have faced Scripture, which on a plain reading bans usury and permits remarriage of divorcees under the narrowest of extenuating circumstances, we have gone 'beyond' Scripture to find a way forward which embraces social reality and expresses grace and compassion? If we were agreeable about what we have done on these matters, could we then find a way forward together (for that by and large is what we have achieved on usury and remarriage) on homosexuality? [For the record, my immediate thoughts on this question are that this set of questions does not necessarily lead to a quick and satisfactory answer because there are plenty of nuances to consider, including the fact that embracing usury has in times and places contributed to human misery, and the church generally has not changed its mind that divorce is not something to celebrate ...]

First Post Hui Thoughts

2010-07-01T22:26:00.002+12:00

I have published these over at Anglican Down Under. I will probably post here in the next week or two on various aspects of the Hui - some of my own learnings, some of my questions.

Final Pre Hui Thoughts

2010-06-25T07:31:00.002+12:00

Some final thoughts before the Hui next week.

(1) This next Hui is part of a work in progress, building up to a final Hui next year. Please do not expect some 'conclusion' of great seminal importance to emerge from next week.

(2) It remains quite unclear to me how any conclusion we reach next week will be translated into resolution of this church, be it via General Synod or diocesan synods and hui amorangi. Any conclusion reached by a small group of our widespread church will need to be received, and the character of that reception is not at all clear to me.

(3) A great challenge for the particular task of the forthcoming Hui will be to engage members in real communication with each other (not talking past each other), and in real communication with the texts (not talking solely about each other's experiences and doing so disconnected from the text).

(4) Please pray that the Holy Spirit who inspired Scripture will illuminate it for us. Thank you!

1 Corinthians 6: the most important passage? (Pt 2)

2010-06-23T21:47:00.002+12:00

"'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of heaven.And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV)

In my previous post I note a number of questions raises by this passage which I am afraid I do not have time currently to take further, but I happily commend two great commentaries on 1 Corinthians to you, those by Fee and Thiselton. So, just a few more exploratory thoughts - more questions, than answers!

Important here is the opening question, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Paul is writing (as he has been on other matters up to this point) about things of ultimate importance. The alternative to inheriting the kingdom of God is not retirement in Bermuda. It is non-trivial to find that, in the end, the judgement is made that we shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

This gives a general edge to our considerations: let's understand this passage well. But it also gives a particular edge to an important element in Anglican Communion debates (and similar debates in other churches): we are not talking about a range of ethical possibilities, all equally valid, and wondering if we can agree to disagree and all get along; rather, many conservatives are pointing out, we are talking about salvation itself, and the possibility that making the wrong ethical choice can lead to loss of salvation. In blunt terms, it is often said, the gospel itself is at stake in the debate over homosexuality. Here I do not want to take these points further as they involve some considerable questions and issues, but I think it worth reminding ourselves that for a substantial number of Anglicans what is at stake is not only 'ethics' but also 'theology', and their depth of concern is such that they have in many cases made a decision to walk away from Anglican churches which deny their concerns.

Then there is the question of what kind of 'unrighteousness' is envisaged here. 'Thieves', 'drunkards', and 'swindlers' appears to refer to egregious criminal behaviour. But is 'greedy' referring to a criminal level of behaviour (pace certain moneymen appearing in courts around the world today) or to me and the mysterious disappearance of chocolates from the chocolate box last night? Who are 'revilers'?

With reference to the sexual matters mentioned in the list, sexual immorality, adultery, and homosexual practices, are these the lurid kinds of acts that tabloid newspapers love to salivate over, or a simple indicative list of sexual behaviours which are outside of the bond of marriage?

Then, and this takes us back to the intriguing question of the meaning of the Greek words (see my post below), is there anything here which impinges on 'loving, stable, permanent, faithful same sex partnerships'? Most Christians, liberal through to conservative are unpersuaded by arguments for the righteousness of casual sexual promiscuity: if that behaviour is all that Paul is referring to here, then we agree with him!

I suggest we take care not to get too anxious over the meaning of the Greek words used, malakoi and arsenokoites, as though if we can prove they mean X and Y but not Z then Z is 'in the clear'. Paul clearly is not giving a comprehensive list of the practices which imperil salvation. He does not mention incest or bestiality but it is incomprehensible that their absence here means we can think them righteous behaviours. Similarly for cruelty to people or animals, or murder, or drug-taking.

It is quite possible - but not often noted - that Paul (a) consistent with other passages in the Bible which affirm marriage (including the treatise he is about to pen in 1 Corinthians 7) and do not affirm homosexual practices, believes God to judge any same sex partnership, casual or permanent, to be unrighteous, and (b) singles out two practices here (i.e. via use of malakoi and arsenokoites) which are unrighteous but also represent God's salvation at work, for the Corinthian congregation includes post-malakoi and post-arsenokoites washed, sanctified, justified Christians.

Another way of putting the point just made is this: doubting the applicability of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 to faithful, stable, permanent same sex partnerships is not the same thing as establishing the righteousness of such partnerships. To establish that case involves some other steps (e.g. along the lines being advanced by Howard Pilgrim in his comments on this site, and in particular in reference to the most recent posts here).

I need to stop for now. A further point, which I think is important: the whole of 1 Corinthians 5-7 is a complex, creative, and wide ranging treatise on human sexuality. It earths Christian sexual ethics in a theology of creation (6:16), welds it into a theology of the Holy Spirit (6:19), nails it to the cross (6:20), and refuses to pit it against Christian freedom (6:12). Much more can and should be said, but this treatise is one of the most sophisticated pieces of theological argumentation you will ever read!

Thus Paul in tackling the question of consorting with prostitutes does not resort to saying "It's wrong. Do not do it." Instead he takes his readers in 6:15-20 through a subtle argument in which he teases out the implication of our bodies being members of Christ, of sexual intercourse with any woman being a marriage act, of the special character of sexual sin, of the character of our bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit, and, above all, of the significance of belonging to God.

Our minds should boggle at the thought of what Paul would write were he preparing a paper for the forthcoming Hermeneutical Hui. Would his exacting theological analysis and creative (inspired!) exploration of all relevant themes combine into a conclusion which would fit with your present views, or mine, or neither?

1 Corinthians 6: the most important passage? (Pt 1.1)

2010-06-21T13:40:00.004+12:00

Howard Pilgrim, a theological colleague within ACANZP (and contributor to the forthcoming Hermeneutical Hui) has responded to my Pt 1 below ... but had difficulties with Blogger 'chewing' the comment. So here it is (with a couple of comments from me in italics):

A second attempt to respond to your post, Peter ... Blogger ate the first one, so I will try to keep this one leaner and less appetising to the lurking nemesis. Without knowing where you intend to go with Pt2, I want to pick you up on two points so far.

1. You read this text as affirming that “our sexual behaviour ... impinges on our salvation.” This is true only to the extent that other offences on Paul’s several lists in Chapters 5 and 6 carry exactly the same consequences. Broadly speaking, those offences are matters of sexual behaviour (mostly heterosexual) and financial/economic oppression. I want to suggest that even these do not comprise an exclusive list of danger areas, but are included in this part of the epistle as a response to the particular presenting issues before Paul – the forbidden relationship between a man and his step mother, the court case(s) between fellow Christians, and some tolerance of the use of prostitutes. Paul’s rhetoric against these abuses includes condemning them by association with other sexual and economic wrongdoing. There is no suggestion that salvation is not imperilled by other classes of sins, and indeed idolatry and pride find their way into his condemnation, by association. My point then is this, that this text cannot be cited to single out sexual sins as specially perilous as you appear to be doing here. [PRC: Agreed.]

2. Your discussion of possible meanings for the key terms naming homosexual relations makes one thing clear – that the meanings of these terms, as Paul used them, is not clear at all! What does this portend for our discussion of homosexuality? How can an unclear text guide us towards the mind of God? I submit that there is a clear answer ... that we do not need to concern ourselves with the exact meanings of any of the terms in these lists of sins. Now let me explain myself:-

a) It is no easier to determine just what Paul meant by greed or robbery than it is to decipher the exact meaning of his sexual terms, but that does not lessen the impact of his warning regarding them.

b) His warning does not refer to these sins in their particular nature, but to sin in general. Sin is incompatible with salvation. Each of these particular sins is an abuse of our duty to love God and/or our neighbour, and none of them is a victimless crime. In each case, the Christians involved should have known better, and their failure to act out their faith is what puts their salvation at risk.

c) This is where my argument gets really Anglican, appealing to the tradition of Hooker, Sanderson, et. al. Any attempt to derive moral theology from the scriptures involves a fusion of at least two things: an exegetical process of reading the text to ascertain what it most probably meant in its original context; and a “reading” of our own particular social context to determine the facts on the ground to which the scripture may speak. As the two contexts, separated by 2000 years of cultural change, will have differences as well as similarities, finding the mind of God for today involves a transforming process of reasoning, prayer and consultation (as in Rom 12:1-2). One part of this process that cannot be bypassed is the “facts on the ground” investigation. Specifically, if we are considering homosexual relationships, then we need to find out what is happening in such relationships today, in our own context, among faithful Christians. Those facts, as we find them, are far more significant than what was happening among homosexuals in Paul’s day (which is why Lambeth 2008 called in vain for conservatives to engage in respectful conversations with gay Christians, as had happened among a minority of bishops at that conference). To know whether our economic arrangements constitute greed or theft, in the light of Paul’s warning, we need to examine the facts of modern life, asking whether we are loving our neighbours as ourselves. Similarly, a Christian ethic of homosexuality can only be derived from considering the facts of life as lived out by our brothers and sisters committed to faithful same-sex relationships. [PRC: The words 'can only be derived' is a very strong statement limited, apparently, engagement with what Scripture says.]

1 Corinthians 6: the most important passage? (Pt 1)

2010-06-20T08:04:00.002+12:00

In our haste to interpret texts which speak about an issue of the day we can rush ourselves and miss relevant wider contexts. Two wider contexts for the text 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 are Paul's lengthy addressing of a range of questions and issues concerning marriage and sexual behaviour, and the connection made between sexual behaviour and salvation. It is the latter context which relates this text, perhaps more than any other, to a strong theme in 'current Anglican troubles'. That theme, as emphasised by many Anglicans described as 'evangelical' or 'conservative' or both, is that our sexual behaviour is not a small, let alone trivial matter; rather, it impinges on our salvation. At the very least this means it is no light matter for the church to press ahead seeking change to our understanding of sexual ethics: we could - with the best pastoral intentions in the world - deceive fellow Christians into thinking that something was right and unproblematic when not only was it wrong but also that it represented a problem for our salvation.

Here is the text:

'Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality,* nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of heaven.' 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (ESV)

Actually, I think we should extend this to include 6:11:

'And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God.'

Now first a technical matter of translating two key Greek words (indicated by the asterisk above): 'men who practise homosexuality' translates the words malakoi and arsenokoites. It is not too difficult to work out that these words concern men and sex: malakoi means a 'soft man' and arsenokoites literally is 'men' plus 'bed'. What is more difficult, indeed the subject of ongoing debate, is what behaviour or behaviours are being indicated by these words. To give one for instance, is malakoi about 'effeminate men' akin, say, to certain stereotypes about homosexuals, or is it a word indicating a male prostitute, or is it a word for the (so called) passive partner in a sexual act between two men? If the last then is arsenokoites a reference to (so called) active partners in such acts? Further, noting the Hellenistic background , with its custom of men loving men in a socially accepted manner, that is, older men having a younger male for a period prior to marriage, is Paul 'having a go' at this specific practice by using these two words?

Or, is malakoi a reference to something we cannot now be clear about, but arsenokoites is a generic word for all men who engage in sex acts (for which 'bed' is a euphemism) with other men? One part of the debate (indicated by me in an earlier post) concerns whether arsenokoites is a coined word from Leviticus 18:22 and thus is a very direct linkage between New Testament and Old Testament concerns about homosexuality.

In short, quite a few questions. In Part 2 I will explore these and further matters.

Romans 1

2010-06-12T14:31:00.003+12:00

The sad thing about focusing on homosexuality in this chapter is that we quickly move from considering the role the chapter places as the foundation to the whole of the Epistle to the Romans which is, arguably, the greatest single piece of Christian theological literature ever written. If Romans is the gospel, God's solution of grace to the problem of the human condition, then Romans 1 sets out the problem, 'For the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.' (1:18)

One way to look at some issues in the chapter in respect of homosexuality is via a dialogue between two people GSE and GUE! The first is Gay Sympathetic Exegete and the second is Gay Unsympathetic Exegete.

GUE: Romans 1 is a key passage in understanding the Bible on homosexuality. It is the one passage which clearly condemns both gay sex and lesbian sex.

GSE: Just so we are talking about the same words, can you please point me to the condemnatory words.

GUE: Here they are, in verses 26 and 27, 'For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.' Pretty clear don't you think?

GSE: Well, maybe not as clear as you think. What is clear is talk about 'exchanged natural intercourse' and 'giving up natural intercourse'. But, do you not know, that many gay and lesbian people have no nature or natural longings to exchange or give up? They are the way they are made. The passage, I suggest, only applies to people who make sex such an idol that they will have sex with anyone or anything - Paul had probably heard about the party antics of Roman nobility at orgies, and about the Roman emperor who wanted to marry his horse! After all the main wickedness Romans 1 is aimed at is idolatry (verses 21-23).

GUE: Let me get this very clear in my own mind because it is something I have not heard about before. Are you saying that for many gay and lesbian people, the way they are is their 'nature' and being gay or lesbian means nothing is given up or exchanged about their sexual identification?

GSE: That's right. And I am only saying 'many' because I recognise that some gay and lesbian people have been married and produced children, so the question could arise about whether they have 'exchanged' what was natural. But even then, lots of questions exist about why they married, against their true nature. Was there, for instance, a social pressure which led them to go against their natural inclination? In a sense, Romans 1:26-27 could be a condemnation of a heterosexist world in which people feel forced to conform to it, against their natural condition.

GUE: So that's it, then?

GSE: No. There are a few more things to be said. Verse 26, for instance, begins with this sentence, "For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions." But our debate in the church today is not about "degrading passions." It is about whether two people may love each other, passionately, yes; but not with any sense of degradation. When we read verses 26 and 27 against the whole of the chapter, we see Paul condemning what is gross wickedness, not the ordinary things of human life, a family at play, a couple in love, a community enjoying God's good creation. Whatever is going on here, this passage is not a condemnation of two people of the same gender committing themselves to each other for life.

GUE: OK, I think I get all that. But I think I am still left with some questions. Perhaps they will be answered at the Hermeneutical Hui! :) Here are two:

(1) When I read Romans 1:1-3:20 it seems that Paul is writing about the whole of humanity, Jew and Greek (i.e. Gentile), all of us sinners, none of us righteous. Is it straightforward that Romans 1:26-27 is talking about individuals and their natural sexual natures, and then singling out those indulging in licentious sexual idolatry, or is it talking more representatively about abnormal sexual tendencies in human society, measured against norms in creation, resulting from our general rebellion as humanity against God?

(2) Suppose, according to your arguments above, Romans 1:26-27 is, indeed, only focused on naturally heterosexual people pursuing sexual pleasure to a point where they will indulge in what is for them unnatural sexual intercourse, does that not leave us with 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to consider?

GSE: Naturally (!) I do not agree with your (1). And (2) is logically correct!!

Fiddling While Romans Burns?

2010-06-07T20:38:00.002+12:00

Our Hermeneutical Hui project in ACANZP is clear that there is an important need to talk about the Bible and Human Sexuality. Albeit slowly, we are making our way with determination towards the 'topic of the day'. None too soon in respect of the Communion to which we belong being on the verge of a meltdown.

So you will understand if I am not entirely convinced that a much bigger Bible reading project for the Communion is okey-dokey starting with the environment as a key issue of the day. The environment is an urgent issue; but is it the Communion's most urgent issue?

From an ACNS release:

"Members of the worldwide Anglican Communion are working together on a project to discover what the Bible tells the church about saving the planet from environmental damage.

The Bible in the Life of the Church project manager, Stephen Lyon, said that World Environment Day was the perfect moment to reveal that the first issue under discussion would be the Environment.

“We are already seeing the impact of climate change, particularly in the developing world,” he said. “Most Anglicans live in countries like India and Nigeria that will be worst hit by greater flooding, or diminishing levels of potable water.

“All faiths have a duty to protect the environment, for themselves and others. Our particular tradition, Anglicanism, has enshrined the need to protect our world in its mission statement The Five Marks of Mission*. This is one of the reasons why we have picked this issue—to ensure that all Anglicans everywhere realise the biblical imperative to protect and sustain God’s creation.

“We also hope that, through exploring together a selection of key biblical passages which relate to this theme—widely acknowledged as one of the most crucial challenges facing the Churches and humanity today—we will be able to offer evidence of the way in which Anglicans actually handle the Bible, and to identify principles of biblical interpretation.”

Speaking about the project, Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams stressed that God was a creator who was faithful to what he created.

“I hope that through this project we learn not just to say words about how important the Bible is, but really to allow God’s Spirit and God’s Word through the Bible to come into us and make us the community of people that God wants and so make the world the world that God wants;” he said, “the God of the Bible who loves what he’s made, is faithful to what he’s made, and who has actually come to work within the world he’s made through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.”

The Bible in the Life of the Church is a major project being undertaken over three years by the Anglican Communion, mandated by the Anglican Consultative Council at its Jamaica meeting in May 2009. It is seeking to discover how Anglican Christians read the Bible, recognising the very diverse contexts they inevitably bring to this reading. The work of this project will largely take place in a number of regional groups based around theological education institutions in East Africa, Southern Africa, South East Asia, Oceania, North America and Britain. The Steering Group also includes members from Cuba and Nigeria."

The Old Testament as Prelude to Romans and 1 Corinthians

2010-06-06T13:22:00.003+12:00

If we read the whole Old Testament, with an eye to texts which speak about same sex sexual relationships, we find very little material. The story of Sodom (if we might allow that this story, multiple themed as it is, at the least touches on same sex relationships, albeit in respect of threatening, inhospitable, rapaciousness); the proscription in Leviticus 18:22; a reference or two elsewhere to male prostitutes; and (if we may mention this without engendering lots of controverted comments) the enigmatic story of David and Jonathan. I estimate that less than 1% of all verses in the Old Testament relate, even tangentially, to same sex sexual relationships.

This is not unexpected! If Leviticus 18:22 represents a very dim view in Israel of same sex sexual intercourse; and if, generally, Israel steered clear of many sexual practices endemic in other cultures, we should not be surprised that the writers, and then compilers of the Old Testament felt no great compunction to put together material about same sex sexual relationships.

So, with just a few weeks to go to the next Hermeneutical Hui, our next look at biblical material will be the New Testament. Intriguingly, there also, we find very little material devoted to the subject.

Further comment re Leviticus 18

2010-05-31T07:36:00.003+12:00

Following up a comment below, that Leviticus 18:19 might be the key to interpreting the whole chapter, I offer these thoughts (but recognise, as usual here) that many other thoughts could be shared!

My sense (reflecting on previous internet discussions going back a few years now) is that Leviticus 18:19 is highlighted because a presumption is made that this is one proscription in a chapter of proscriptions which is uniformly not obeyed (or, at least, widely disobeyed) by that community of Christians who otherwise argue that Leviticus 18:22 (and, of course, a number of less or non-controversial commandments in the chapter*) should be obeyed.

Some questions arise:

(1) Suppose all the disobeyers of Leviticus 18:19 got their act together, repented and obeyed this proscription. Would that mean that all the disobeyers of Leviticus 18:22 would also repent? (My hunch, of course, being that a different line of hermeneutical consideration of 18:22 would then be pursued!)

(2) Whether or not the connections via the Greek version of Leviticus 18:22 and New Testament passages holds good (as referred to by me in a post below), I think it unarguable that, to the extent that the NT says something about same sex sexual relationships, the NT takes a 'dim view' of such relationships, in line with Leviticus 18:22 (and, yes, mostly with male-male same sex sexual relationships in mind). This of course is unexceptional as an observation inasmuch as virtually all the NT says about ethics of human social behaviour is in line with OT commandments. Does the NT 'reinforce' or 'underline' the ongoing application of Leviticus 18:22 for the Christian community? If so, is this reinforcing or underlining of Leviticus 18:22 a dimension we need to consider as a binding of the commandment for the Christian community in a way in which Leviticus 18:19 is not (because not further attended to in the NT)?

(3) Suppose we agreed that Leviticus 18:19 (i) no longer applies to Christian readers of Scripture (ii) the lack of continuing application raises the possibility that other proscriptions in Leviticus 18 no longer apply? [Logically this must be the case!] Does it thereby follow that any of the other proscriptions are thereby remitted? I suggest the answer is "No." We would not suddenly be freed to sacrifice children to Molech or to sleep with our neighbour's wife. We would, of course, be in a situation where the mere statement of a proscription in Leviticus 18 was not sufficient in itself to yield the definitive, everlasting conclusion, "Do not do X applies to Christians." Other considerations would need to be brought to bear on the discussion. In the particular case of 18:22, that, I suggest would include consideration of (2) above.

In short: I think there is an important hermeneutical discussion to be had about 18:22 in the respect of the whole of Leviticus 18: the questions posed here are questions, but, at least on an initial response to the comment made about 18:19, I am not convinced that 18:19 is the 'pivot' on which the discussion turns.

*None of us know any sane person who argues for bestiality or child sacrifice to Molech!!

Eat what you like, so long as its vegetables or fruit

2010-05-28T15:43:00.001+12:00

It's true; and I found it on a hermeneutics blog this site links to!

Leviticus 18

2010-05-28T14:46:00.002+12:00

A lot could be said about this chapter! Robert Gagnon has probably said it already. Here I offer three observations:

(1) The whole chapter is important, not simply one or two verses. It is worth asking, what is the whole chapter about, and how do the individual proscriptions within it relate to the chapter as a whole?

(2) In respect of the topic of 'the Bible and homosexuality', 18:22 is very important. It is the key Old Testament text underlying the New Testament texts which are normally discussed within that topic (i.e. Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10). One reason for saying this is that in the Greek Old Testament, Leviticus 18:22, reads, "καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός· βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν" so that the words for 'man' (arsenos) and for 'bed' (koiten) appear to be conjoined together in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 which both use arsenokoitai. (1 Corinthians 6:9 may in fact be the earliest use of this compound word, raising the question of whether it is directly conjoined from the Greek Old Testament).

(3) Leviticus is, quite obviously, part of the Law of Moses. Jesus had quite a bit to say about the Law of Moses. Any observations about Jesus' silence regarding homosexuality should engage with what Jesus had to say about the Law of Moses. On that topic, Jesus was not silent!

Genesis 19 - maybe part 1 of more, maybe not

2010-05-26T21:33:00.008+12:00

There is quite a lot of dodgy sex stuff in Genesis 19-20, all against the background of the difficult story of Isaac's conception and birth, sidetracked as it got with Hagar's concubinage and the fathering of Ishmael.

In Genesis 19 a rapacious sexuality* asserts itself (19:1-29), then incest creeps in (almost literally on a drunken Lot, 19:30-38). Sarah herself, despite advancing years, is attractive to Abimelech, king of Gerar, who acts on the attraction, takes her, then hands her back on discovery through a dream that she is not Abraham's sister but his wife (20:1-18).

What is going on here? A setting out of ethics via narrative? At the least the narratives illustrate some of the proscribed behaviours in Leviticus 18 - as does the story of Abraham nearly but not sacrificing his child Isaac (Genesis 22; cf. Leviticus 18:21). A settling of ancient scores? This is particularly noticeable in the stories of Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael and Lot, his daughters and their (grand)sons, Moab and Ben-ammi. The emergent nations from these children are of dubious parentage, forever slurred within the history Israel tells itself.

The material we are working with in Genesis 19:1-29 is enigmatic, ambiguous, and contributory to inter-textual echoes throughout the Bible. Some kind of spiritual warfare is going on: angels manifesting as humans become the occasion for rapacious, violent, inhospitable behaviour. The men of Sodom wish to dominate and desecrate them - a vicious manifestation of prior wickedness within the city. But these are not ordinary humans they try to intimidate. As angels they have extraordinary power. They rescue Lot from the vindictive bullying of the assailants, blind the bullies, and destroy the city. Fiery, sulphuric desolation is the fate of Sodom, and of nearby Gomorrah.

The story is 'classic' spiritual warfare: good versus evil; evil appears to have victory in its grasp; but good triumphs and evil is vanquished.

The reactive destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is of a piece with the story of Noah: wickedness increases on the earth, but it will be checked, and then defeated. If my beginning observation was about dodgy sexuality being narrated through Genesis 19 and 20, a closing observation could be that dodgy humanity is being narrated through these chapters. People can be incredibly righteous (Abraham, many references in Genesis), very caring (Abraham as intercessor for Sodom in Genesis 18:22-33), full of integrity (Abimelech in Genesis 20), and quite stupid (Lot's wife and Lot's sons-in-law, Genesis 19:14,26). But people can also behave badly, so very badly that destruction is the consequence (Genesis 19:1-29).

Why Israel would tell such stories is not hard to fathom. Israel's calling is to be righteous, caring, and to act with integrity. This elect nation should be very clear that wickedness is intolerable to God. But it can be encouraged to trust God who is merciful - to people such as Lot who is not very wise, but has not completely given way to wickedness, to Abimelech who makes an innocent mistake, to Hagar and Ishmael who have been entangled in a complicated moral situation not of their own making - and patient but slow spiritual learners such as Abraham and Sarah. In certain moments Israel is a Lot, an Abimelech, a Hagar and an Ishmael. But mostly Israel is Abraham and Sarah. Called by God. Promised through a covenant to receive a great future. But impatient, unseeing, lacking faith, fearful, while also understanding something of the mercy and love which God asks of them.

With respect to modern concern about homosexuality, Genesis 19 tells us very little. We can only understand ethical imperatives which the narrative touches on (to do with homosexuality, incest) through other texts (such as Leviticus 18). The narrative itself is more interested in other lessons such as avoiding complete moral degradation, and seeking righteous and wise ways of living.

Yet the narrative challenges us in one way in respect of our times. When so much of our discussion is on what we think Scripture means, whether the church might bless or approve such and such a relationship, or not, these chapters in Genesis confront us with the God who sees exactly what we do, who acts mercifully and punitively, though never capriciously. [ADDED NOTE: the view taken here is that Sodom was punished because of its general wickedness, to which the reader begins to be alerted in 18:16-33].

If we seek from Genesis 19 an answer to an ethical question we find no answer which can be isolated from other relevant texts, but we meet the One to whom we all answer for the way we live.

*My initial post had 'homosexuality' here instead of 'sexuality'. I have been thinking further because I acknowledge that 'homosexuality' is a much debated word in this kind of context. Some, for example, advancing the thought that this nineteenth century coined word should only be used to refer to 'modern homosexuality', and perhaps specifically to 'same sex attraction' as opposed to 'same sex sexual activity' which might not involve 'same sex attraction' as understood via modern psychologists. Thus, on this line of understanding, men seeking to dominate other men via sex are not necessarily homosexual, neither are Hellenistic older males and their younger boy friends, all destined later to take up a happy married life. The weakness with this distinction between modern and ancient worlds is that if homosexuality is a phenomenon occurring in nature, including within human experience, then it is not a suddenly appearing feature, but a recurring feature. Ipso facto, it was a part of ancient Middle Eastern life as well as of (say) modern Californian life. I conclude therefore that homosexuality may be properly used in connection with things to do with 'same sex' in ancient times as well as modern. Whether it ought not to be used about men acting out sexually with men for motivations other than attraction is an interesting question. I cannot see a difficulty in taking a word such as homosexuality to speak generally of same sex matters: attraction, as well as activity, whatever the motivation(s) of the latter. There would then need to be clarification through appropriate adjectives and phrasing.

In the case of Sodom it is possible that the rapacious men were motivated by a need to dominate and not by attraction. But I do not see enough detail in the story to rule out attraction playing a role. Not least, of course, because the offer of Lot's daughters was specifically turned down. Either way, what is narrated at Sodom is a vicious and violent expression of sexuality. It would be a long bow being drawn that used this story to condemn all expressions of homosexuality. And that bow is not being drawn here. Nevertheless I shall refrain from using 'homosexuality' here and use a more neutral-for-this-context 'sexuality'.

The texts for the next Hermeneutical Hui

2010-05-23T08:45:00.002+12:00

The texts which will be reflected on at the next Hui, at the end of June, through individuals presenting, and in group work are as follows:

Genesis 19

Leviticus 18

Romans 1

1 Corinthians 5-7 (including 6:9-10)

As time permits I thought I might offer some of my own thinking about these texts over the remaining weeks. (NB I am not a presenter at the hui; I am on the organising group).

Is one thing like another?

2010-05-19T16:58:00.002+12:00

In a comment to my post below on Parameters, Tobias Haller, himself a published author on the subject of homosexuality, suggests:

"I would suggest a study of how the church managed to do this in the past on issues of a similar nature -- starting with the Apostolical coming to terms with Gentile inclusion in the people of God, without the Scripturally mandated circumcision -- which was achieved in part by coming to understand what had been a matter of the flesh in terms of the Spirit."

I think there are a series of interesting questions connected to this suggestion.

(1) Is there an analogy between "Gentiles" (outsiders to the Jewish nation) and people identifying themselves as gays and lesbians (often experiencing themselves in relation to the church as outsiders)?

(2) If there is an analogy, what consistent sexual ethic applies across the integrated people of God (i.e. heterosexual-and-now-integrated-homosexual people of God)? Or, do two different sexual ethics apply within the one people?

(3) What relevance, if any, does the original insistence have, in the apostolical inclusion of the Gentiles, that Gentile Christians share the same sexual ethic as the Jews?

(4) Is it fruitless to pursue an analogy with the Gentiles in this instance, because Scripture knows nothing of a people group determined by behavioural characteristics?

Thoughtful

2010-05-17T14:30:00.001+12:00

"And yet. It’s also impossible to avoid the reflection that the Episcopal church is unilaterally imposing its own vision of the church on a worldwide communion. Whatever one thinks of the matter on a personal basis, the New Testament as well as the Old specifically condemns homosexual behavior as contrary to the will of God. Myself, I think St. Paul’s condemnation of what was long known as ‘peccatum illud horribile non nominandum inter Christianos‘ (that horrid crime not even to be named among Christians) should be read as a condemnation of gratuitous sexual experimentation in a culture fundamentally deformed by widespread slavery and of Greco-Roman permissiveness towards what we would now call child sexual abuse and even rape rather than as an attack on the idea that some people are by the laws of their own nature drawn to members of their own sex. But that is one man’s opinion, and the institutional church with centuries of tradition and theological reflection cannot be expected to embrace radical new ideas overnight. This is not just a question about homosexuality; it is a question about how the church among other issues understands the nature of revelation and tradition. What does it mean, for example, to say that St. Paul didn’t know what was and wasn’t sinful, but that modern psychology can straighten him out? And to the degree that homosexual behavior and the meaning of that behavior changes from culture to culture, how should the different ideas and perceptions of people coming from different cultures be handled?

These are not easy questions and a person doesn’t need to be a homophobe or unthinking fundamentalist to continue to accept traditional Christian teaching on this subject. And when both the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches continue to embrace traditional ideas, it is unreasonable to expect the Anglican Communion to move at warp speed to accommodate the ideas of American Episcopalians (less than 5 percent of the Anglicans worldwide) on a topic this controversial.

Even if the mind of the church ultimately comes round to the Episcopal view of homosexuality, the Episcopal church has made a profound and historic error in attempting to force this choice on the Anglican Communion as a whole. A great deal more reflection and discussion is needed before a step this significant can be taken by a worldwide body, and the Episcopal insistence that all the world should march to the beat of an American drum and an American timetable on this issue violates the plain duty of members in a common fellowship.

It seems to me that both the American Episcopalians and their bitterest critics in some of the African branches of the Anglican Communion are making similar theological errors: all sides are turning cultural preferences and habits into religious mandates without an adequately critical theological examination of their own biases. If American society is so permissive, sexually and in other ways that we should all think twice before we assume that our changing cultural norms reflect eternal law, sub-Saharan Africans are also not without their quirks and their blind spots. Neither conservative Nigerians nor liberal Americans come to this fight with clean hands; however the church at large ultimately resolves these issues both sides might do better to review and correct their own shortcomings rather than hurl anathemas at their enemies. Until time, reflection and the Holy Spirit show us the way forward I would like to see us all go on quarreling bitterly in the same house as high and low church Anglicans have been doing for centuries and I’m sorry that both sides have taken provocative steps that make this unlikely."

Walter Russell Mead's whole essay is here.

Parameters

2010-05-16T21:44:00.003+12:00

I see it is nearly two weeks since my last post. Not good. Not with the next Hermeneutical Hui coming up very fast: last week in June 2010, at Dilworth School, Auckland. Not, by the way, the last hui ... this one will be 3.1 and the next, possibly in 2011, will be 3.2.

Here is some of my thinking re the hermeneutics of homosexuality in Scripture ... musings more than dogma, let the reader understand!

What will aid us not to be a church where the first thing a gay or lesbian person feels is that they are not welcome? (That question is intentionally worded in this way, but it does sit alongside the obvious complementary question, "What will aid us to be a church which welcomes gay and lesbian people?")

What understanding of Scripture can I (and you) reach which is not going to buckle or even reverse at the first sign of a reality check (like discovering a best friend is gay)?

What understanding of Scripture can we reach as a whole church, which is faithful to our long 2000 year tradition of being church? (And what would "whole" church mean? Just ACANZP? the Anglican Communion? the Anglican, Roman and Eastern Orthodox churches?)

What is God saying to the church? How do we know it is God doing the saying and not, say, our wishful thinking?

You can probably think of some other parameters. Let me know.

Is the lectionary nuts?

2010-05-03T20:44:00.003+12:00

I confess to being something of a late appreciator of the lectionary. That is partly because I never understood the advantages of the three year cycle Revised Common Lectionary (following, for at least the months Advent to Pentecost, the two year cycle in our NZPB instead); partly too because I did not appreciate the significance of the words "the appointed readings" in our prayer book services: "appointed" meaning "as appointed by the lectionary".

But being a late appreciator does not mean I am a zealous convert, enamoured of all the virtues of the lectionary (RCL) and blind to all its faults.

Preparing for the next two Sundays' sermons (9th and 16th May) I discover that the readings as set down are:

9th May: Acts 16:9-15; Revelation 21:10, 22 - 22.5; John 14:23-29 or 5:1-9

16th May: Acts 16:16-34; Revelation 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21; John 17:20-26

The virtues are straightforward to see in this little sequence:

there is a nice sequential reading through Acts 16 across the two Sundays

there is a sequential reading through Revelation 21-22 across the Sundays

there is a sojourn in John's Gospel.

But the vices are not hard to detect either!

What is with the omitted verses in Revelation? (More below)

What explanation of the sequence of gospel readings is detectable (whether John 14 then 17 or 5 then 17)?

Why is a choice of gospel readings given for the 9th May?

Let's look a little closer at the Revelation readings:

Revelation 21:10, 22 - 22.5 and Revelation 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21

The first reading does not involve omission so much as addition. The passage Revelation 21:22-22:5, concerning the new Jerusalem being without temple, sun or moon for the Lord God is its temple and its light, could do with an introduction, so Revelation 21:10 is supplied to begin the reading.

I think this is nuts, myself! An introductory verse is "nice", but it raises the question why we would not wish - being Scripture-minded - to hear Revelation 22:11-21. What are we missing out on? As a matter of fact that question is also raised by looking back to Sunday 2nd May where we find that the sequential Revelation reading is 21:1-6. Knowing that, we may also want to ask what we are missing by omitting Revelation 21:7-9.

This is what we are missing in the latter case:

" 7 He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

9 One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb.” "

Looks like we do not get to hear the politically incorrect stuff!

In the former case we are missing in Revelation 21:11-21 a vast amount of symbolic detail about the new Jerusalem: its cuboid shape, its encrusted jewels, etc. All potentially rich spiritual mining in the hands of a competent preacher!

Then we have our 'selected verses' in the second Revelation reading, 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21. What are we missing?

First we are missing, between Sundays, Revelation 22:6-11:

"6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.”

7 “Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book.”

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time is near. 11 Let him who does wrong continue to do wrong; let him who is vile continue to be vile; let him who does right continue to do right; and let him who is holy continue to be holy.”

Then we are missing the italicised verses in this passage, 22:12-21:

"12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you a this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

17 The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

20 He who testifies to these things says, “Yes, I am coming soon.”

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God’s people. Amen."

Yep. That message is coming through loud and strong. Keep the verses speaking of reward and blessing. Jettison the verses which speak of punishment and bad consequences.

This is nuts! The lectionary "selectors" are excising from the reading of Scripture pieces of uncongenial Scripture. The uncongeniality may be for different reasons (difficult symbolism to understand, difficult "negativities" to explain) but it seems to be all uncongeniality to the selectors. Out it goes.

Do we believe Scripture comes from God or not? If we do not, let's just say so!

Perhaps we think that some passages are "not suitable for public reading". I can think of a few passages in Judges of that kind. You can think of others. Well, if something is not suitable for public reading, then omit the whole passage, please. Do not retain awkward passages and then (so to speak) cherry pick the nice cheeries and pass by the sour ones.

Who appointed the selectors of our appointed readings?

More nuts

2010-04-26T22:19:00.002+12:00

Don't you just hate it when people invoke the Bible in support of something and on close inspection the invocation is complete maudlin, sentimental mush? Ok. Perhaps you do not. But I do. With H/T to Christopher Johnson of MidWestConservative, here is Bishop Marc Andrus responding in an interview for the Examiner:

"If there is a key Bible vision that supports Gay Marriage & Same Sex Blessing, please give a Biblical example and explain something of your vision on interpretation? Who else shares this sensibility and understanding we might know or recognize?

The story of the anointing of David by Samuel in which it editorially says that God does not judge as human’s judge, human’s judge by outward appearances, but God sees the human heart. When The Episcopal Church is looking at a human couple who seeks the blessing of the church on their relationship, we humbly attempt to see as God sees, which reveals certain characteristics – love, fidelity, forgiveness, mutuality, humility — all of which The Episcopal Church considers more important than external considerations."

I am not closed to a good, sound, plausible argument in favour of same sex relationships being blessed by ministers of the church. This is not that argument. This is sentimental mush which could not distinguish between me marrying my sister, forming a civil union with my cat, or entering a lifelong partnership with my favourite rose bush.

Progressives, please do better than this!

Not nuts

2010-04-23T12:14:00.002+12:00

Some sagacious wisdom here from Darren C. Marks writing for Christianity Today (h/t to Anglican Curmudgeon):

"The sharp-eyed reader will note two things missing from my argument so far. One is positioning the Bible as the only guide to Christian faith. The other is looking at the role of the Holy Spirit. Both are integral to theology. Without them, doctrine and theology become propositions or proof-texting. The opposite of experience is dogmatism, staid religious scholasticism that sucks the life out of a relationship with God.

We have to begin by acknowledging a reality that rightly makes us nervous: All Christian theology helps us interpret the Bible. Theology is what helps us read disparate writings that span thousands of years and arise out of cultures very different from ours. Further, the Bible comprises many texts that address specific problems in specific places (e.g., sexual immorality in Corinth). It presents ideas that at times seem current and at other times obscure. One seemingly crystal-clear verse (Gal. 3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek …") or book (Philemon on slavery) can be interpreted by the faithful in a variety of ways. The earliest Christians knew this all too well.

The first three centuries of Christianity featured a running dialogue with the Bible. In their theology, the earliest Christians had to avoid reading the Bible as too Jewish, too Gentile, too focused on Peter, too focused on Paul, too focused on faith, or too focused on works. To read the Bible through only one interpretive lens could lead to false conclusions, like denying the Trinity or Jesus' humanity or divinity. In each case, a simple reading of a passage, usually through the reader's cultural lens, resulted in a distortion of Christian life. Those who found little biblical evidence for what was emerging as the doctrine of the Trinity, for example, usually ended up with a Christ who never knew humanity (docetism) or a Jesus who was not fully God (Arianism). Thus, doctrine became a yardstick by which to measure various readings and help Christians pinpoint the essentials.

To some people, this will sound like the Bible is not primary, that theological discourse needs to correct Scripture. This could lead some to see the Bible as an interesting historical document to get us started, not the active Word of God that shapes us. And some argue that Christianity is more a communal practice than a personal relationship with the living God. (Schleiermacher would likely agree with that statement.)

But, at its best, Christian theology has never understood itself to be merely a human reflection on contingent truths. The best theology grounds itself in Scripture as the revealed Word of God, not in the religious experiences of ancient people. Scripture's authority is not something that the community relates to first with its own experience. Instead, as Martin Luther put it, Scripture bears authority because it bears Christ—because it points unequivocally and majestically in grace to the living God. Scripture interrogates the community. Because it can be a difficult task to hear Christ speak clearly in Scripture, the church has used theology to test that interrogation. Some may read or hear Scripture in a new manner under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as the 18th- and 19th-century abolitionists did regarding slavery. Theology tests such new readings by asking questions of both the text and the church, helping to clarify the movement of the Spirit."

The article is found here. It is six webpages. The excerpt cited here is from pages 3-4.

Nuts

2010-04-14T08:04:00.004+12:00

Here I reproduce a reflection following the TEC HoB theological reports on same sex relationships. It's by George Clifford. What do you think?

"The report, “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church,” commissioned by the Theology Committee of the House of Bishops and published this Lent merits widespread study within both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (unless otherwise noted, page numbers refer to this document). The report avoided an overly facile effort to reconcile the diametrically opposed positions about whether the Church should bless same-sex marriages. Instead, the Committee recruited a panel of four Christian ethicists to delineate the arguments against same-sex marriage and another panel of four Christian ethicists the arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, and then each panel responded to the contrary position.

The view with which I profoundly disagree, that against recognizing same-sex marriage (“Same-Sex Marriage and Anglican Theology: A View from the Traditionalists,” pp. 1-39), prompted some fresh reflections about natural law. The traditionalists correctly contend that natural law (as heretofore understood) supports heterosexual but not same-sex marriage. The panel does not inquire whether the received interpretation of natural law might be wrong. Had the panel done so, its members might have altered their views.

Natural law claims to identify principles or “laws” that govern the natural world. Pre-Enlightenment “scientists” often defined those laws based upon a priori arguments or scriptural interpretation rather than the scientific method (determining the validity of a hypothesis by measuring its predictive power). The Enlightenment heralded a new and enduring reliance on the scientific method, triggering a succession of clashes between conflicting understandings of natural processes. The sixteenth century dispute between proponents of a geo-centric and helio-centric solar system was one such clash.

In the twenty-first century, “discerning the sexual pattern in creation” (p. 22) probably demarcates another pending clash. As the traditionalists note in their report, the natural law tradition has until now argued, in species with two genders, that heterosexual relationships and reproduction are normative (pp. 31-33).

Although scientific data remains inconclusive in the estimation of the traditionalists (p. 25), the weight of accumulating data points increasingly toward proving the assessment of heterosexual relationships and reproduction as normative wrong. Nature exhibits incredible diversity and contending that any one pattern of sexual behavior is normative has become very problematic. That natural diversity has become more apparent as researchers greatly improve the accuracy of their observations, vastly expand the quantity of observations, and compile an every growing, ever more fully nuanced body of evidence based theory.

The following seem relevant to any discussion of natural law and human relationships:
• All life forms appear to have evolved from a common source.
• Patterns of behavior in other life forms, especially in primates may therefore shed light on human behavior.
• Some animal species, including chimps with whom humans share 96% of their genome, exhibit diverse mating patterns, i.e., both opposite and same-sex.
• Some of these relationships, both opposite and same-sex, are monogamous and last for years.
• Reproductive patterns among species with two sexes also vary widely, e.g., species in which some females morph into males, a species in which male fish mate by biting a female’s back and then being permanently absorbed into the female to ensure a ready supply of sperm, etc.
• Some same-sex non-human animal couples rear offspring.
In other words, the implicit presumption of natural law as traditionally formulated that only heterosexual couples mate, procreate, and nurture children is wrong. (For a highly readable synopsis of current research on gay animals, cf. Jon Mooallem, “Can Animals Be Gay?” New York Times, April 3, 2010.)

The traditionalists candidly remark (p. 16) that attempting to learn what the Bible says about same-sex relationships “involves looking to it for answers to questions it does not pose, at least not in the form we want to ask them. The notion of same-sex marriage did not exist in Scripture or in its contemporary contexts.” The Anglican tradition only maintains that the Bible is the repository of all information necessary for salvation and not all important or even useful information (Book of Common Prayer, pp. 513, 526).

In the absence of biblical answers to our questions, we have no choice but to search for other approaches to find answers to our questions. One of those approaches may be natural law, which, as outlined above, offers a far more complex and nuanced picture of relationships and reproduction than the historic formulation of natural law presumes. (I have admittedly formulated that picture to support my views as strongly as possible but the actual picture does not cohere to the historic view of natural law and is complex.) Another approach relies not on specific passages but broad biblical themes to extract from them a tentative answer. The Liberals utilized this method in “A Theology of Marriage including Same-Sex Couples: A View from the Liberals” (pp. 40-69).

Within the Christian tradition, views about marriage have evolved as Christians faithfully sought to interpret Scripture in the light of both tradition and reason. For example, Christian thinking about marriage shifted from marry if you must to avoid sin (expecting an imminent parousia, celibacy is better), to sex is only for the purpose of procreation, to marriage is for the community’s benefit, the mutual well-being of both partners, and the procreation and nurture of children.

My reading of the traditionalist position in the report is that this last issue – procreation of children – constitutes the major obstacle to accepting gay unions as marriage. Obviously, the traditionalists interpose other objections to the idea of same-sex relationships, such as natural law and their understanding of what the Bible teaches. The traditionalists do not seem to question the mutual well-being that a same-sex relationship may provide the two partners. The value to the community of same-sex relationships is largely a function of the degree to which that community accepts or rejects such relationships.

People today can procreate a child through intercourse, in utero artificial insemination, or in vitro fertilization with subsequent embryo implant in either one of the partner’s wombs or a surrogate’s womb. Perhaps can also “procreate” by adopting a child(ren). Most of theological and ethical thinking is woefully inadequate with respect to procreation in the twenty-first century, cf. Ellen Painter Dollar’s three part essay, “Why Episcopalians need to care about reproductive ethics,” Daily Episcopalian, March 9, 2010. If nothing else, available procreation options offer all couples, regardless of their gender composition, the option of having children. Even as improved insights into how the world functions call for an updated natural theology, so do scientific advances that expand the options for procreation call for Christians to rethink associated theological and ethical concepts.

Neither the release of “Same-Sex Relationships in the Life of the Church” nor the upcoming consecration of the Rev. Canon Mary Glasspool as Bishop Suffragan in the Diocese Los Angeles has led to a cataclysmic outpouring of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and consternation among most Episcopalians. Easter is dawning! In the meantime, thanks be to God that dialogue continues, at least some of the discourse exhibits Christian respect for the dignity and worth of those who disagree, and the Episcopal Church in good Anglican fashion continues to incorporate diverse viewpoints.

The Rev. Dr. George Clifford, Diocese of North Carolina, served as a Navy chaplain for twenty-four years He taught philosophy at the U. S. Naval Academy and ethics at the Postgraduate School. He serves as priest in charge at the Church of the Nativity in Raleigh and blogs at Ethical Musings."

I think this is nuts. The normative pattern in creation for reproduction, as exemplified by vast numbers of people, is man+woman*sex=child. Possibilities otherwise are available. Does anyone know anyone who has resorted to them save in the sorrow of man+woman*sex=child not being possible? Statements like this, "Nature exhibits incredible diversity and contending that any one pattern of sexual behavior is normative has become very problematic." means what? That all sorts of variations take place within humanity all the time? Not in my world. That world is heteronormative. And it is resolutely so. There are exceptions. But they are rare, and certainly not normative. But I do understand one thing about these kinds of views: they have a hold on a lot of people and they drive a lot of Western society's movers and shakers. Well, let's see where this world-view takes us. But one place I guarantee it will not take us to is this: a healthy, growing Western population.

Girard

2010-04-08T14:00:00.003+12:00

I have heard of this guy. Not read his works. Probably should have. But, via Fulcrum, came across a link to an introduction to his thought, by James Alison.

Some taster/tasty paragraphs ... and as you read them, could be worth thinking about some ways in which we make certain people in the church the 'fall guys or girls' for the chaotic, tempestuous state we seem to be in:

"Readers with theological antennae will-quickly grasp the significance of this: the possibility of an anthropology which is, at last, compatible with the Catholic faith. If human desire is in principle a good thing, however distorted and inflected it may become by differing sorts of violence in practice, then at last we begin to be able to make anthropological sense of the Church’s teaching on Original Sin – that the Fall did not make us essentially corrupt in such a way that there is no possible reasonable link at all between our ways and God’s ways, God’s action and our action. However, there is nothing rose-tinted about Professor Girard’s understanding of desire (in fact, he is usually accused by those who read him too fast of far too grim a view of human desire). Professor Girard is well aware that human culture since its inception has been lived out with human desire distorted into rivalry and violence leading to and flowing from death.

What he is able to show (exhaustively) is the relationship between that distorted human desire and the foundational mechanism of what he calls surrogate victimage (more popularly called “The Scapegoat Mechanism”). That is to say, human desire, as we live it (and thus the formation from within of our ‘self’ and our consciousness) derives, as a cultural fact, from desire becoming distorted by rivalry, until there is a point where there is so much group violence that unanimity (and thus peace and the avoidance of the collapse of the group) can only be restored when, apparently mysteriously, all become fixated on someone who can be held responsible for the collapse of unity and order within the group and then expelled, permitting the establishment of a new social unity over against the expelled one.

That is to say, an act of collective fratricide against a victim is foundational to all human cultures, with its being absolutely vital for the cultures so founded that they believe in the culpability of the rejected one (or group), and continue to bolster up this belief by forging prohibitions, myths and rituals.

Professor Girard had assumed that the Jewish and Christian sacred texts would show exactly the same thing as all other ancient texts and myths – the threat of collapsing social unity leading to violence and the emergence of a new peace around the cadaver of the victim. To his amazement he found that although they did exactly that – they really are structured around sacralised violence – there was a unique and astonishing difference: the Jewish texts, starting with Cain and Abel – gradually dissociate the divinity from participation in the violence until, in the New Testament, God is entirely set free from participation in our violence – the victim is entirely innocent, and hated without cause – and indeed God is revealed not as the one who expels us, but the One whom we expel, and who allowed himself to be expelled so as to make of his expulsion a revelation of what he is really like, and of what we really, typically do to each other, so that we can begin to learn to get beyond this."

The whole essay is here.

Helpful summary of TEC House of Bishops report

2010-04-02T06:21:00.000+13:00

Thanks Church Times!

Gynophobia

2010-03-29T06:51:00.003+13:00

The new Archbishop of Nigeria makes an interesting point about fear of women, as reported by Ruth Gledhill. I offer this link without endorsement or dispute. I simply think it worth reflecting on the possibility that a world favouring gay 'marriage' has potential to be a world in which, once again, the importance of women is downgraded.

What gene drives the mind of the Bishop of New Hampshire?

2010-03-28T21:22:00.005+13:00

Below I have posted some material relating to the recently published report (or "reports amalgamated") of TEC's House of Bishops on homosexuality. At that stage I did not have the "traditionalists" introduction to their report to the bishops.

I can now point you to the link, H/T Titus One Nine, here.

As an introduction to Grant LeMarquand's statement, some observations about the course of the presentation and responses is made. It includes this:

"Both Willis and Grant gave ten minute presentations summarizing the two positions, for and against same-sex marriage. The bishops then discussed among themselves in table groups following which there was an hour for the bishops to ask questions. Perhaps the most interesting thing which happened during that question period was a short speech by Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, who expressed dissatisfaction with both papers and stated that it was time to move beyond speaking simply of “GLBT” (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered) orientations: “there are so many other letters in the alphabet,” he said; “there are so many other sexualities to be explored.” He did not elaborate as to what those other sexualities and other letters of the alphabet might be."

Umm, one concern widely shared in the Communion is that the agenda of the progressives is a restless, ambitious one, which will not be satisfied with one concession (same sex partnerships blessed by the church). There is nothing here to allay that concern!

The end of the human race, or just the progressive Western segment of it?

2010-03-27T07:16:00.003+13:00

I am beginning to dip my toes in the waters of the report issued by the TEC House of Bishops.

On the one hand I acknowledge a new dimension in the debate over same-sex partnerships - new at least to me - that proposes understanding marriage as expansionable to include same sex coupling. This is an argument worth considering rather than dismissing because it moves the debate away from "rights", earths itself in the analogy of expansionism of mission from Jews to Gentiles (Acts 15) and keeps in view one aspect of marriage which potentially all kinds of marriage can benefit from, namely discipline of sexuality (cf. Paul's "better to marry than burn"). Thus Willis Jenkins offers these thoughts in his introduction to the House of Bishops' session (reproduced on the blog On Not Being A Sausage):

"The basic argument for expanding marriage is laid out in the preface to our document: marriage is a discipline and a means of grace. Same-sex couples need that discipline and grace no less than other-sex couples. They, like other-sex couples, should not be discouraged from committing their lives to each other nor from giving their commitments to the church. The church is free to bless those couples who present themselves as fit for Christian marriage by their readiness to enter a covenant of self-offering and of witness to Christ’s love for the world.

That argument would be simple and the liturgical amendments minor – a matter of altering a few pronouns – were it not for the deep suspicion that it meets across the church, especially beyond our province. Listening to criticism that the Episcopal Church has not answered that suspicion with a coherent theology of marriage, we have elaborated how same-sex marriage fits within a faithful pattern of Christian life, how it harmonizes with orthodox theology, and how it makes sense within scripture.

Our way of illustrating that fit does not require theological defeat of traditionalists, does not impose cultural change, does not rely on American power. To answer worries that we would demean other-sex marriage, we make painstaking clear how our proposal reclaims and affirms the deepest meaning of marriage. We reaffirm procreation as a purpose of marriage, and the welcoming of children as a gift proper to it. We reaffirm the unitive purpose of marriage, and chastity as a gift proper to it."

In a very cursory glance at one aspect of the traditionalists contribution to the report I notice that again and again they nail the liberals loose, light, and lithesome exegesis (e.g. overlooking that the expansionism of Acts 15 was not the church merely responding to a prompting of the contemporary voice of the Spirit but fulfilling ancient prophecy). Then this passage particularly struck me because it touches on something I think is fundamental to marriage, procreation, and thus arguments diminishing its fundamental role undermine the strength of arguments that same sex partnerships should be deemed to be marriages:

"Procreation is identified as “what the human being shares with the animals,” as if this were a slight on us; for all the talk of bodiliness the argument here has a gnostic tinge. We do indeed share our bodiliness with the animals; here the biologist has something to say to the theologian. What is at stake here is the very nexus of creation and redemption, of which we spoke in our paper. Why should we assume that in matters such as ecology we do well to think and act “with the grain of creation,” but when it comes to the doctrine of the human person, and our sexuality, we ought not to think and act so? Something theologically basic is at stake here which would have major consequences if this anti-breeding drift were to affect our understanding of the human person and of society. To cite but one implication, denigration of procreation leads to the “devaluing [of]…the bearing and raising of [page 74]
children.”9 This needs, for the sake of transparency and candor, to be made clear to the Episcopal faithful in the pews--one wonders what their reception of this dimension of the new teaching might be."

(Note also this footnote at the foot of page 73: "8 At this point, we must dissent from the claim of the liberal side that they and we have no disagreement over the “significance of marriage.” While we applaud their highlighting of a common commitment to charity in this debate, we believe that the liberal transformation of the traditional end of procreation into a personal choice, and the relegation of childbearing to the old eon, amount to a seismic shift in the significance of marriage. Their desire to blunt the sharpness of their argument is odd, given their willingness to follow its radical nature through much of our dialogue. Our disagreement can and should be charitable: in this vein, we welcome their rejection of litigation and happily and enthusiastically endorse rejection of all coercion and prejudice against gay people. At the same time we honor one another more if we take seriously the fact that we have before us a real disagreement on which a great deal rides. To claim that it amounts to a celebratory diversity following from the very persons of the Trinity resonates rhetorically, but hides the fact that discernment means deciding and deciding has consequences. (In fact the advocates of same-sex marriage know this, driving determinedly toward implementation of the revision. In this light, claims that the opposing sides are but complementary perspectives in the spirit of F.D. Maurice seems ironic.")

Go back to Willis Jenkins and notice this sentence:

"We reaffirm procreation as a purpose of marriage, and the welcoming of children as a gift proper to it."

In the citation above I have emboldened "a" in the first clause. It is the weakest link in the chain of the liberals argument. Not only is it weak theologically, it could mean that one day no one will be left to maintain the argument :)

Reading Scripture together, councils and bishops

2010-03-26T21:54:00.002+13:00

Some links worth a look ...

Clayboy (Doug Chaplin), working his way through the 39A has some thoughts on Article 21 Of the Authority of General Councils, which, necessarily raises questions of interpretation. Here is an excerpt:

"Well, in one sense, Cranmer’s answer is an appropriate one: scripture can say a council has erred, but this fails largely to deal with the issue that scripture needs interpreting. Councils generally (and whether rightly or wrongly) declare their teaching to be an interpretation of scripture, and to teach things “taken out of Holy Scripture”. Exactly how authoritative in standing against this collegial declaration is an individual theologian’s or bishop’s (never mind an individual Christian’s) statement that a council has erred? In one sense it is not authoritative at all: it can only be a persuasive statement of scriptural teaching or meaning, to argue that the council has failed to give an adequate account of scripture. Its authority is intrinsic and lies in its own reasoned integrity. It has to appeal to, renew, or even re-create, the sensus fidelium.

Where Cranmer is right is to insist that there should be consonance between council and scripture. Neither the interpretation of the collegium, nor that of the individual, should be arbitrary, imposed simply by external authority, but themselves subject to the authority exercised by God through the Church’s reading of the scriptures. Where he is wrong is in failing to develop an adequate account of the Church, a point noted in previous posts.

A coherent critique needs to reflect more on the Church’s being under authority, and not simply having authority. It needs to take on board finer nuances of the relationship of scripture and tradition, and not a simple opposition. It needs to reflect on conciliarity and collegiality in the way that post-Vatican II Catholicism has done in theory, but miserably failed to do in practice, and so needs to take councils more seriously than this bare statement does. It needs to reflect on the role of the papacy in relation to the broader institution of episcopacy in terms other than jurisdiction: that is, it needs to conceive the Petrine ministry in a more mutual and non-hierarchical relation to the whole apostolic ministry. It needs in short, to offer a self-definition that is defined more positively and less negatively."

Then Thinking Anglicans posts links and a small citation from reports from TEC's House of Bishops' Meeting which received on same sex relationships, and which has in turn published these as their report here.

I have not had a look at this report but I understand one of the reports making up the report (confused?) is 'traditionalist'. I am a little fearful that I am going to find it is not of a high standard ... but I hope I am wrong.

A thoughtful post on reading the Bible

2010-03-18T17:15:00.000+13:00

Thanks to Fulcrum!

Finally, for now, on Clarity and Confusion

2010-03-18T16:10:00.002+13:00

Has God's revelation through Scripture been overtaken - on some aspects - through the passage of time and its associated changes to social circumstances? If we thought that God said something about X that was relevant and applicable in (say) 150 AD, could it be possible that that same thing is now no longer relevant and applicable in (say) 2010?

I appreciate very much that behind such questions lies a concern for honouring God and God's Word revealed to us. For myself I would not want to be propagating lines of hermeneutical enquiry which led to conclusions in which the church was effectively saying "God was right once. Now we know God is wrong." God is always right; we, many times, are wrong!

At all times we need to take care in how we handle the Bible. Just as we can dishonour God by mishandling in one way, so we can cause pastoral mayhem by mishandling in another way. Currently in NZ, for example, we are now receiving fairly regular news reports of the destructive effects on poor Christians belonging to the Destiny Church due to Bishop Brian Tamaki's understanding of what tithing means in relation to his income (they give, he receives) and what income he deserves because he has been faithful to God (a lot lot more than the least of his brethren).

In my understanding at least three possibilities for "change" to our understanding of Scripture need not incur the charge that we think God was right once but is now wrong. (I acknowledge that the three possibilities are probably variations of each other!)

(1) We think Scripture points us in one direction but events press us to reconsider our understanding of Scripture. The conclusion we reach is not that God is wrong but that our understanding has been wrong. The classic example (in my view) would be slavery. Many fine Christians (including George Whitefield, I learned recently) have been comfortable owning slaves. Now that is not so. Our understanding of slavery and its rightness or wrongness has changed, not least because we have changed our understanding of what it means to be a human being: an African, for example, is not a lesser being than a European.

(2) Over time we review not only what Scripture says, but our attitudes to something. A good example in my view would be alcohol. Many a zealous Christian has been dead against alcohol and found texts to support that view. But over time attitudes have changed and Scripture has been read more carefully: it warns against drunkenness, it does not prohibit consumption of alcohol. A number of my Christian friends used not to drink, but now they enjoy their chardonnay and shiraz!!

(3) We change our minds about applying a principle in Scripture. The principle stands, but for various reasons our commitment to applying it is revised. An example would be capital punishment. The principle that a person taking the life of another person forfeits their right to live still holds. But for various reasons - from a new appreciation of mercy to a necessary recognition of the irreversibility of a wrongful judgment by a court - many Christians no longer support capital punishment as an option on their nation's law books. God is not thereby proved wrong, but we show that we have freedom both as humans and as Christians to vary the way we govern ourselves.

There is one further issue which has been mentioned in comments. (In my words) the issue is that God is made deficient in his provision for us if we allege that the written Word of God does not provide for a situation which arises - the deficiency could be that God is imperfect in his power because God is unable to see sufficiently far ahead in respect of what changes in life will arise.

I do not think the Bible is intended to provide for every situation that conceivably could arise in the permutations of human life. If it was, would there not be a smidgeon of material which applied to the various issues arising around genetic engineering, IVF, stem cell research, and the like? Or, what about a clear, ever relevant ethical theory about going to war? Wisely the Anglican reformers said both that Scripture was sufficient for salvation and agreed that the church may make decisions on matters not expressly touched on by Scripture.

Further on Clarity or Confusion?

2010-03-15T12:32:00.002+13:00

Given that hermeneuticists are likely to pay more attention to a matter on which there is a perception of lack of clarity, rather than on matters that are perceived to be clear, it is easy to wonder whether hermeneuticists ever deal in clarity!

Briefly, I want to suggest that there are many matters hermeneuticists are clear about. Rather than speak for all of them, let me speak for myself.

I am very clear that God through his written Word has revealed that his intention in creating humanity as male and female was that men and women would marry in an exclusive lifelong and fruitful relationship. I am also very clear that the theology of marriage revealed in Scripture means that a married couple should do all in their power to remain married. But. Yes, there is a 'but'! I am less clear about what people should do when a marriage has not been successful and divorce takes place, when a couple discover that they are infertile but may be fertile with the assistance of various 'in vitro' or surrogate or whatever possibilities for fertility, or when adultery takes place whether the onus falls on the hurt partner to the marriage to not only forgive but to take their sinning partner back into the full intimacy of marriage. Matters such as these are the 'stuff' of hermeneutics; and often they represent the real and present questions of Christians, both those new to the faith and those mature in the faith. It is pastorally necessary in many instances for the church to encourage good hermeneutical work in relation to such matters rather than to discourage it.

Another example: I am very clear that the Bible encourages good, wise, faithful, and bold leadership in the ministry and mission of Christ. Equally clearly, this leadership should be taken up by gifted, called, empowered and enthusiastic men and women. As far as I can tell 99% Christians are agreed with me on this; so my clarity is our clarity. But there is a specific issue within this understanding of Christian leadership on which Christians disagree about: that is, whether women may lead and teach mixed gender congregations; and this disagreement for some stems from a more 'traditional' reason (presbyters and bishops, like the Twelve, have always been male) and for others from a more 'Scriptural' reason (either women are specifically prohibited from doing so or men and women are ordered in such a manner that it is not a woman's role to do so or both). Some Christians are very clear that this is so. Some Christians are not clear that this is so. How might agreement be reached between us? One way, of course, is to keep examining Scripture, working through all relevant issues and questions, seeking a joint clarity. Again, this is the 'stuff' of hermeneutics.

A third example: I am very clear, as stated above, that "God through his written Word has revealed that his intention in creating humanity as male and female was that men and women would marry in an exclusive lifelong and fruitful relationship". But I am also clear that some men and some women are not made up - genetically, psychologically, etc - in such a manner as to have the requisite attraction for the opposite sex in order to be fruitfully bound together as 'one flesh' - body, heart, soul, and mind intwined as intended in marriage. Perhaps some may be transformed from this shortfall; but it is increasingly clear, as more and more testimonies of people are being revealed in a day when greater honesty seems possible, that some people are resolutely and unchangeably attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex.

What advice is the church to give to those among our brothers and sisters who are made this way? What response are we to make as God-appointed governments around the world move to legitimize formal commitments of couples of the same gender? I am less clear on these matters - the more so as increasingly I recognise that the way the church responds and has responded may be a significant cause of teenage suicide, of people leaving the church, and of depression and despair among homosexual Christians who long to be able to freely love and enjoy being loved by another person. It may be confusing to a new Christian to find their way to a website such as this and be drawn into reading material which does not immediately give a black/white answer or set of answers. I suggest we need to sit with that possibility and recognise another: that to give a black/white answer or set of answers may be devastating to a Christian who is beginning to wrestle with the reality, and the implications of their sexuality.

Must stop. More soon on whether God is somehow deficient if we argue that Scripture is not clear on this and on that.

Hermeneutics: Clarity or Confusion?

2010-03-14T20:44:00.003+13:00

In a comment to the post below Rosemary, a regular commenter on this site, raises questions about whether we who engage in hermeneutics, via blogs such as this, are helpful or unhelpful in the cause of building up God's people. Rosemary is especially concerned that hermeneuticists may be (a) confusing that which is clear (b) denigrating God's ability to communicate and clearly to his people for all ages through his revealed word, and (c) even going so far as to claim that God is wrong on some matters.

These are grave charges, as Rosemary points out, for Scripture has some serious warnings for false teachers.

In response I would say, first, that certainly it is possible that I am wrong.

Secondly, hermeneuticists need always to be alert to the possibility that we are playing a devilish role in the sense that, like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, we are mischievously asking the question, "Did God really say that?" Worse, we can go on to presume that our knowledge of a matter is greater than God's knowledge, so that, in the end we aspire to play the role of God, or at least the role of Jesus, "You have heard it said, but I say unto you ..."

Thirdly, hermeneuticists could become so ensnared in the detail of their work that they unconsciously become purveyers of confusion instead of carefully dedicated to the goal of clarity.

But what if a hermeneuticist avoids these dangers, and carefully works away at issues of interpretation? Is this a wrongful activity, full-stop?

Not at all. Every Christian is involved in the work of hermeneutics. Every preacher is a hermeneuticist. Here is a very simple test case. Has any reader of this blog sold all they have and given the proceeds to the poor? I suspect none have. Why not? I suspect each reader who has not done this has determined, through an act of interpretation of Scripture that Jesus' words to this end do not apply to them. The reasoning they would give would involve classic 'hermeneutical moves': reading the text in context, asking questions about applicability to every time and place, comparing this text with other texts (which, in respect of this case, make presumptions about Christian disciples owning possessions and using them wisely etc).

There is more to say, but I need to stop for tonight!

NZ's first Liberal Anglican Biblioblogger

2010-03-13T05:56:00.002+13:00

Howard who comments here has launched his own hermeneutical project, Hermeneutics Workshop with the byline 'A liberal Anglican New Zealander reading Holy Scripture'.

It looks good. It's going to make a great contribution to hermeneutics. It will complement this site nicely.

Please take a look ...

Jones might be wrong! Critics of Fulcrum might be eating their hats!!

2010-03-09T06:24:00.003+13:00

Here's the thing. Supporters and proponents of Fulcrum, the evangelical Anglican website-cum-think tank, are often (in my reading) charged by conservatives as being 'open evangelicals', which in the codified world of evangelicalism means 'actually, liberal'. So one would be forgiven for predicting that Bishop James Jones' presidential address announcing a brave new world of ethical diversity in the Diocese of Liverpool would be cheerfully embraced by Fulcrum.

But no.

"The Presidential Address of the Bishop of Liverpool is a significant development in the evangelical and wider Anglican debates about sexuality. It draws attention to key questions and is driven by a passionate concern for unity and more Christ-like patterns of discussion. It is, however, seriously flawed in its response to these concerns, unconvincing in its arguments and offers a way forward that in reality threatens to create greater incoherence and division.

This response sketches Bishop James Jones’ journey over the last decade before demonstrating the flaws in his central argument that Anglicans should “accept a diversity of ethical convictions about human sexuality”. Both in what it says and in what it fails to say the address apparently marks a significant step away from the traditional biblical, evangelical and catholic understanding of sexuality and the church’s teaching and discipline in this area. The heart of his case is an appeal to differences between Christians over just war and pacifism. This argument is shown to be inadequate in various ways but most basically because an appeal to diversity on one ethical issue cannot justify diversity on a quite different ethical issue.
Given its focus and central argument, it is particularly alarming that the address offers no engagement with Scripture or Christian tradition or Anglican teaching either in relation to sexuality or in its attempt to argue that ethical diversity in this area is legitimate. Although many of the practical implications of his argument for diversity remain rather vague it is clear that he is seeking to move the Church of England and the Communion away from its current position. In so doing he also makes a number of claims in passing that raise deeper theological questions about the nature of sin and grace and the relation of church and society.

In summary, the general position advocated is one which would move the Church of England away not only from its current teaching but also from its methodology of careful, rigorous engagement with the complexities of this subject rooted in Scripture, tradition and wider ecumenical reflections. What is being advocated instead is the sort of approach taken by the North American provinces which has moved from the seemingly uncritical (and theologically undefended) acceptance of a diversity of views on sexuality within a small part of Christ’s church to the inevitable abandonment of traditional teaching and discipline within the Anglican province and then to the marginalisation and exclusion of those who seek to uphold the biblical and traditional Christian sexual ethic. It is, sadly, for that reason, that the address is of such significance and concern and merits careful analysis, critique and engagement from the wider church, including others in episcopal leadership."

That's the summary of an erudite article by Andrew Goddard. Read it all here.

Keeping up with Jones

2010-03-08T06:53:00.002+13:00

Some further reflection on +James Jones' presidential address to his synod, see links in post below:

On the whole I do not think an analogy between Christians holding different views on killing in war and Christians holding different views on homosexuality stacks up very well.

It works at this level: you and I are on a panel at a conference where we have opportunity to give our views on a range of ethical matters. It turns out, say, that I am pacifist and agin same sex partnerships being blessed in church, and you are militarist (i.e. agree that in certain circumstances Christians may engage in warfare) and pro such blessings. The next event in the conference is a communion service and we happily partake thereof, two Christians with diverse views united around one table.

It does not work at this level: you are my platoon commander in the middle of a war, just before launching a dawn raid I tell you that overnight I have come to the conviction that it is wrong to kill people in any circumstances, and could I please carry my rifle with the safety catch on? Rightly you tell me off, threaten court martial, and whatever else the military manual prescribes for such situations! On the front-line differing convictions re killing the enemy are not an option.

The question the Anglican Communion is engaged in is partly at the first level (abstract ethical discussions have their place) but mostly at the second level: can we engage in the same mission, the same spiritual warfare, the same front-line or coalface ministry with differing convictions about homosexuality?

The answer is not necessarily 'yes' or 'no'. To return to the military situation: in some contexts of war it has worked to have the militarists as soldiers and the pacifists manning the ambulances. But what that might mean analogously to the church today re homosexuality is not immediately clear to me.

In short: +Jones may be admired for his honesty, but not applauded for the flawlessness of his argument.

Are opposing Christian views on gay sex analogous to opposing views on killing in war?

2010-03-07T20:40:00.003+13:00

James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, evangelical leader in the C of E seems to think the answer is 'yes'. See Ruth Gledhill's report; the Diocese of Liverpool's summary of his presidential address to his synod; and the address in full.

As Ruth Gledhill reports, Colin Coward of Changing Attitude thinks this is wonderful. But quickly out of the starting blocks are a number of evangelical Anglicans in England who do not think this is wonderful: Peter Ould (yes, he is brother to David Ould who has been commenting here), Stephen Trott, Charles Raven and John Richardson.

On further investigation I find David Ould has also responded!

John Richardson, I suggest, points towards the most substantive challenge to the analogy +Jones seeks to draw.

One shared theme in opposition to +Jones is his neat skirting of the particular challenge of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: the issue is not simply whether we can get along with each other, but includes the question of whether same sex sexual activity excludes participants from the kingdom of God.

But weaknesses are present in evangelical responses. I put them as questions to consider:

(a) is it clear cut that the teaching of the Bible is against people of the same gender loving each other in a faithful, stable, permanent partnership?

(b) is it essential to orthodoxy that no variations in interpretation of biblical teaching on homosexuality are permitted within the framework of orthodoxy?

(c) is it necessarily the case that a church which includes variations in understanding of biblical teaching on homosexuality will end up persecuting those who believe that the only right context for sexual fulfilment between two people is marriage between a man and a woman?

Can the church hold a belief for a long time and rightly be challenged to change?

2010-03-07T08:36:00.003+13:00

I hope so.

For a long time the church has held the belief that physical discipline of children is right, proper, and supported by Scripture ('spare the rod and spoil the child'). Fearful beatings have been handed out by parents to their children through the centuries. Of course a lot of this would have been 'cultural' in the sense that every parent did this, irrespective of religious commitment or understanding of the text of Scripture. A general hesitancy to use physical discipline today, or to at least use it sparingly, or to use it lightly (just a smack, no birching or caning) is also 'cultural' in a number of ways: social attitudes, if not laws of the land inhibit, if not prohibit physical discipline of children. But it also represents among Christians a shift in thinking: the key verse with regard to discipline is no longer 'spare the rod and spoil the child'. We have sidelined it, even though nearly two thousand years of 'the church's understanding' lies against this sidelining.

Except some Christians have not sidelined it. This verse lies at the heart of a vicious, even murderous system of child rearing in the name of God. Read here and follow the links, or go directly to here for a chilling, mind numbing account of the danger of reading the Bible without regard for factors such as reasonableness of human behaviour.

My point here with respect to the general line of this blog on human dignity is that appeals to 'the church's longheld understanding' have value in hermeneutical arguments, but limited value. Of itself the tradition of the church does not trump Scripture or reason. Each traditional understanding of the church needs careful weighing as to its merits.

Noticed ... leaps of logic

2010-03-04T07:21:00.005+13:00

This argument against the ordination of women to positions presbyteral and episcopal (my italics):

" First of all, it was perhaps providential that she resigned from her offices on the day of St. Matthias, the man who was chosen to replace Judas. Important are these words in Acts 1: "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, May his camp become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it; and Let another take his office [episkopee, same word use for bishopric]. So one of the men [andres, males] who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us - one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." All apostles, thus, ought to be males; accordingly, all pastors ought to be males as well. This is what God's Word here and elsewhere teaches. Therefore, even though Dr. Käßmann had occupied her episcopal office for over ten years and women's ordination is seen by many in the Protestant church as normal, it bears repeating that she should not have held this office in the first place. What is more, not only did she hold this office illegitimately, she also, during her tenure as bishop, ensured that those objecting to women's ordination would not be allowed to enter into the ministry in the first place. The fact that this totally unscriptural practice did not cause an outcry in Germany and around the world speaks volumes about the level of indifference and ignorance regarding the deformation of an institution of the Lord of the church."

I am intrigued first by the leaps in logic: replacement apostle = male, therefore all apostles ought to be males; therefore all pastors ought to be males. It words smoothly, this argument, but jars logically. The revised Twelve ought to be male does not mean all apostles should be male (remember Junia?). Apostles have successors, true (Paul, for example, invested a lot in Timothy); but arguments abound about who their successors are (catholic/Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican tradition posits bishops as their successors; but other denominations propose different offices); so it is stretching things to conclude therefore all pastors ought to be male.

Right, in this instance, I won't take any comments re the general arguments for and against the ordination of women (we have had a good go at that over at Anglican Down Under) but I will take comments on 'leaps of logic' in the interpretation of Scripture, especially comments that can cite other examples ... on any topic of interest in the Bible.

Part of 'due diligence' is attention to the logic of any argument ...

Due diligence

2010-03-02T07:24:00.002+13:00

Recently I posted on women-and-ordination on Anglican Down Under. Some very long threads ensued. Perhaps I should have posted here. But here I do want to offer the observation that there is much to be gained from doing due diligence on what Scripture says and how we understand what we think it is saying. By 'due diligence' I mean painstaking, careful reading and reflection informed as far as possible by excellent and detailed scholarship. It is easy to slide from initial reading to proclaimed conclusion without examining steps in the reasoning process along the way. It worries me, however, that across the whole of our church at this time that we are neither ready for, nor aware of how much due diligence is required on the matter of Scripture and human sexuality.

Doug Chaplin on Themes against Verses

2010-02-23T07:08:00.002+13:00

One issue in the reading and understanding of Scripture is the extent to which verses outweigh themes and vice versa. Most Christians, of whatever persuasion, are liable to trumpet a verse to settle an issue. Having trouble with opposition? "Love your enemies" might be quoted to us. Why should I bother to go to that community meeting on a wet and windy night? "Love your neighbour as yourself" our spouse might prod us with. Of course there are other instances you will think of re controversial issues such as the ordination of women and acceptance of same sex partnerships.

But we also, perhaps as it suits the argument (!!), bring out themes to settle an issue. Should Christians go to war or not? Hard to find one text which settles that issue, but there are great themes running through the Bible concerning service of our country, to say nothing of working for justice and the protection of the innocent, which yield support for a 'just war theory'. Does a stillborn baby go to heaven? Hard to think of a verse which answers that question. Easier to find themes of love, grace, and mercy in the heart of God running through Scripture to draw on.

Doug Chaplin of Clayboy has a nice post on Themes and Verses.

Doing and owning theological work

2010-02-17T07:12:00.001+13:00

I draw your attention to my post at Anglican Down Under on a thoughtful charge against TEC that it has not yet done all it could and should do theologically on homosexuality.

There is a sobering lesson there for ACANZP.

A Consistent Hermeneutic

2010-02-16T22:00:00.002+13:00

Most people do not understand the whole of the Bible literally. A 'creationist' (the world began literally in seven days pace Genesis 1) is likely to baulk at 'Sell everything you have and give to the poor'. Conversely, the person who says something like, 'the Bible is all metaphor; no one understands it literally these days' probably will be found out to take some parts literally. 'Of course "love your enemies" means "love your enemies".' In short: there is a challenge for all readers of the Bible, though only a few will be bothered to take up the challenge, namely, to explain the consistent hermeneutical principle by which one reads one part of the Bible in one way, and another part in another way.

In respect of human sexuality and the Bible, this challenge is very much one to which many are alert. One form of the challenge is 'the church has changed its mind on following the Bible on slavery, remarriage of divorcees, and treatment of women, it now ought to change its mind about homosexuality'. Another form, focusing on Mosaic law, suggests (often in mocking tones, one might add) that if we eat prawns we should not be against (faithful, stable, loving) gay and lesbian partnerships. A tough challenge Down Under where shellfish and the like are plentiful and delicious!

But this challenge is also one to which some may not be alert. Go back, for instance, to 'Sell everything you have and give to the poor'. It can seem so obvious that this does not apply to most of us most of the time that we may scarcely be aware that if we do not sell everything we have and give to the poor, we really really ought to use our time profitably to develop a consistent hermeneutic!

The inadequacy of the liberal Protestant approach to biblical interpretation?

2010-02-13T22:46:00.003+13:00

Ephraim Radner (quintessential conservative Episcopalian) reviews a book by Tobias Haller (quintessential progressive Episcopalian). You can probably guess what the book is about from reading these last paragraphs of the review:

"I admit to finding the liberal Protestant paradigm of biblical interpretation inadequate, for many reasons but especially for its ultimate loss of Scriptural joy and life: what historical reason has left behind must inevitably wither. Reading Haller on Leviticus, for instance, a book for which I have had a special concern, is like reading a chemistry problem. Ironically, given his frequent (if anachronistic and decontextualized) citation of rabbinic material, Jewish tradition has always seen Leviticus as a cohesive and living word, bound to the fullness of both Torah and the prophets and writings.

It is just here that, to my mind, Haller misses so much in trying to minimize the book’s broad theological reach that itself acts as an authoritative interpreter of Genesis 1-3, and not merely as an outlying problematic. And it is just this cohesion of scriptural word that goes utterly missing in Haller’s approach. In Berkeley’s phrase, Haller reads Scripture like a “minute philosopher,” picking it apart to throw away the useless bits and to get at its “essence,” but in the process losing the form and the shape that has in fact ordered the Christian tradition most especially in its development of a relatively stable understanding of marriage.

Ultimately, the kinds of “objections” to same-sex marriage that Haller is trying to refute emerge from such a larger scriptural vision, and not from their status as discrete arguments. The central element of procreation in marriage, for instance, is bound up with the character of Israel’s calling in fallen (and the Fall has no place in Haller’s scheme) human history — genealogy — and ought not simply to be examined in terms of this or that individual person or couple (a rather modern obsession). But this cannot be grasped outside of a coherently engaged Scriptural text. I t certainly makes no sense through the lenses of a truncated and dissected Scriptural witness, translated into abstracted principles of individual relations. The same is true of the traditional understanding of sexual differentiation and so on.

One sorry side effect that has come from the migration of theological argument to the debates of the blogosphere — swift and rhetorically pointed, but also inevitably constricted in time and length — is just the loss of context for the extended kinds of scriptural reflection that Pope John Paul II in fact offered in the addresses collected in his Theology of the Body. The arguments over same-sexuality and marriage deserve such continued reflection. Haller’s book will have its uses, but not in that context."

The whole review, published by The Living Church, may be found here.

The book details are: Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality By Tobias Stanislas Haller. Church Publishing. Pp. 192. $18. ISBN-13: 978-1-59627-110-4

POSTSCRIPT: Tobias Haller himself has commented below, requesting that the book itself is read, rather than an assessment made about the book by relying on the review itself. (The review has been severely critiqued here for instance). I encourage readers to read the book. I shall be ordering a copy for the Theology House library! However I posted the review excerpt primarily to offer an instance - a snapshot if you like - of the ongoing character of the debate between "liberal" and "conservative" on hermeneutical matters; secondarily to note a specific book on homosexuality, and some specific issues in the debate over hermeneutics and homosexuality. One issue which Radner highlights (and which may or may not be a problem in Haller's book, one must read it to make a determination) is whether the question of homosexuality and the Bible is better approached from (what I call) a biblical theology of marriage and human sexuality, or by discussing individual texts.

Intrigue

2010-02-05T21:52:00.002+13:00

Bishop Gene Robinson has been talking about Romans. The Episcopal Church is taking seriously the possibility that the Church of England at its forthcoming General Synod might take a decisive step on a journey towards communion with the Anglican Church of North America.

So we find Bishop Robinson saying this about Romans 1 and its limitations as a human document:

"“We have to understand that the notion of a homosexual sexual orientation is a notion that’s only about 125 years old," Bishop Robinson told CNSNews.com. "That is to say, St. Paul was talking about people that he understood to be heterosexual engaging in same-sex acts. It never occurred to anyone in ancient times that a certain minority of us would be born being affectionally oriented to people of the same sex.”"

And we find TEC offering this as a 'talking point' in the run up to the COE GS:

"The Episcopal Church laity and clergy believe the Christian faith as stated in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. We call the Holy Scriptures the Word of God because God inspired their human authors and because God still speaks to us through the Bible. We look to the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church in the understanding of the Scriptures. Our assurance as Christians is that nothing, not even death, shall separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Together the two statements highlight a challenge for hermeneuticists, Does the Bible being 'inspired' alter the status of statements? In this particular instance, can Paul's authoritative statements in Romans 1 be as casually set aside as Bishop Gene does, himself speaking with all the authority of modernism and its inherent presumption to know better than the eras which have gone before it?

It is intriguing that we simultaneously have an example of one statement from TEC underlining the divine origin of Holy Scriptures, and the continuing divine utilization of Holy Scriptures, and of another from a teaching officer of TEC underlining the human fallibility of Holy Scriptures!

What is the church we are trying to help through hermeneutics?

2010-01-25T07:02:00.002+13:00

Just a brief post to assure that this blog remains 'alive' ... am in the midst of moving to Christchurch from Nelson and finding quiet moments to write hard to come by.

I see, catching up on some media reading, that for the fifth year in a row Church of England attendance figures have fallen. Further, the average age of churchgoers is 61 (though this may be an improvement as, apparently, there are more children in church). Whether or not our ACANZP attendance figures have also been falling and our average age is 61 I do not know (only God does, as we do not keep 'whole of our church' figures). But I would readily believe it to be true simply because it is possible to walk into Anglican churches in our land and be simultaneously encouraged by the fullness of the congregation and discouraged by the high proportion of elderly people in the it.

OK, all sorts of things can be said about these situations, what to do, and all that. Here I simply make the point that hermeneutics is a contextual discipline in a variety of ways. One of those contexts (for example) for hermeneutics and questions of human dignity is valuing people created in God's image and redeemed through God's love. But another context is (what I will call) 'the future of the church'. A challenging question for ACANZP this year is this: what conclusions might we reach which enhance our mission as a church with respect to lowering our average age of attenders?

The world and the church

2010-01-13T21:17:00.002+13:00

In our Hermeneutical Hui on sexuality we will be taking a next step on a journey as a church (associated with the journey of the Communion) in exploring issues in our understanding of the Bible such as Does God through the Bible approve or disapprove of faithful permanent stable same sex partnerships (am hoping we are all agreed that God disapproves of casual sexual relationships of any kind)? To get to that question we are probably going to engage with questions such as What is the Bible, Does it have authority in the church, Is the (obvious) disapproval of same sex relationships in the Bible altered by change in understanding of homosexuality in modern times? And, although some people vigorously disapprove of these kinds of issues being teased out, there will be at least in some people's minds questions of what is 'normal', 'harmful' and the like, including, perhaps, the question whether 'marriage' is a term which can be extended beyond relationships between men and women.

Then, almost certainly, whether mentioned or not, there will be a strong shared sense of the right within a liberal democracy to be able to think, talk and publicly discuss what one believes about matters as fundamentally important to humanity as the ethics of human sexuality, including the ethics of homosexuality.

But in the world (or 'world') the approach to homosexuality moves forward rapidly. Is the church being lost in the wake of the following from the UK ... or is a new kind of fascism rising up in the strangest of guises - this time named 'Liberal Democrat'?

"Faith schools should be legally obliged to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless", and gay civil partnerships should be replaced by true marriage, Nick Clegg said last night.

In a pitch for the gay vote unprecedented in its scope, ahead of a general election likely in May, the leader of the Liberal Democrats threw down the gauntlet to his opponents. He called on the Tories, and in particular the Conservative leader David Cameron, who has voted against gay rights, to prove that they really supported full gay equality."

The rest of the report is here in the Independent.

(David Cameron may have an easy way out of this. In Sharia conscious, Church of England established Britain he can point out that 'faith schools' cannot be legally obliged to teach what contradicts their faith. So either faith schools must go, or no such legal obligation can be imposed. My sense is that the former option would be more unpopular with the voters than resisting Nick Clegg's challenge.)

H/T a retweet from Simon Sarmiento

Questions tied to a frame

2010-01-12T11:50:00.002+13:00

OK if we are to make progress on hermeneutics and homosexuality we need some questions. But before the questions we might need a framework onto which the questions may be tied. The framework could help us both frame the right questions we need to ask and assist us to ask all the questions we need to ask.

Here is an initial offering concerning the framework. I will give it in note form rather than as an essay. Actually even the framework consists of questions - we could call them 'preliminary questions'.

The Bible - what is it, how do we read it, what do we do with what we read, along with a number of other questions, are one part of the framework from which we frame questions about homosexuality.

The church - what is it, what role does the Bible play in its life, what is happening in the church which matters in respect of asking questions about how Christians should live, what is God's purpose for the church - ooh, I can think of lots more to say, but will stop here for now.

God - who is God, and who is God in relation to humanity? What does God say to us, how do we hear God's voice?

Society - human beings with just the rarest of exceptions live with other human beings, in couples, families, clubs, societies, church fellowships, social networks, workplaces, teams.

Culture - all humans live in a cultural context, or cultural contexts.

Development - society x culture = development of life. How we live today is different to living in 1800 AD, 800 AD, 800 BC, and 8000 BC. Some things remain the same (we breathe, we bleed when cut), some things are different.

Law - all humans live in contexts governed by laws (unwritten and written).

What else?

What is truth and how do we know it?

2010-01-08T08:27:00.003+13:00

A story in the news today is the ramming of a ship in Antarctic waters. One ship is Japanese. One ship (actually a small Stealth bomber shaped boat) is NZ registered. The former is a ("scientific") whaler. The latter is an anti-whaling protester. But which ship rammed which? According to this Stuff.co.nz report, the whaler rammed the protester. And the photo to illustrate the article certainly looks like that is the case.

But here is a video of what happened (sourced from Roarprawn):

As Kiwiblog notes, watch the wake of the protest boat moments before the ramming occurs.

Who rammed whom? What is the truth and how do we know it? In part the answer to the latter question rests with the concept of evidence. But what is the best evidence here? The photo or the video?

For what it is worth, I suggest the video is the better evidence. Note that the validity of this evidence is independent of 'perspective' - that it was shot from the whaler is neither here nor there in respect of the visual of the protester's engines starting up.

Mutatis mutandam - such questions, and the concept of 'evidence' are important for how we study the Bible.

Naturally readers of this blog will put all this together and think of ... Jonah and the whale. A most interesting tale on which we can spend time debating concepts of truth, fiction, fact and fable!

Marinating views on homosexuality (UK style)

2010-01-07T10:18:00.003+13:00

Marinating has to do with absorbing, changing taste and texture slowly. Andrew Marin is a US writer who is making his presence felt around the theme of (in my words) 'a new approach by evangelicals to issues concerning homosexuality', particularly with this book, Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community. Peter Ould of An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy reports this comment by Andrew Marin after a visit to the UK:

"But the main difference that stuck out to me though, was that from the numbers of straight conservative Christians I talked to in England about the gay community I continued to receive two profound answers that were very consistent among almost everyone I talked to (I’m going to paraphrase here):

'Gays and lesbians are such an ingrained part of mainstream culture that their sexuality isn’t a big deal and we’re (Christians) are already over it'.

AND

'The church isn’t giving the younger generation any theological or practical framework on how to properly engage this topic, and because of that the next generation is scared to say what they believe because they know it won’t be accepted; or they are torn because since there is no framework, how can a traditional interpretation of Scripture actually be lived out in culture when their examples are either dodging the question all together because they don’t want to make a scene or they’re a part of a small minority that thrives on making a scene?'

And from my perspective, therein lies the great debate within conservative Christendom in England. Which route is the church going to take – they’re over it (?), are they going to dig their heals in like American Christians have and fight (?), or are they going to try to figure out how to peacefully and productively engage a growing population of people that doesn’t need conservative Christianity to exist?
What are your thoughts?"

Peter Ould's own response to these comments by Andrew Marin is this:

"Well I’ll tell you what I think. I think the people Marin has listened to are absolutely right. The “culture war” about the acceptance of GLBT people and institutions like Civil Partnerships is over here in the UK. Conservative Christians need to be concentrating on the real issue which is how do we do mission in a country which has a completely different ethical basis than the Judeo-Christian model which we might prefer but that we need to recognise simply no longer runs the roosts in Britain.

"We need to equip the new generation of spirit-filled believers not with the old fashioned rhetorical devices of standing on street corners and berating a pagan culture, but rather with the theological tools to think clearly and biblically about human sexuality in the twenty-first century and how best to reach out to a broken society. Do we do that mission by always telling people they’re sinners, or do we love people first and wait for the Spirit to move in them, never compromising what we believe but at the same time never compromising on recognising the imago dei in everyone?"

I myself, here in Aotearoa NZ, do not want to offer a view on what our 'younger generation' is thinking. Partly because I am not confident of being closely in touch with it; partly because what I do think I know suggests that their might be a mixed response, some quite conservative, some quite open to the way things have generally become in our society (where we too, like the UK, have civil partnerships, except we call them civil unions).

The Bible and Cricket

2010-01-06T22:31:00.003+13:00

Of course a passion of the Bible is enriched by a passion for cricket. Both, for example, involvement considerable hermeneutical challenges (will that pitch take spin on the last day?). And, as we see in this comment on Cricinfo, the Bible contributes much to the commentary on cricket:

"Mushtaque points out that Smith fell two runs short of a truly beastly number of career runs. He's currently on 6664 ..."

Smith here is Graham Smith, South African captain, and the comment comes after a marvellous knock against England for 183!

2010 The year of Hermeneutical Hui 3

2010-01-03T12:48:00.002+13:00

This blog began after Hui 2 with the idea that some posts and (hopefully) some discussion might be a fruitful contribution to Hui 3 - the 'big one' where we get to discuss Scripture and Sexuality.

I understand that Hui 3 will go ahead next year (I am on the organising committee :) ) and that it could be mid-year that it is held - dates should be confirmed in February.

So, roughly six months to go, which means this blog should get a bit more focused on the question of Scripture and sexuality!

Incidentally, some questions exist, in my mind and in others, about the readiness of this church to engage in the task at hand - the interpretation of Scripture. Our second hui involved quite a lot of interpretation of our personal experiences!!

Seasons Greetings

2009-12-24T16:48:00.002+13:00

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all readers!

This blog is going on holiday until the 3rd or 4th January.

I will post comments (as able) but not interact with them.

Best wishes
Peter

PS For another go at Christmas' hermeneutical challenges, try Clayboy.

Maltby on reading the Bible

2009-12-20T06:35:00.004+13:00

This blog is dedicated to the challenging question of how we read the Bible. It is premised on the observation that Christians often disagree about what the Bible means - disagreement that can occur between 'liberals' and 'conservatives', Protestants and Roman Catholics, AND between 'conservatives', Protestants, 'liberals' and Roman Catholics. These disagreements mean it is always a lively question when we ask, How might we either reach agreement on a matter of current disagreement, or agree to live with our disagreement.

In the background and foreground is, of course, the particular present matter of disagreement about what the Bible says about how we should live sexually. But there are plenty of interesting if not urgent disagreements among us about a range of other matters: Baptists and Presbyterians read the Bible differently on baptism ... conservatives read the Bible differently on women in ministry ... and on creationism/theistic evolutionism. The following post on the Guardian's Comment is Free offers a good reflection on various matters to do with how we read the Bible and why we read it differently:

It's introductory heading is:

"Not much to do with the Bible
The Bible can be read in many different ways. The church's confusion about sexuality has its roots elsewhere"

This comment piece is by Judith Maltby.

"The question: Is the Bible anti-gay? [Note: this is a topic for the week; others have written on it here, here, and here]

Is the Bible anti-gay? Well, yes: it is anti-gay in the same way it is in favour of beating children, capital punishment and slavery. The question does not get us very far but it does point to a far more important issue of how we read the Bible. Two points to make about that.

The first is the awkward truth is that we all read the Bible selectively. Everybody does: from the most liberal Liberal to the most fundamentalist Fundamentalist. We all make choices (not always very consciously) about which verses, passages and books of the Bible we regard as more authoritative than others. These choices are personal as well as communal. For me, the parables of Jesus are amongst the most challenging and engaging passages in the New Testament and the ones to which I return most often. But that's just me – I wouldn't suggest that everyone must think so. Most Christians would, I hope, privilege Jesus' teaching to "love your neighbour as yourself" over Paul's insistence that long hair on a man "is degrading to him". To read the Bible "proportionately" is to read it with the respect it deserves.

The second point concerning how we read the Bible is that we always read it contextually. We can no more step out of our historical setting, our time and place, our human condition, than Christians in the first or second centuries could. Nothing illustrates this better than the seismic shift that Christians made on slavery. Once seen as part of the God-given natural order – a view endorsed by a reading of the Bible – I hope I am right in saying that it is now universally condemned. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, Christians argued bitterly over the morality of slavery and the Bible resourced the spirituality of the slave owner and the abolitionist alike.

Some might say that the slavery example is too loaded. Here is a middle one. Can one be a Christian and serve in the armed forces or does obedience to the gospel demand the position of pacifism? Does Jesus' instruction to "turn the other cheek" trump Paul's view that the civil authority "does not bear the sword in vain"? Clearly, most Christians for most of the church's history have given the hand to Paul. The 39 Articles of the Church of England condemn pacifism and endorse capital punishment. I am an Anglican priest who values the presence of the pacifist tradition in my church while believing that the use of force can be morally justifiable. I utterly condemn capital punishment while I acknowledge that my position is in opposition to the traditional teaching of my church for the vast majority of its history and that the Bible can be used to defend either view.

The church that I love is able to hold together people who believe in the morality of the just war and the moral integrity of the pacifist. At the same time we appear to be incapable of holding together those who believe that a gay Christian in a loving and committed relationship is living a moral life and those who do not – in fact this is something more worthy of schism than disagreements over the taking of human life. One is left wondering how much the global Anglican psychodrama over sexuality is to do with the Bible at all."

My posting this does not mean I agree or disagree with the sentiment in Judith Maltby's final sentence. What I do agree with her on is that an historical perspective on how Christians have read the Bible might keep us appropriately humble and hesitant about asserting that our reading is the certainly true reading. I also agree that we would do well to think further and deeper about why we can live together with some disagreements and (seemingly) not with others.

Christmas Hermeneutical Challenges

2009-12-17T19:42:00.003+13:00

The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are amazing: woven together, with John 1:1-14 added in, they narrate 'the Christmas story'. Compared side by side, examined for possible contradictions, either of each other, or of historical facts (was Quirinius the governor of Syria when Jesus was born?), the two narratives pose a variety of opportunities to apply hermeneutical skills (see post below and comments on it).

One aspect of the narratives are the details. Was there a moving star? If so, what in astronomical terms was it? Does presuming there was some astral phenomenon assist with more accurate dating?

Anglican Curmudgeon offers the first of a series of interesting posts on the date of Jesus' birth. I won't alert you to each of the posts. If you like this first one I am sure you will return to the rest.

Christmas has its own hermeneutical challenges, especially ...

2009-12-12T20:41:00.002+13:00

... the challenge of not reading more into the narratives than are there, and the challenge of thinking twice before harmonizing Matthew and Luke's narratives. Technically harmonization is possible, but, as Doug Chaplin at Clayboy observes, the cost may be that we become less 'biblical' rather than more 'biblical' by doing so.

Here is an excerpt from his thoughtful post, Ox and ass and we three kings: Christmas harmonies and evangelical humbug:

"Historically speaking, the main problem with Matthew’s story is Luke’s story, and vice versa. They can be harmonised only by careful suppression of each’s specificity. In Matthew the holy family home is always in Bethlehem. In Luke, they travel directly home to Nazareth after the forty days of Mary’s purification are up. One could go on, but the problem of historical believability is not just an issue for modern sceptics rejecting God’s work – it’s a problem of two contradictory and different narratives.

This historical use of the text is one thing. Preaching is another, and here there are at least two ways of preaching the Christmas story. The first is the one that pays attention to the text, that doesn’t harmonise the accounts, or fit the shepherds and the magi together. In this version it’s appropriate (in Year C – when Luke is the gospel?) to be sceptical about an inn and explore the idea of a guest room. It’s appropriate (in year A – when we read Matthew?) to consider Herod’s bloodthirsty reputation and the irony of astrology guiding pagans to worship, while those who have the prophecies of Scripture use them only to kill. That is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate use of Scripture in preaching, and one where my head and heart unite. I guess on that people of many views can agree."

With respect to separating Matthew and Luke, I would add the small point missed by many Anglicans of my acquaintance: the wise men should only be introduced to the preaching calendar at Epiphany (6 January)!

One of the best and clearest explanations of justification in respect of Old/New Perspective of Paul

2009-12-06T21:21:00.002+13:00

... can be found at Clayboy where Doug Chaplin has written on Justification: catholic Scripture's challenge to Protestant tradition?

Writing sensitively on sexuality

2009-11-30T08:06:00.002+13:00

Peter Ould of An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy posts a (long) comment made on the Fulcrum Forum by a man called Ken Petrie. I cannot locate that comment on Fulcrum so the link below is to Peter's posting. I offer the post here (i.e. excerpt and link) not so much to endorse all that is said (though my own sympathies are very much in the direction of what is said) but to offer an example of how one can write sensitively yet directly about a controversial matter.

"Because marriages, like everything else human beings touch, will always bear a certain amount of taint from human sin, it follows that a certain humility is necessary in our approach to this divine institution which we mar through our involvement.

"Sadly, the Church has not been very good in its witness to these two truths. For whatever reason, bishops and clergy are too keen to celebrate marriage only as the good gift of God and to ignore the shortcomings of human beings. Therefore, when it was suggested there might be some penitential element when a marriage was celebrated for a couple, one of whom had a previous spouse still living, the General Synod rejected it. I believe the ordained members felt that if a marriage could be seen as sinful it shouldn’t be happening at all, and to make provision for a flawed marriage was somehow to undermine the ideal itself. But the contrary is true; it is only by acknowledging our failings that we uphold the ideal which, for us, is unattainable.

"I wonder whether this is because the English Church is quietly absorbing the sentimental over-expectation of our host culture, or because it has never been able to grasp the implications of Luther’s slogan, Simil justus et peccator. We live in the tension St Paul decribed in Romans 7.21-25 and it is only through Christ that we can amount to anything worthwhile at all. The warning at the end of verse 25 is also apposite. If we seek to enslave ourselves to God’s law we will only become slaves to sin."

The whole may be accessed here.

Is Christian scholarship the Church's prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible?

2009-11-21T18:14:00.002+13:00

Kierkegaard, Great Dane theologian and philosopher, once said this, as pointed out by Rosemary, in a comment on a post below:

"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."

This is an excellent challenge from Kierkegaard; a powerful, undiplomatic charge against Christian scholarship that it functions to obscure the plain truth of the Bible, a truth most believers are scared to live by, and so we welcome the assistance scholarship offers in diluting the demands God makes upon us through his written Word.

This is not, however, the final judgment on Christian scholarship of the Bible (i.e. on hermeneutics). It is an important judgment which we do well to pay attention to because scholarship does have ways of diluting the truth of the Bible. One area in which this frequently takes place, and which is welcomed by most Christians is in the realm of money and possessions: sold all yours lately and given the proceeds away to the poor? If not, why not? The answer is likely to include some hermeneutical moves in respect of the text (it does not apply to every reader; looking at other parts of the gospels we find that not everyone gave up all their possessions and wealth; etc).

But hermeneutics also offers considerable help in discerning the truth of Scripture (for example, shedding some light on the meaning of the Book of Revelation, or enabling people to carefully assess two or more competing arguments for some aspect of Christian living (infant baptism v believer's baptism; marriage v celibacy; predestination v free choice)). As a matter of fact, because I understand Kierkegaard's opposition to be to Christendom rather than Christianity, to the State Church of Denmark rather than to churches faithful to the gospel, I do not think Kierkegaard, himself a prolific scholarly writer, would object to most of the work of hermeneutics.

Interpreters of the Bible - following Kierkegaard - should take care not to obscure the plain meaning of Scripture when indeed it is plain and uncontroversial; but when Scripture is not plain and uncontroversial, when even conservative scholars such as Grudem have to set out a series of qualifying steps for sound reading of the Bible, then we should not follow Kierkegaard and pour scepticism upon the great and noble task of hermeneutics!

Perhaps Scripture is not so clear after all!

2009-11-17T15:37:00.003+13:00

Wayne Grudem is a North American scholar with a well earned reputation for scholarship, as well as for influence on the life of the church, through being a productive author and speaker, much referred to by many, because he offers clarity and conviction in what he writes and speaks.

In the latest edition of Themelios you can read a published lecture by Wayne Grudem entitled "The Perspicuity of Scripture". As Wayne says, essentially the doctrine of perspicuity is about 'The Clarity of Scripture' or 'The Understandability of Scripture'. I do not think you will readily find a better or easier to understand lecture on this subject than you will find here.

But what do you think about Grudem's setting out of the matter?

According to this lecture Scripture is understandable if a number of conditions are met. I readily agree that to understand Scripture these conditions need to be met. But that raises a question, for me at least:

Is it appropriate to talk about the clarity of Scripture if a series of conditions need to be met before Scripture is understandable?

There is one other matter which intrigues me in in this lecture. Grudem specifically makes the following point about ...

"4.3. Roman Catholic Teaching

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that the correct interpretation of Scripture must come from the teaching officers of the church:

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.[footnote 35]

But neither the teachings of Jesus nor the NT epistles give any hint that believing readers need an authoritative interpreter of Scripture such as the Bishop of Rome. Not even in the first century did the apostles suggest that ordinary believers needed an authoritative interpreter in order to understand Scripture rightly. The Scripture remains clear enough that it is able to be understood, now as in all previous ages, by ordinary believers who will take the needed time and effort, employ ordinary means, and rely on the Holy Spirit’s help."

I find this quite extraordinary as a claim about understanding Scripture rightly. Yes, we can readily agree that the NT does not teach that an authoritative teacher such as the Bishop of Rome is required. But can we so readily agree that,

"Not even in the first century did the apostles suggest that ordinary believers needed an authoritative interpreter in order to understand Scripture rightly."?

What was Paul doing in his writings but (often) correcting the misunderstandings of 'ordinary believers'? What were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John doing but offering an authoritative interpretation of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ for 'ordinary believers'?

Then, as if to underline my point above about the conditional clarity of Scripture, we find that Scripture is not 'clear' but 'clear enough' to those who take, time, effort, and rely on the Holy Spirit:

"The Scripture remains clear enough that it is able to be understood, now as in all previous ages, by ordinary believers who will take the needed time and effort, employ ordinary means, and rely on the Holy Spirit’s help."

But these last six words undermine Grudem's approach to denying Rome's approach to understanding Scripture: "rely on the Holy Spirit's help" ... raises questions such as 'how do we know when the Holy Spirit is helping us rather than another spirit?' The point of Rome's catechetical teaching is that an answer is given to this question, namely, the bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But Grudem gives no answer at this point. Protestantism, as any church history student will tell us, has seriously fudged the issue of knowing when the Holy Spirit is speaking to us and when the Holy Spirit is not - the fudging illustrated countless times with church division and fragmentation over "doctrine".

There is a way forward here. What suggestions do you offer?

Would Luke's Gospel be accepted by critics of the NPP if it were not already in the NT?

2009-11-12T09:51:00.002+13:00

Here is a thought arising from my preparation of material for a seminar on Preaching Luke's Gospel ...

It is widely accepted by Lukan scholars that in neither Luke's Gospel nor its sequel is there an articulation of atonement as the reason for the death of Christ on the cross. Jesus dies on the cross because the Messiah must suffer in order for God's plan for humanity to be fulfilled, but not in order that atonement may be made for sins. Naturally this leads to much pondering: how can Luke, for whom Paul is clearly a hero, be so "un-Pauline" in his theology of the cross? Quickly one can arrive at answers such as, Luke (or, maybe 'Luke' because we may have mistaken as to who the actual author of Gospel and Acts was) wrote much later than we think; he was neither a companion of Paul nor a close reader of his writings. In my own reflection built into the material I presented I proposed that Luke's primary audience, Theophilus, a godfearing Gentile, like the centurions of Luke 7 and Acts 10, had no need for certainty about forgiveness of sins, but did have a need for certainty that Gentiles are included in the plan of God; hence omission of atonement, but not for reason of Luke being ignorant or unsympathetic to Paul's theology of the cross.

Here is my thought: given the stridency in the debate between the 'Old Perspective on Paul' and the 'New Perspective on Paul', might we realistically suppose that if Luke's writings had been lost before the New Testament was formed, but then discovered in the last decade, would we welcome its discovery or discard it? My hunch is that some in the debate (i.e. some Old Perspectivers) would discard it on the grounds that it falls short of the standard set in Romans 3-8.

But the fact is: we do have Luke's Gospel and Acts in the canon of the New Testament. Does that say anything to us about the range of views on the cross which are acceptable as orthodoxy grounded in Scripture?

How dare they leave me out!!!!!!

2009-11-09T15:56:00.002+13:00

I have just noticed that the Dunedin School has published their assessment of the Three Worst NZ Theologians of all time ... and I am not there. How dare they.

But you want to find out who they are? Don't you. Read here.

The range of the hermeneutical task

2009-11-02T05:34:00.002+13:00

Sometimes I think I want hermeneutics to be like searching for oil. There are a range of means of extracting oil from the earth, from the extreme of processing coal-to-oil, through oil from oil sands, to the simplest means of all ... drill a hole in the right place and out it gushes. In other words, I want a method of understanding the Bible, so far elusive, in which any and every part of the Bible yields its meaning upon application of the method, which, naturally, I want to be a simple formula!

But the reality - brought home to me by reading in the second half of Daniel this morning - is that there is no such method for some parts of the Bible are simply opaque!

Fortunately those parts are few, and, relative to understanding salvation, irrelevant.

Read the Bible daily

2009-11-01T10:15:00.004+13:00

Bosco Peters on Liturgy draws attention to a wonderful point of common ground between Rome, Canterbury, Geneva, Constantinople and everywhere:

Pope calls for daily meditation on Bible
Published on November 1, 2009 in liturgy and spirituality.

Wednesday’s General Audience to 15,000 people in St. Peter’s Square, Pope Benedict called on Christians to learn from monasticism and set aside time every day to meditate on the Bible, “so that the Word of God will be the lamp that illuminates our daily path on earth.” Monastics “were devoted to the Sacred Scriptures and one of their main activities consisted in lectio divina, that is, a meditative reading of the Bible.” The pope reminded people that the Synod on the Word of God in 2008 recalled the importance of reading the Bible and said such reading must be built on monastic theology.

"As monastic theology is listening to the Word of God, it is necessary to purify one’s heart to welcome it and, above all, one must be full of fervor to encounter the Lord. Theology therefore becomes meditation, prayer, a song of praise, and the impetus for sincere conversion."

I am grateful for this notice from Bosco. The future of Christianity rests with finding common prayer together and common understanding of God's Word.

PS My presentation on Luke's Gospel in Christchurch went well. I hope to post the material on the internet soon.

Quite a good argument re gender neutral priesthood

2009-10-26T14:29:00.001+13:00

Its on Clayboy (i.e. Doug Chaplin's blog), and entitled "Rescuing priesthood from Witherington’s “perfectly clear” NT". Read it all here.

The interpreter Luke and his audience

2009-10-25T08:25:00.004+13:00

Still working on my presentation on Luke's Gospel in Christchurch at the end of this week ...

One 'authorial intention' of Luke which we can be pretty clear about because he tell us it is his intention is to help Theophilus to be more sure of the things he already knows.

We also observe of Luke - to pick out one observation of many we could make - that his gospel, for one so close to Paul, is very light on understanding Jesus' death as an atoning sacrifice for sin. Indeed we could fairly readily argue that Paul's atonement theology is non-existent; that the necessity of Jesus being killed is that, according to Scripture, the Messiah must suffer.

Is it possible that Luke is negligent of atoning theology because this is not a matter of concern to Theophilus? If Theophilus, for example, is like the two centurions (of Luke 7 and Acts 10) then he is an upright man, generous to a fault, and keen as mustard on the God of the Jews but unsure whether truly welcomed into God's kingdom as a Gentile. By the end of Acts Theophilus should be in no doubt that the Messiah of the Jews is the Christ of the Gentiles, God's suffering servant for the world, who welcomes him into God's kingdom.

That is, Luke interprets the gospel of Jesus Christ for his primary audience.

Understanding authorial intention in the gospels

2009-10-18T15:04:00.002+13:00

One 'trick' of gospel scholarship is to compare similar gospel passages, make a presumption about who is following whom, and deduce some characteristic or another of a gospel writer.

A case in point concerns today's lectionary reading from Mark 10:35-45 (just looking at one aspect). In Mark's version, James and John seek Jesus out and demand seats of power next to the throne. Jesus tips their thinking upside down and they emerge, for the reader, somewhat the worse for the occasion, arrogant upstarts that they were at that point in their careers as disciples. In Matthew's version, the request comes from the mother of James and John (20:20-21) which, most scholars thinking Matthew follows Mark, raises the question whether Matthew is safeguarding the reputation of James and John. Obviously they do not emerge with complete credit from the occasion, mummy's boys that they are (!!), but they are not as power and status hungry as in Mark's account. But is Matthew safeguarding their reputation?

I suggest it is hard to tell. It is possible that Matthew has better access to the reality of the occasion than Mark, so the mother asking is a more accurate reporting of what happened. But it is also possible that Matthew is concerned for the two brothers' reputation, writing some years after the event, in a time when James' lustre as a martyr for the faith is shining brightly, and John's mana as a senior apostle is growing.

Intriguing then is Luke's account of Jesus' teaching servitude to his disciples. In Luke 22:24-27 this conversation (or one similar to it) is placed later than Matthew and Mark, in the discourse at the Last Supper itself; no request is made by anyone, rather a general dispute breaks out as to which disciple is the greatest; and the names of neither James nor John (nor any other disciple) appear in the account.

Is Luke even more concerned than Matthew about the reputation of James and John? Does he edit the Markan account to make a point in favour of the later apostleship of Paul, namely that none of the Twelve was greater than another? Is Luke dealing with another conversation, similar to Mark 10:35-45, and chooses to omit a copy of Mark 10:35-45? (If so, then the question of whether Luke is saying anything about anyone's reputation remains in the air!)

When options have been canvassed we are left (I suggest) with a great deal of uncertainty as we try to guess the intentions of the gospel writers on some matters.

Three Questions

2009-10-17T22:25:00.002+13:00

Paul Fromont at Prodigal Kiwi has posted a note about some questions, themselves from linked posts, with a reference to pilgrimage for three of them:

1. “Who is it that you seek?” 

2. “How then shall we live?” 

3. “How can we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?”

I wonder if these are also hermeneutical questions. That is, questions we might profitably bring to the task of reading and understanding Scripture.

Where does time fly to?

2009-10-12T09:00:00.002+13:00

I see some ten days has whizzed by since last posting here. That's partly because of working on my seminar on Preaching Luke's Gospel (see a post or two below). Now I am off on a school camp, needing to remember to think, pray, and prepare a sermon for this coming Sunday. Perhaps some inspiration will come re a little something for Hermeneutics and Human Dignity! One of the ideas percolating in my mind concerns the engagement between Scripture and culture (especially when shifts in culture occur within a generation, as appears to have taken place, and, indeed, continues to take place re human sexuality). There are arguments that cultural shift changes the way we understand Scripture (a good example being attitudes to divorce and remarriage). But then there are arguments that Scripture's role is to critique and to counter culture ...

Not Only A Father: Motherly God-Language in the Bible and Christian Tradition

2009-10-02T08:51:00.002+13:00

Just noticed, fellow NZ scholar, Tim Bulkeley, is writing a book on God with the title being the title of this post.

It's a book to which you can contribute as it is being written!

Find out more here!

(h/t The Dunedin School)

Authoritative interpretation within the Bible

2009-10-01T20:34:00.003+13:00

I have really enjoyed reading a book on Bishop Jewel of Salisbury called John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal Authority by W. M. Southgate (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962). It got me thinking a little about doctrinal authority within the Bible itself:

(a) Consensus achieved over time: the canon of Scripture itself is an example of how an authoritative interpretation can be achieved through consensus - this the New Testament is received by the church as the authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament.

(b) Council referral: when certain questions arose in the early church they were settled with reference to a council (Acts 15).

(c) Consulting an apostle: when the Corinthians were troubled by some questions they referred them to the Apostle Paul.

(d) Christ's own authority: within 1 Corinthians Paul appeals to Christ's own teaching (1 Corinthians 7:10) as authoritative.

(e) Complementary collation rather than competition: the inclusion of the four gospels in the New Testament is a stunning example of the church living with variation in the authoritative interpretation of the life and teaching of Jesus. In theory the church could have chosen one and only one version of the Gospel, but it refused to do so. It accepted the four as complements rather than contradictions of each other.

In current Anglican controversy a bit of each of these strategies is being played out.

Some hope that, over time, if we are patient, gracious, and keep talking, a consensus will be achieved.

Some see the answer lying in councils. But which council? Lambeth 1998, for example, or GAFCON 2008 or General Convention 2009?

Quite a lot of consulting of apostles (i.e. their modern equivalents) is going on. But, again, who is right? JI Packer ... NT Wright ... G Robinson ... D Tutu ... R Williams?

Naturally Christ's own authority is invoked! Though curiously, for some, on one issue, it is the authority of Christ's silence on homosexuality, while for others it is the authority of Christ the upholder of the (whole of the) Law of Moses.

Then, as various views are circulating in the Communion, some wish to see the Communion decide on one, others want to attempt to hold all sincerely hold views together.

That's all I have for now.

I guess further questions to consider could include this: do our current controversies have more in common with one question within Scripture rather than another?

Luke's Gospel and the Roman Empire

2009-09-28T13:10:00.002+13:00

Here is a little challenge, but, please note, if you take it up and reply with a comment, I am off-line for a few days, so publication of comments will not be till later in the week:

In Luke's Gospel (and in Luke-Acts as a whole) there is an obvious acknowledgment of the reality of the Roman empire woven through the undisguised story of a new movement, replete with a head called Kyrios, which grows from nothing in Galilee to something with a presence in most towns and cities of a significant portion of the empire, including Rome itself.

Is Luke's Gospel:

(a) an attack on the empire?

(b) an apology for the (non-threatening) kingdom of God?

(c) a presentation of an alternative kingdom to the empire? (In what sense is it an alternative? What are it's long-term ambitions?)

(d) none, some, or all of the above?

(I am working on a presentation on Preaching through Luke's Gospel in 2010).

Translation within Scripture

2009-09-23T06:19:00.002+12:00

Every so often controversy erupts about Bible translation - one is scattering its ashes through the blogosphere right now, sparked by news of another form of the NIV due in 2011, and fuelled in some quarters by strong criticism of those versions which get anthropos and aner wrong in respect of humanity/man/woman.

One footnote in all discussion about translation is acknowledgement that within Scripture itself translation takes place. An example I came across last night is in Luke 9:1-6 (a reading in the lectionary for this morning's eucharist at St Stephen's, Tahunanui).

In this famous paradigm for gospel mission, Jesus calls the Twelve together and gives them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases. He then sends them out with this task:

'to preach the kingdom of God and to heal'.

With a few more words of instruction they depart, and, according to verse 6,

'went through the villages, preaching the gospel (lit. "evangelizing") and healing everywhere'.

It seems that 'to preach the kingdom of God' is translated as 'to evangelize'!

In this translation lies considerable room for theological reflection and debate. Consider:

- is evangelism announcing the presence of the kingdom of God? (a point N. T. Wright emphasizes, and argues is the Pauline gospel considered in the New Perspective)

- is preaching the kingdom of God announcing the justification of sin through faith in the crucified Christ? (more or less what Paul the Apostle does, especially according to classic Reformation understanding)

- did Jesus preach a message different to Paul? (and Luke here is attempting to unify the two understandings in the context of his great history which spans the mission of Jesus and the mission of Paul)

- is there one message, one 'gospel of the kingdom' (Matthew 9:35) whose dimensions are bigger than many Christians can grasp, which is both a call to sinners to repent (Mark 6:12 // Luke 9:6) and an announcement of God's rule over the world (cf. Matthew 10:7 // Luke 9:2, 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand')?

On the last suggestion, Luke is a clever theologian and literary artist with his subtle, chiastic method of witnessing to the fullest compass of the gospel message!

Also in the last suggestion we note the possibility that Luke, who almost certainly knows Mark's gospel and possibly knows Matthew's gospel as well, is translating other versions of the same story of Jesus' commissioning the Twelve for mission ... and that reminds us of another famous translation in respect of 'the kingdom of God', when John in his Gospel translates it as 'eternal life'.

The plain reading of Scripture

2009-09-17T10:32:00.004+12:00

A little dip of the toe into the deep waters of 'plain reading' of Scripture ...

I take the 'plain reading' of Scripture to be the reading which feels natural, obvious, and common sensical, one sign of which could be that, with nine others in the room, on most readings, 9/10 of the group understand the reading the same way as I do.

One feels bounds these days to state the obvious point prior to the obvious criticism being made: Yes, words such as 'natural', 'obvious', and 'common sense' are fraught with difficulty!

Applying this, I suggest that when we read Scripture today, some things about yesterday (i.e. the time when Scripture was written) yield a ready 'plain reading' for today. Thus when we read a passage such as Ephesians 6:5-9 we understand the passage to plainly speak to the situation of bosses and workers today (there being, at least in these parts and thereabouts, neither slaves nor masters). We certainly do not read the passage 'plainly' as either having no meaning for us in an era without slaves, and even less so, meaning there ought to be slaves and masters today.

But, if you run with my argument to this point, what might this mean for how we plainly read a Scripture close at hand, Ephesians 5:21-33. Do we, as we do with Ephesians 6:5-9, make any natural shifts in understanding because the social situation today for men and women is different to yesterday?

Of course there is an obvious difference between the two passages: we do not still have slaves and masters but we still have husbands and wives. Nevertheless, life has changed: even employees and employers in the post-slavery era applying Ephesians 6:5-9 will do so in a social environment which (say) gives workers more rights and employers more responsibilities than (say) pertained in 1859. In respect of marriage, men and women become husbands and wives in a different manner to (say) 1859. There is, for instance, a quite different set of understandings about the nature of 'property' in relation to the establishment of a marriage, including no remaining sense that a daughter is something to be 'given' away by her father. There are also differences in the way the law provides for husbands and wives to exert their respective wills in a marriage (e.g. wife-beating and forced sex is intolerable under the law today).

Is it then appropriate to understand the instruction "Wives, be subject to your husbands as to the Lord" differently to former times, just as we now understand "Slaves, give single-minded obedience to your earthly masters with fear and trembling, as if to Christ"?

Will stop there for now!

The evolution of Scripture

2009-09-12T10:26:00.003+12:00

A post or so below I mused a little on the creationism versus evolution debate.

One aspect of that debate is the pitting of an "instantism" versus "incrementalism"; the former being the approach to Genesis 1 which says an awful lot of development of life stuff happened in seven days; the latter being the approach of evolutionary biology which says that life as we know it now is the result of a very, very long process of incremental development of life (with some instantaneous jolts such as (a) the original 'big bang', and (b) the effects of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteorite collisions on life).

I sometimes wonder if a problem for creationists accepting incrementalism is a lack of understanding of God's patience!

But I also wonder if creationism arises in intellectual contexts which have little or no understanding of the evolution of Israel's Scripture. A God who dictates Scripture to Moses is compatible with a God who speaks life into instant being. But if God did not dictate Scripture to Moses, if God presided over a long, messy, complex, and somewhat incremental or (as theologians say) progressive revelation to Israel, then God might similarly have presided over a long, messy, complex and somewhat incremental development of life, i.e. evolution.

The Old Testament is widely agreed by scholars conservative and liberal and in between to be an extraordinarily complex set of writings, which include differing lines of theological commitments. Consider:

Genesis to Deuteronomy (the Pentateuch): its origins clearly lie in oral tradition, it has a strong association with Moses as a presiding genius over its writing, yet betrays various clues as to its multiple authorship and final editing during the years of the Babylonian Exile.

Isaiah: the most important book of the OT for the early Christians is written in at least two stages, most likely one before the Babylonian Exile and one after, and thus this book is likely the expression of a school of prophets rather than one lone prophet called Isaiah.

Deuteronomy to 2 Kings (at least) is guided and shaped by the theology of Deuteronomy, that obedience to the Sinai covenant will be blessed and disobedience will be cursed. The perspective of final compilation is that of the Exile: Israel is shattered by the hammer of the Babylonian Empire because of its disobedience. The sequence of post-Deuteronomy history books, Joshua - 2 Kings is often described as the Deuteronomic History.

1 & 2 Chronicles presents an alternative history of Israel, beginning with creation and ending with the restoration from Exile with the decree of Cyrus that the temple in Jerusalem may be rebuilt. Its perspective is shaped by the theology of the Jerusalem Temple: good marks are awarded to kings who honour and progress the worship of Israel in the Temple; the exile is a consequence of defiling the Temple, and its end is marked by the restoration of the Temple.

That the compilers of the Scripture of Israel did not understand this alternative history of Israel to contradict the Deuteronomic History follows from the inclusion of both in the Scripture. (A similar point can be made in respect of alternate creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)!

But, in turn, this (brief) explanation of some aspects of the character and the development of the OT implies that God embraces messy, long development of Israel's theology, indeed of Israel's complementary theologies. In short God has presided over the evolution of Scripture.

Can we accept that the God of Scripture presided over the evolution of life?

Human Dignity and the Gospel

2009-09-10T06:40:00.002+12:00

Archbishop Vincent Nichols (i.e. Dear Leader of English Roman Catholics) preaches:

"... The Father ceaselessly ‘sends out’ the Eternal Word, that expression of the very mystery of God, and does so in the utter, self-emptying love which is also the nature of the Godhead, the love which is the Holy Spirit. This giving out and receiving in of love, which is the very life of the Holy Trinity, is the first and unequivocal meaning of the word ‘missio’. God, of his infinite nature, is ‘missio’ and, of course, ‘communio’. These are the foundations of our use of this word, its most profound truth for us to keep in mind always.

The first outward expression or fruit of this inner ‘missio’ of the Godhead is, of course, the work of creation. St John tells us that all creation, every being, has its existence through the eternally spoken Word of God.

And so that this creation might indeed find its integral and full development or salvation, that Word become flesh in a particular and historical Incarnation. This ‘missio’ of the Eternal Word into our flesh and history gives all the defining characteristics of our sharing in that mission, in our work of ‘missio’ today. It is the full revelation of ‘integral human development’ and establishes for ever the need for the Gospel to be present as an essential part of human progress. Only in the Gospel is the full truth of our humanity told; only in the Gospel, which is Christ, does our humanity come to its true source and fulfilment, the mystery of God and God’s unequivocal love. ..."

The italics are mine, emphasizing the relationship between the gospel of Christ and the truth of human dignity. Inter alia Nichols makes the point that Hermeneutics is constrained in the service of the Gospel, the fullest revelation of the truth of God, which is simultaneously 'the full truth of our humanity': the goal of hermeneutics is human dignity.

The full text of the sermon is here. H/T Ruth Gledhill who makes an interesting point about the character of St Tony Blair's Catholicism!

Dawkins: There could be a god so why not start believing in him now and enjoy life?

2009-09-09T01:56:00.003+12:00

OK Richard Dawkins does not quite say that, but Melanie Philips reports this about a recent debate she attended (h/t Stand Firm):

"This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off Dawkins moved it onto safer territory– and at the very beginning made a most startling admission. He said:

A serious case could be made for a deistic God.

This was surely remarkable. Here was the arch-apostle of atheism, whose whole case is based on the assertion that believing in a creator of the universe is no different from believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden, saying that a serious case can be made for the idea that the universe was brought into being by some kind of purposeful force. A creator. True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies. Nevertheless, to acknowledge that ‘a serious case could be made for a deistic god’ is to undermine his previous categorical assertion that

...all life, all intelligence, all creativity and all ‘design’ anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection...Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe.

In Oxford on Tuesday night, however, virtually the first thing he said was that a serious case could be made for believing that it could."

You can read Melanie's whole article here.

Why post this here? Another great issue in 'hermeneutics and human dignity' is the issue of our interpretation of Genesis 1-3 in respect of 'creation', 'evolution', 'creationism', and 'theistic evolution' (a rumble of which is just nudging its way into my consciousness through an email exchange tonight ... raising the question whether a 'theistic evolutionist' is an 'apostate' ... so not an entirely abstract/academic issue)

Admiration and distance from the great men of theology

2009-09-07T21:30:00.004+12:00

I admire great theologians from the past. Their greatness lies, in part at least, because they spoke words which still, across many centuries, have the power to inspire, challenge, and enlighten us. Augustine of Hippo, for example, illuminates both exegesis of Scripture and the thornier problems of philosophy. Tertullian stands as a man for our time with his intensely intelligent development of theology in a new language (Latin), in the face of immense challenges from the philosophers and hyper-spirituals of his day. Luther set in train a reflection on Romans which to this day has not exhausted the mysteries of that book, possibly the greatest book of theology ever written. Calvin, well, he was a master of theology, the systematizer of the Reformation, who in these early years of the twenty-first century is inspiring a great movement known as 'the New Calvinism'.

None were infallible. Some parts of Augustine's famous work, The City of God, just seem odd to me. Luther was just terrible about 'the Jews'. Tertullian was a bit odd about the relationship of philosophy and theology: what has Athens to do with Jerusalem? Quite a lot really; and Tertullian with his philosophical approach to theology (like Paul with his Hellenistic rhetorical skills) underlines that! Calvin: where to start? Just about every Calvin aficionado has to defend Calvin from the charge of joylessness, and severity.

Here is another reason to distance ourselves from the faults of these great men:

remember our history - a post by Jody Stowell

he [satan] had a deceitful conversation with the woman - no doubt starting with the inferior of the human pair so as to arrive at the whole by stages, supposing that the man would not be so easily gullible, and could not be trapped by a false move on his part, but only if he yielded to another's mistake.
augustine

and do you not know that you are each an eve? the sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. you are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. you destroyed so easily God's image, man. on account of your desert - that is, death - even the son of God had to die.
tertullian

therefore satan, seeing that adam was the more excellent creature, did not dare attack him; for he was afraid that this attempt would fail. and i believe that if he had attacked adam first, adam would have gained the victory. he would have crushed the serpent with his foot and said: hold your tongue! the lord has commanded otherwise.
luther

woman is more guilty than man, because she was seduced by satan, and so diverted her husband from obedience to God that she was an instrument of death leading all to perdition. it is necessary that women recognise this, and that she learn to what she is subjected; and not only against her husband. this is reason enough why today she is placed below and that she bears within her ignominy and shame.
calvin

Back to PRC: A challenge to modern exegetes of 1 Timothy 2:13-14: do you agree or disagree with the line of these four exegetes, that women are less excellent creatures than men?

In my understanding of current 'complementarian' v 'egalitarian' debates (referring to the general thrust of these around the blogosphere, not to any particular comments made on this blog in recent days), there is a very strong agreement between 'complementarians' and 'egalitarians' that men and women are ontologically equal and the dispute is whether men and women are role differentiated (women may not teach, exercise authority over a man) or not.

But this was not always so. The New Calvinists, for example, who are complementarian, follow a theological master who ranks women below men (as per the quote above).

From where does the change in recognition of the true status of women come? If from Scripture, where does that reading of Scripture come from compared to the reading more or less shared across many centuries by Tertullian to Calvin?

My suggestion is that "culture" - in this case the culture of vote-giving, education-providing, career-affirming 20th and 21st century Westernism - has changed the way we all read Scripture, at least reading Scripture so that we do not draw the conclusions these great theologians drew.

Perhaps if we understood better the role - the universal, pervasive role - of culture in reading the Bible, we could work better towards a common Christian understanding of women in ministry!

Calling Kiwi biblical bloggers

2009-09-06T21:21:00.003+12:00

On a sidebar I am developing a bloglist of (mostly) Kiwi biblical bloggers.

If you are a Kiwi biblical blogger, or know of one, let me know and I will add you or your recommendation to the list.

I have one non-Kiwi blog, Biblioblog Top 50, 'cause that's a kind of guide to all the world's biblical bloggers!

So far I have Howard Pilgrim, Tim Bulkeley, Mark Keown, James Harding, and the Dunedin School (a collective of Dunedin/Otago Uni bloggers).

Follow up on Wright's Justification

2009-09-06T14:29:00.003+12:00

I have now read Tom Wright's Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, alerted to it, and its confrontation with John Piper's The Future of Justification, by Gerald Bray's Churchman editorial.

There is much to like in Wright's book, notably, its large vision of the single purpose of God ("God's-single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world"), its comprehensive reckoning with the whole of Romans (offering an explanation for the chapters evangelicals are not so good at explaining, 2 and 9-11, as well as the much debated ones, 3-4, 5-6, and 8), and its generally inclusive approach to the 'old perspective' and 'new perspective' on Paul, illuminatingly offering Ephesians as the first Pauline writing to provide such combination. The style is brilliant - one of those rare theological books that reads like a thriller - hard to put down, easy to follow.

What's not to like? I would love to see a larger book, or a second volume, one which extended the thesis proposed here to engage with Roman Catholic doctrine of justification, and also with other NT material on justification. The former interests me because (not being well versed in "impartation") I would like to be clear whether Wright's critique of "imputation" is mutatis mutandis an affirmation of "impartation" or not; though in the same breath I need to say that Wright, as myself and others do, constantly attempts to transcend the medieval divide between impartation and imputation with emphasis on the Christian being the one who is "in Christ"; and, further, does not deny imputation so much as minimise its importance within the greater scheme of the true Pauline doctrine of justification.

But a more important "not to like" is that I am yet to be convinced that "righteousness", as Wright conceives it, is unambiguously "covenantal faithfulness". In the book itself Wright is convincing on this, but turn to Romans itself and take in a passage here and there, and "righteousness" seems often to be an antonym for "sin": righteousness is right living as much as it is right relationship (as I was taught in my old vicar Dick Carson's Youth Tea Bible study), where "right relationship" certainly coheres with "covenantal faithfulness". In other words, Wright who is ever alert to the need for "both ... and" rather than "either ... or" as he sets out Pauline theology as far as he is able according to Paul himself, may fall down at this, actually key point: righteousness is obedience to God's commands as well as faithfulness to God's covenant.

Enough for now, suffice to say in conclusion to this post - I may return later with further thoughts - Wright has my very great admiration for being thoroughly evangelical! For evangelical means going to Scripture, wrestling with Scripture, listening to Scripture, and testing all voices of theology with the light of Scripture. Wright does this. He seeks to be beholden to Scripture alone (in this case, to Paul himself and not to his interpreters, even though they be of the stature of Luther and Calvin).

The great challenge for his critics, and a point I think Bray misses in his editorial, is that Wright is only incidentally saying "X is wrong on doctrine of justification". Wright's main thrust is: "This is what Paul is saying justification is through the total of Paul's writing, and it is a little different to what some of his interpreters are saying he says when they work with less than all Paul's writings - I may be wrong, but if I am, you must show me with an explanation of the whole, and not a convenient part of Paul's body of work."

That is quite a challenge!

Response 2 to some issues raised earlier about WO

2009-09-06T12:35:00.002+12:00

Request 1: If equality has nothing to do with the demands of women to be accepted for ordination, then please explain this further with respect to Genesis.

I am not sure the extent to which “equality” has something to do with the “demands” of women to be accepted for ordination because I have little or no experience of women “demanding” ordination. I can imagine that equality may figure in a range of conversations about the ordination of women such as (a) women and equal to men (pace Genesis 1) so, all things being equal with men applicants for ordination in respect of calling, gifts, abilities, women should be accepted for ordination, and (b) women should not be denied ordination on the grounds that they are women because women are equal to men in status as redeemed creatures of God (pace Genesis 1 and Galatians 3:28).

But, personally, I do not see how equality can determine an answer to questions about the ordination of women since (c) where there is opposition to the ordination of women it often if not always seems to involve this presupposition, “The (ontological) equality of men and women is not in question; what is in question is the role-suitability of women for the function of ordained ministry.” According to this presupposition a drive for “equality” has no bearing on the matter since the ordained role of priest or bishop is a role confined to men by virtue of the gender restriction on the original apostles and/or the representational aspect of the role – Jesus was a male (the ‘catholic’ argument), or a role not permitted to women – 1 Timothy 2:12 (the ‘evangelical’ argument).”

Question 1: women have an unquestioned role as ‘helpmeet’, a wide ranging role, one consistent with being ordained a deacon, but what is the scriptural justification for jumping from that to overseer and/or instructor?

The question of ordination of women to roles of priest and bishop when put in this form requires some careful calibration with the character of Anglican theologising.

Recall something I have said in a post below:
… a reminder, first, of Anglican approaches to interpreting Scripture. These I summarise as follows: (1) nothing repugnant to Scripture (2) anything consistent with Scripture (3) everything revisable according to Scripture.

(1) is a consistent principle of interpretation through all history of theology

(2) is the hard won result of arguments with Puritans, tested subsequent to the Elizabethan Settlement, never resiled from despite temptations to do so at different times in English history since E1, thus, for example, we subscribe to the orders of deacons, priests, and bishops, as consistent with Scripture though this is not required by Scripture

(3) is the principle of the Reformation, put into practice by the English Reformers, and subsequently has empowered Anglicans to consider proposed changes to faith and practice, including consideration of the ordination of women.

Anglicans, in other words, are prepared to accept church practices which are not “repugnant” to Scripture but which may not be “justified” by Scripture because (e.g.) Scripture simply offers insufficient material for a “scriptural justification”.
A trivial example is the lack of scriptural justification for placing flowers in church as part of church decoration; a substantive example is the lack of scriptural justification for holding annual synods. We do both because they contribute to the life of the body of Christ here on earth.

That there might not be explicit scriptural justification for women being in the roles of overseer and/or instructor need not restrain us from making appointments of women to these roles, providing we understand this as not repugnant to Scripture. The latter determination involves a range of assessments from the evidence of the New Testament for women being widely involved in the ministry and mission of the church to texts such as 1 Timothy 2:12-15. With respect to the former the general argument is that an extension of what we find explicitly in the New Testament (deacon, patron, co-labourers in the gospel, shared instruction by Prisca and Aquila) to roles of overseer and/or instructor is appropriate; with respect to the latter, I argue, that 1 Timothy 2:12 is not a universal prohibition on any woman at any time being appointed to the role of overseer and/or instructor.

Request 2: a scriptural defence of the importance/necessity/worth/integrity of the role of lay women

In my understanding of the New Testament’s narratives of ministry and mission, a wide range of ministry roles are commended explicitly or implicitly. These commended roles are held by men and by women, and they go well beyond the New Testament equivalents of our Anglican ordained roles of bishop, priest and deacon. The New Testament church seemingly could not function without this breadth of ministry. Nor can our modern church function without people taking up the many roles beyond the ‘clerical’ ones. Along such lines lies a scriptural defence of the important/necessity/worth/integrity of the role of lay women (and, of course, of lay men).

Response 1 to issue raised earlier about WO

2009-09-05T14:00:00.006+12:00

(With reference to some issues raised in a comment to a post below)

Argument 1: Jesus did not ordain women as pastors/teachers, or call women to teach and therefore have authority over men so Paul (in, e.g. 1 Tim 2:11-15) confirms that this is right and proper in respect of the order of the church, undergirded as it is by creation and the fall – so arguments about the meaning of ‘authentein’ are possibly irrelevant – including the fact that naming the animals was a role given to Adam and not to Eve. The consequential challenge is to demonstrate from either Genesis or Jesus that women are called to the role of teaching and having authority over men.

I do not think this can be responded to in an Anglican context without a reminder, first, of Anglican approaches to interpreting Scripture. These I summarise as follows: (1) nothing repugnant to Scripture (2) anything consistent with Scripture (3) everything revisable according to Scripture.

(1) is a consistent principle of interpretation through all history of theology.

(2) is the hard won result of arguments with Puritans, tested subsequent to the Elizabethan Settlement, never resiled from despite temptations to do so at different times in English history since E1, thus, for example, we subscribe to the orders of deacons, priests, and bishops, as consistent with Scripture though this is not required by Scripture.

(3) is the principle of the Reformation, put into practice by the English Reformers, and subsequently has empowered Anglicans to consider proposed changes to faith and practice, including consideration of the ordination of women.

To the argument: some minor points to begin with. When engaging with Genesis 1-3 (indeed 1-11) which are important chapters lying at the foundation of all theological reflection about humanity and our relationship to God, some things are theologically ‘clear’, some less so.

Thus at the end of Genesis 1, one of the theological implications of creation is made explicitly clear, namely, that we are made in God’s image, and that we are made ‘male and female’ in that imaging-in-creation, implying a fundamental ontological equality between men and women; and at the end of Genesis 2, another fundamental point is made, that we are made male and female for the purpose of marriage, and marriage is to be an exclusive lifelong commitment.

Less ‘clear’ is the theological lesson of Adam naming the animals. It’s reasonably clear (I suggest) that this signifies a superiority of humanity over the animal species. But can we be clear about other implications of this naming? To draw from that some difference in role between Adam and Eve would have implications beyond the roles of husband and wife, or men and women in ministry: naming animals is a kind of scientific role, should we conclude that women may not be scientists? This would be an absurd restriction on women-in-science, and an outrageous basis on which to make the restriction. Consequently we should look for something more substantive, and, better, much clearer from Genesis before we start drawing conclusions about Genesis providing a basis for restriction of women in teaching and in leadership roles.

The major points for consideration from the argument set out above, then, are these: (a) the (apparent) lack of ordination of women, by Jesus, to the roles of pastors/teachers, and/or Jesus calling women to teach and have authority over women, and (b) the implications of the story of creation and the fall in respect of the relationship between Adam and Eve for ministry roles for women (the connection made explicit by Paul in 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

(a) What did Jesus commission the apostles to do, was it a commission limited to their gender?

At the end of Matthew, Luke’s, and John’s Gospels, and at the beginning of Acts, there are narratives of commissioning of the disciples, mostly, but not exclusively with ‘the Twelve’ in view. But the commission – to baptise, to teach, to make disciples (say, from Matthew 28:20) - is not worked out in practice in terms of an exclusive ministry order of the apostles and of their explicitly ordained successors. Notably in Acts we find ad hoc arrangements being made, along with a broad cast of Christians carrying out the commission of Jesus. One ad hoc arrangement is the commissioning of deacons in Acts 6 because the workload for the apostles has become too great. (The initial deacons, incidentally, are male, but by Romans 16 we have at least one female deacon named). Another ad hoc arrangement is the way ministry leadership develops and incorporates other ministry leaders: Barnabas, for instance, sent to Antioch from Jerusalem (sounds like an ‘official’ extension of the commission of Jesus from Jerusalem based apostles), but then taking initiative to go up to Tarsus to find Saul/Paul to bring him back to Antioch (seems like an unofficial, but inspired thing to have done).

Without canvassing all that the New Testament says about ministry in the days of the apostles, I note two items from a more extensive list of things to consider:

(1) when the apostolic band (Paul, an apostle; Silas, a companion to the apostle; and Timothy, arguably, yes, a minister of the gospel ordained by Paul; plus, the ‘we’, read for the first time in 16:10, is suggestive of Luke, another companion of the apostle joining the band) reach Philippi, their first convert is Lydia, a woman, whose household (without mention of a husband) is baptized, and whose leadership is such that she ‘prevailed’ upon the band to stay. Looks like Lydia was the first leader of the church in Philippi!

(2) The reference to ‘apostles’ in Romans 16:7 which raises significant questions as to (a) the extent of ‘the apostles’ in those days, (b) whether women were numbered among those called ‘apostles’, since one reading of this verse (NOT fairly witnessed to by the ESV) is, “Greet Andonicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known among the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.” One reason why they might have been accounted as ‘among the apostles’ is that this couple are the ‘Joanna, wife of Chuza’ (i.e. ‘Joanna = Junia’, and ‘Chuza = Andronicus’, h/t Richard Bauckham) of Luke 8:3, Joanna being one of the disciples of Jesus.

In short, the complex, even messy evidence of the New Testament itself, undercuts any subsequent tendency towards a simple deduction that because none of the Twelve were women, therefore Jesus did not intend women to engage in the apostolic commission to teach and to lead the church.

(b) Given the supportive citation of the story of Adam and Eve in creation and the fall when Paul prohibits in 1 Timothy 2:12 and justifies it in 1 Timothy 2:13-14, what are the implications of the creation and the fall for ministry roles for men and for women?

In a number of ways, this simply takes us to the way we read 1 Timothy 2:12-15 and apply it to life today. Here goes again! The roles of women in the ministry of the early church of the days of the apostles does raise the question whether Paul was laying down in 1 Timothy 2:12 a blanket ban on all women teaching and leading men in mixed gender congregational settings; a ban on Phoebe, Prisca, Lydia, Junia, Euodia and Syntyche, to say nothing of the prophesying daughters of Philip the Evangelist undertaking any kind of teaching role or leading role in the mixed congregations of the early church. Imagine the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 was not, in fact, in line with a general and, it should be said, somewhat draconian policy, given the esteemed women mentioned above circulating in the life of the early church (most notably, perhaps, Prisca/Priscilla). How might 1 Timothy 2:13-14 have been understood?

“For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

The first thing that would not have been understood is that women are inherently prone to being deceived and consequently untrustworthy of the role of teacher because this would make a nonsense of the entrusting of the role of teacher to women (re other women and children) in Titus 2:3-5. It would also make a nonsense of the role of Prisca/Priscilla as a teacher of the faith.

More likely is that 2:13-14 would have been understood in terms of the danger of women taking a stance, as Eve did, in which (a) they listen to the word of the devil and permit it to deny the word of God, (b) act upon that word and thus disobey the word of God, and (c) draw men along with them in their disobedience. In the particular context of the Ephesus of 1 Timothy, Paul’s prohibition may have had particularly in mind (i) the cultural context of female dominated religion, i.e. the cult of Artemis in Ephesians (ii) the pervasiveness of false teaching affecting the church, especially a false doctrine of marriage as something to be forbidden. To this false teaching, incidentally, 1 Timothy 2:15, with its affirmation of the goodness of childbirth (and intrinsically also of sex and marriage), may have been a rejoinder.

In other words, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 is invoked because of a specific problem at Ephesus (a problem not confined to Ephesus in the long history of the church), but the implication is that 1 Timothy 2:12 does not apply where women are faithful and obedient to the word of God, allowing the word of God to deny the word of the devil.

Consequently the story of the creation and the fall does not set out for all time a rule for the role of women in relation to men which precludes women from teaching or leading men. We might note, incidentally, that the role of women as ‘helper’ (Genesis 2:18, 20) is a general role of support and supply, of companionship and partnership in the enterprise of life. Nothing in Genesis 2, which ends with male and female as ‘one flesh’ and not as two people in distinct roles, implies a rule for all time about the specific role or roles of women in relation to men, least of all an implication about not teaching or leading men.

If it did then Deborah, Huldah, Priscilla, and Phoebe should have been roundly castigated in Scripture for their disobedience to that rule. But in fact we find the opposite: these women are honoured for the way in which they discharge their callings.

Not forgotten ...

2009-09-04T06:11:00.003+12:00

... is my intention to respond to some challenging questions posed by Rosemary a few days ago ... but some urgent priorities on my desk need attending to ... and today is an Auckland day trip to Laidlaw College ...

Reading Paul on the ordination of women

2009-09-01T07:13:00.003+12:00

A respondent to my post below (see Rosemary's comment to the post) about an editorial of Gerald Bray in The Churchman raises several important points which I would like to respond to, not least because with the points comes a charge that I (and people reading Paul like me) are undermining the integrity with which Paul wrote.

Here are the important points:

"... if I’m not to trust the plain meaning of Paul on that matter, what other matter can I not trust him on? Salvation? Eternal Life? He wrote quite a bit about the necessity of people being able to trust in his integrity .. and yet you’re telling me that he’s not to be trusted in this particular case. The implication is that I can’t trust him on any other issue either ... [and] ...no, just continue to make sure you uphold the apparent justice issue, and continue to lack trust in Jesus actions and undermining the authority of Paul ..." That is, (1) what is the 'plain meaning' of Paul in 1 Timothy 2:11-15?

"... the devil has convinced us that we must hold upfront positions in order to be equal, we must seek leadership in order to be fulfilled. In fact that service can ONLY be seen in those roles." That is, (2) the church today is deceived into thinking that equality of women with men requires the ordination of women.

"... Rather downputting of so many women who don’t see their roles that way isn’t it Peter? But don’t concern yourself about them ..." That is, (3) the goal of ordaining women, and the continuing upholding of that goal is at the expense of women who do not seek ordination as a validation of the ministry they do have.

Here I will not attempt a long answer for which I can refer to some posts on Anglican Down Under I made some time ago, here, here, here, here and there. So, some brief responses:

(1) on the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, the question is whether any exegete understands the 'plain meaning' because there is vigorous scholarly debate over (a) the meaning of the word, authentein, in 2:12 (to have authority or to usurp authority), and (b) the meaning in 2:15 of 'being kept safe, or being saved through childbirth, or by bearing children, or by bearing The Child.' In my view the difficulties in 2:15 raise the serious question whether the prohibition in 2:12 is not only concerned with female usurpers of authority but also with the content of their teaching as doctrinally unsound because it involved denial of the inherent goodness of our sexuality (see also 1 Timothy 4:3).

My argument is that, in the light of the positive affirmations of women in ministry leadership elsewhere in Paul's writings, these uncertainties mean we cannot be confident that we understand the plain meaning of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 to be a universal prohibition for all time of all women who might be ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy (which ministries normally include teaching and leadership). I accept, of course, that many Christians believe they read Paul in 2:11-15 plainly and have excellent grounds for rejecting the ordination of women. This belief necessarily includes a confidence in understanding authentein and the tricky questions concerning salvation in 2:15 which I (and other esxegetes) do not share.

Incidentally I am not at all satisfied that engaging with Paul's writings by asking questions of it should incur charges of 'not trusting' him. Plenty of questioning of Paul goes on in the evangelical wing of the church, let alone within the whole church. Is it trusting or not trusting Paul, for example, to downplay or even deny the validity of speaking in tongues or exercising spiritual gifts such as words of knowledge (1 Corinthians 12, 14) as many evangelicals do?

(2)It is quite possible, indeed probable that in some places in the church people are deceived into thinking that equality of women with men requires the ordination of women. (Intriguingly this could mean that many Protestants have been deceived by the devil but all of the Roman and Eastern churches have withstood the devil's wiles!!) But arguments for the ordination of women do not require a linkage with 'equality'. Speaking personally (i.e. not trying to second guess the arguments of others) I support the ordination of women as a recognition of calling, gifts, and abilities of women the church discerns as able to fulfil the role of deacon, priest or bishop. In my view the church should not ordain women as a matter driven primarily by justice considerations but foremost as a matter of responding to the discernment of the will of God.

(3) I am well aware that in various parts of the church there is an unfortunate clericalism whereby the earthly glory and praise for ministry roles goes primarily to the ordained with lay ministers being ignored, taken for granted, or generally overlooked when ministry is commended - a clericalism which has simply extended its scope with the ordination of women. This post, for example, bears witness to that fact.

But I fail to see any necessary linkage between ordaining women and putting down the ministry of women who are not ordained. Speaking personally I make it my aim not to glorify ordained ministry, especially not in comparison to lay ministry. Speaking from the Diocese of Nelson where lay and ordained ministry, of men and of women, mingles side by side, and where lay and ordained ministers are welcomed and encouraged to participate in our annual Leadership Conference, I humbly assert that it is possible to affirm the ordination of women and to affirm the ministry of women who are not ordained, without anyone being put down.

Undermining creationism, supporting women's ordination

2009-08-29T06:55:00.003+12:00

I have never thought of this argument before, in respect of engaging with creationism as an interpretation of Genesis 1 in which each 'day' is literally 'twenty-four hours':

"In particular, it is impossible to be dogmatic about a twenty-four hour creation day when the sun and moon were brought into being on the fourth of them—how was the ‘day’ measured before that?"

This blow comes from an editorial by Gerald Bray in The Churchman - an editorial tackling a number of controversies within Anglican evangelicalism. To be fair to the breadth of the concerns of Gerald Bray in this particular context he also aims his sharp mind against the ordination of women:

"Within the church itself, the ordination of women is clearly against the teaching of the New Testament, particularly if it leads to giving them authority over men in the church (as it must do if they are to be appointed bishops.) Others may take a different view, but the Apostle Paul cites both creation and the fall as grounds for this prohibition (1 Tim. 2:11-15) and we are not free to dispute his judgement in the matter. Unpopular as it is, we must be prepared to take a stand on a matter of clear biblical principle, even if we get into trouble with our peers and contemporaries for doing so."

What I find disagreeable here is the easy assumption that not being 'free to dispute [Paul's] judgement in the matter' is the end of the matter. This is wrong-headed. The crucial judgement in the matter is the supposition that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is a universal application through all time to all church contexts. We are free to question that supposition (for it is our judgement of the application of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 and not Paul's) and, if we think we have some answers to the questions we pose the passage, to dispute supposition by arguing that there are circumstances in which women, like men, may be validly ordered and authorised for the ministry of leadership of congregations, parishes, and dioceses. In doing so there is no need to dispute Paul's own judgement in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (i.e. that a particular circumstance required his prohibition).

Just as Bray astutely observes that on a close reading of Genesis 1 there is a contradiction between the use of 'day' as a literal measure of time passing when the basis of time passing, the presence of the sun and the moon has not yet occurred, so we may astutely observe on a close reading of the New Testament that there is a contradiction between 1 Timothy 2:11-15 understood as a universal prohibition and the evidence of the ministerial authority of women according to Romans 16 and other passages.

His Piperness and His Wrighteousness

2009-08-23T21:54:00.003+12:00

Have started reading Wright's Justification (see a few blogs below). Managed to buy this book at our local conservative Christian bookstore. Honestly, I did ask if Piper's book was there as well, but, no, they had it not. Fortunately, thanks to a commenter below, I have been able to download it, from here. You can too, if you want. It's a 2.23 Mb file.

Well, it's too soon to give a verdict on either book, or a comparison between the two, or whether Gerald Bray's recent Churchman editorial is on the money (also see a few posts below for the link).

But here's the thing. Wright writes like the wind. He is brilliant. Better, BRILLIANT. Such turns of phrase, such intelligent pithy summations of complex issues. It is an exhilarating experience to read Wright at his racy best. Piper writes well but, well, a little pedestrian by comparison to his nemesis.

More soon.

Unbearable texts: Baldman, Robin, and Child-killers

2009-08-13T06:27:00.002+12:00

Even the most diverse set of interpreters of the Bible might agree on this simple proposition: 2 Kings 2:23-24 is one of the most challenging texts to preach on in a family service!

Doug Chaplin of Clayboy offers a thoughtful series of responses to the possibility of preaching on the passage.

Would you preach on 2 Kings 2:23-24? What would you say? Might one be spared the task because the lectionary should judiciously omit the passage? (!!)

This books points us in the right direction

2009-08-12T21:28:00.005+12:00

As an observer of many developments in Christian debates over homosexuality, I have had much to ponder.

One of the things I ponder is the question of whether we are framing the issues in a way which will lead us beyond tit for tat argumentation ending in non-negotiable stand off. There is something unproductive, for instance, in the conservative Christian community saying to homosexuals, "You are in the wrong, you must change, when you do you will find church to be warm and welcoming", and homosexuals unchanged by this, in some instances remaining in fearful invisibility, in others remaining composed and bold in response, "We are who we are, we are not wrong, why are you afraid of us?". There is also something unfruitful for our mission when this leads to societal perceptions that the church is 'anti-gay'. What would Jesus do? The gospels imply that Jesus would do things differently, that he who answered loaded questions with unexpected answers that evaded traps would frame the matters which vex us in a way which would avoid the traps we have fallen into.

Andrew Goddard has read a book which may be helpful. He offers a comprehensive review here - comprehensive in the sense that it might just mean one doesn't feel the need to actually read the book for oneself. The book details are:

Andrew Marin, Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community, IVP USA, 2009. ISBN 978-0-8308-3626-0

("IVP" for those unfamiliar with this publisher is a leading evangelical publishing house).

Any thoughts?

Andrew Marin's blogged thoughts are here.