Should we extend the boundaries of ‘gospel freedom’ in sexuality?
Will Jones writes: The Bishop of Bangor in the Church in Wales, Andy John, has written an Episcopal Alphabetic character outlining a theological and scriptural justification for marrying aforementioned-sex couples.
The letter of the alphabet is worthy of proper consideration because of its very off-white and clear (albeit cursory) exposition of both the conservative position and Bishop Andy's own affirming position. Notably, the bishop avoids any of the unconvincing attempts sometimes fabricated by proponents of a liberal view to metaphrase scriptural texts in a style which changes their manifestly and accepted meaning. Bishop Andy is clear that he accepts the historic agreement of (and scholarly consensus on) these texts.
Instead of questioning the meaning of scriptural passages, the bishop appeals to 'other sources of authority such as reason, scientific bear witness and in serious dialogue with other disciplines'. This is not crude rationalistic liberalism, even so, as an important step in his statement is that he sets out a biblical justification as to why scripture itself mandates us to become beyond it.
The heart of this argument is what the bishop calls Jesus' 'litmus exam' for 'any claim to communion with God and grace', which he says is 'fruitfulness' (run across Matthew 7:xvi-17). Combining this with an entreatment to the inclusion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 and xv, he argues that 'at that place is a development of religion and belief even within the New Testament'. He points in item to credible discrepancies between the teaching of James and Paul, noting that 'the very liberties St Paul asserts are now part of the gospel (Col. two:20-21) are actually excluded by St James vizblood and the meat of strangled animals (Acts 15:20-21)'.
In this light, he asks: 'Is it inappropriate for the church to ask whether the boundaries and limits of this new freedom take been properly explored and understood?'
From there the bishop gives a potted account of where earlier Christian understandings of what the Bible teaches take been overturned. Foremost is slavery: 'The Bible,' he says, 'shows relative – and deeply problematic – ambivalence to slavery.' New Testament didactics, he explains, while absolutely demurring from some of the cultural norms of the day, 'falls far short of any condemnation of slavery'. This deficit, he thinks, was addressed through afterwards Christians 'engaging with the political and cultural background of the Scriptures' so as to develop 'a gimmicky attitude to the result which respects Biblical authority while allowing a fuller perspective to emerge.' It is axiomatic (though unstated) that the bishop regards his affirming view of aforementioned-sexual activity couples to exist justified in the same mode.
Women's ministry is also included in his list. 'On the whole,' he says, 'the New Testament is robust in denying whatever clear leadership role for women in the Church.' Nonetheless now the Church recognises that 'grace is given not on the footing of biology but on the basis of calling'. He likewise adds in bug of divorce, usury, and even 'a globe view which sees sky as 'upward there' and hell 'downwardly there''.
Learning from these examples, he concludes, information technology is now time for the Church to include fully 'without stardom those who commit to permanent loving unions with a person of the same sex,' including through marrying them.
It needs to be said before going any further that this, in my view, is an instance of the most compelling sort of theological and scriptural statement for the affirming position. Information technology avoids claiming scripture does non say what information technology conspicuously does, while still offer theological arguments for change grounded in scriptural teaching and narrative. If same-sex marriage can exist justified theologically and biblically, this I believe is the kind of argument that volition do information technology. In that sense, the bishop has chosen his justification well. But does it succeed?
The core of the argument is the contention that in certain other matters – slavery, women, divorce, usury, cosmology – the church no longer follows the apparently significant of scripture. It has, rather, like Peter who 'hears the voice of God overthrowing the erstwhile Levitical code' in Acts 10, received from God a new way of agreement the problems which sets aside erstwhile cultural paradigms, fifty-fifty those prepare out in scripture. Even so, this development of doctrine away from the plain teaching of scripture is, the argument runs, itself grounded in and mandated by scripture, so scriptural say-so is not thereby abased.
A difficulty in responding to this argument is that it is really a cluster of arguments all rolled into i to brand an overarching bespeak. Information technology includes, for instance, claims almost what is going on in Acts x with the inclusion of the Gentiles, how that relates to Onetime Testament prophecy, and the compatibility of James' and Paul'southward teaching on the thing. Information technology incorporates claims about what the Bible says about slavery and Christian attitudes to slavery through history, and how the modern view relates to biblical teaching. It adds in claims almost what the Bible says about women'southward ministry and why many churches accept changed their teaching on this, and similarly with divorce, usury and cosmology. For the argument to work all of these, or at least some of them, must exist examples of where the church has set aside the obviously meaning of scripture through appeal to 'other sources of authority'. Is this in fact the case?
While it may be tempting for those who wish to meet church education inverse to regard them in this way, the reply must be no. Nosotros can see this fifty-fifty before we look at the specific bug (equally we will do in a moment) for the simple reason that if it was the instance the church would never have accepted the changes. Until very recent years all mainstream churches recognised the authorization of Holy Scripture as supreme and would not accept countenanced annihilation which was deemed opposite to information technology. The near basic error in Bishop Andy's argument, therefore, is the mistaken historical claim that on previous matters where a change of church building teaching is axiomatic what happened was the church set bated the obviously teaching of scripture because of what it had learned from 'other sources of authority'. On slavery, on women's ministry, on divorce, and on usury, when church education changed it was because of a new appreciation of what scripture teaches, not because the church building deemed itself to be setting aside scriptural educational activity in favour of 'other sources of authority'.
Let usa expect, then, in more detail at the specific bug Bishop Andy raises in his letter.
Concerning the inclusion of the Gentiles in Acts 10 and xv, information technology is clear that this was not unanticipated for the church building, but was foreshadowed in Jesus' ain ministry and didactics (see Mark 7), too as in Former Testament prophecy. In terms of the supposed evolution in the New Testament between the pedagogy of James and Paul, in fact the mutual view is that the primary aim of the Jerusalem Quango'southward ban on Gentile Christians eating blood and the meat of strangled animals was out of consideration for the consciences of Jewish Christians, to avert divisive scandal in the early on church. This theme of consideration for the consciences of others, especially in relation to dietary regulation, is also a theme of Paul's educational activity, equally seen in Romans 14. The Jerusalem Council's ban on sexual immorality is of a different kind, even so, as this is a bones moral teaching repeated throughout the New Attestation. Thus the apparent development of teaching within the New Testament turns out to be illusory.
Concerning slavery, information technology ought to be acknowledged that the Bible's general acceptance of slavery – mitigating it rather than condemning it outright – is one of the more than challenging moral issues faced by defenders of scripture. However, it needs to exist borne in listen that it was to a big extent Christians quoting and animated past scripture who abolished the trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery in Christian countries in the 18thursdayand nineteenthcenturies. In doing and so, they did non take themselves to be contravening the teaching of scripture, and in their disputes with other Christians who used scripture to defend slavery, they did non appeal to 'other sources of authority' to override scripture but stressed the true meaning of the texts against the false meanings being given by their opponents. The parallel Bishop Andy is looking for is therefore lacking.
Significant also is that in condemning slavery Christians are not disregarding whatsoever biblical teaching that approves of it. This is very different to the case of homosexuality, where there are specific prohibitions that must be set bated in gild to reach an affirming position. In add-on, in that location are numerous biblical passages in which the enslaved condition is regarded as an evil from which God seeks to rescue people, near notably the foundational Exodus narrative of Israel (see for example Exodus 6:6). By contrast, same-sex relationships are never described as a positive condition to which God would bring a person through approval.
We should also take note of the following biblical texts regarding slavery:
- In Exodus 21:2 and Leviticus 25:39-46 in that location is a ban on enslaving fellow Hebrews and a requirement to complimentary any slaves injured through punishment (see likewise Jeremiah 34:8-22).
- In one Corinthians 7:23 Paul teaches that Christians ought not to become slaves, for 'you were bought with a cost'.
- In Colossians 3:11 there is taught the revolutionary bones equality of slave and free in Christ.
- 1 Tim 1:x includes slave trading in a list of sinful practices.
- Philemon 1:sixteen mentions an apostolic request to gratuitous a runaway slave and treat him every bit a blood brother.
In terms of historical Christian attitudes to slavery, slavery has never been positively regarded by Christian thinkers merely ever held to be a product of a fallen world. The freeing of slaves was widely taught, including by Augustine, to be a virtuous and praiseworthy act. Gregory of Nyssa even went all the way and condemned slavery outright as inherently sinful – though his was a lonely vocalism in the pre-modern era. Nonetheless, Christian peoples accept frequently suppressed slavery, especially of boyfriend Christians, and sometimes abolished information technology, every bit England did in 1102. This was because they recognised that slavery was something from which God wanted to rescue people not to which he would consign them. There are no parallels at all here with homosexuality, since at that place is no positive scriptural education about homosexuality, and no Christian history of regarding it as something good to be welcomed. When Christians banned or suppressed slavery information technology is because they recognised the true implications of what scripture taught on it, whereas when Christians affirm same-sex sexual relationships it is considering they gear up aside the plain pedagogy of scripture apropos them.
Similar remarks can exist made about women's ministry building. While there are a couple of New Testament passages that appear to prohibit it (1 Corinthians fourteen:34-5 and ane Timothy ii:xi-12), there are other passages where women's ministry appears to be welcomed, such equally the reference to women praying and prophesying in the assembly in 1 Corinthians 11:five, and the numerous prominent women mentioned in Paul'due south letters, such as Junia (Romans sixteen:7). Historic Christian do is besides somewhat mixed, with the proto-charismatic New Prophecy (Montanist) move (as endorsed by Tertullian) of the second and 3rd centuries including women's ministry building. Female religious, abbesses and saints have also played a prominent role throughout Christian history, albeit not on equal terms.
It is besides important to note that women's ministry is a matter of church ordering, not an ethical effect. Although the Roman Catholic Church regards church ordering to be a matter of divine revelation, Protestants generally have regarded the New Testament witness on church building ordering to be mixed, and to allow that different forms of church ordering are acceptable (particularly Episcopalian, Presbyterian and Congregationalist forms), reflecting in role a response to dissimilar cultural contexts. Certainly the New Testament witness on women's ministry appears to be mixed, arguably reflecting both classical norms of female person silence in public and a more egalitarian norm of full female participation in Spirit-filled gifting and service.
In any case, though, the of import point is that when churches did come to accept women'south ministry on equal terms as men in the 20thcentury it was because they became convinced that scripture permitted it, not considering they determined to gear up aside scripture in favour of 'other sources of say-so'.
Divorce, likewise, was accepted by churches because information technology was deemed to be consonant with scripture in certain circumstances. Jesus appears to permit divorce on certain grounds in Matthew 19:9, and scripturally based opposition to the Roman Catholic ban on divorce was a major result at the Reformation.
Similarly on usury, Reformers such as John Calvin taught that usury was not contrary to scripture –and this was certainly not on the footing of setting aside scriptural teaching in favour of 'other sources of authority'.
I am perplexed by Bishop Andy's inclusion of cosmology equally an result where biblical teaching is supposed to accept been set up aside (is it just there to associate conservatives with 'flat-earthers'?). The Bible does non really present heaven as above u.s.a. and hell as below us save as ane image among many, and such an idea has never been the teaching of major Christian thinkers.
All in all then, we see that Bishop Andy's argument, while initially plausible perhaps, falls apart on closer examination. On none of the issues he mentions has the church building changed its teaching by setting aside the plain meaning of scripture in favour of 'other sources of authority'. This ways the pattern he is wishing to follow is non there, and neither is it endorsed by scripture or church practice. The inclusion of the Gentiles is not a model for the affirmation of conduct that scripture prohibits, and there is nothing in the New Testament or Christian history to propose it should exist. Scripture does not mandate us to get across scripture, and whatsoever move in that management must be regarded equally a motion abroad from Christian orthodoxy.
Dr Will Jones is a Birmingham-based writer, a mathematics graduate with a PhD in political philosophy and a diploma in biblical and theological studies. He works in a Church of England Diocesan function, blogs at www.faith-and-politics.com and is author of Evangelical Social Theology: By and Present (Grove, 2017). He tweets at@faithnpolitic
If you liked this article, share it on social media using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance ground. If you have valued this mail, would you considerdonating £one.xx a month to support the production of this web log?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this post, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skillful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, can add existent value. Seek commencement to understand, then to be understood. Brand the near charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view contend as a disharmonize to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/sexuality-2/should-we-extend-the-boundaries-of-gospel-freedom-in-sexuality/
0 Response to "Should we extend the boundaries of ‘gospel freedom’ in sexuality?"
Post a Comment