Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, featured in a recent Guardian report (28th August), concerned that his vote against gay marriage in the Church of England could be viewed as ‘wicked, ‘akin to ‘racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice,’ particularly by people under 35. However, he also added that he would not change his vote. Here is why he should – because here is what happens when we sit on our happily heterosexual behinds, watching our happy heterosexual-to-be children walking the heterosexual animals into the toy Noah’s Ark, comforting ourselves that everyone’s welcome, it’s just that no one here is gay, so it’s not an issue.
Come back with me to March 2012. The vote on women bishops is on the horizon – a positive outcome is inevitable – and Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury. I’m in church – my husband is playing quietly in the vestry with our four small children – a guest is about to ask the congregations’ prayers for ‘something important.’ It’s not very exciting. But it’s reassuring and stable and calm and predictable. It’s how I like it.
Enter the guest. A Lesley Pilkington, who had been invited – or who has asked, it’s not clear – to request the congregation’s prayers for something important. She introduces herself as a Christian psychotherapist/counsellor (slight alarm bells there, but nothing too noisy), and begins her tale.
It went like this: At a conference in London, a young man had approached her. He was gay and didn’t want to be; could she help him to change? But of course she could. A couple of ‘very successful’ sessions in, the young man told her that he was a journalist, that this was a sting and that he was reporting her to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. She had duly been struck off, had appealed, and the appeal was due to be heard the following Wednesday, hence the need for prayers.
But she didn’t stop there. No. We had to offer these prayers because we, the congregation, didn’t realize how widespread this evil is becoming, how insidious its hold, how terrible in its consequences. We have to use the power of prayer to fight for what we believe. As Christians, we have to open our eyes to what is happening in society. Satan is at work and we have to resist him. Homosexuality is not only contrary to everything we believe, it undermines everything we believe, and the consequences of sitting by and allowing it to run rampant in society are too terrible to contemplate. We are already seeing them.
Are we? I thought. I am a woman, happily married to a man, with whom I have children. We married in church, our children are all christened, I believe in God. I am also a human being. I like living on a planet with other human beings, many of whom are not the same as me. And so, with my heart pounding horribly and my breath very shallow and my head very light, I accepted that I was going to do something I have never done before. I stood up. I apologised for interrupting. I apologised for the fact that the children had been running around before my husband had taken them out. I said how much we love going to church, how much we value its place in our lives. And then – shaking and on the verge of tears – I said that I could no longer sit and hear people I love being called evil. People I respect and admire; people who are my friends. People who love my children. People whose lives – Christian or not – are happy and constructive. I said that I had no idea of the paths my children’s lives would take, and that I could not bring them into an environment where their paths – whatever they may be – would not be celebrated.
By this time the vicar was inviting me to sit down. And Lesley Pilkington – calm, beautifully coiffeured and tailored and looking so sure of herself– pointed at me with a shrug and said, ‘You see, this is how Satan works.’
I wish I could say that the service ended in uproar. I wish I could say that the congregation rose in a body and threw one or the other of us out. At least I’d know where I was. But no. I sat down. Mrs. Pilkington had the last word – that God is love, and we have to show that love – and sat down. Those would have been my last words too.
That was the last I heard from church until it came to time to do the Christmas choir (open to all comers, and the fact that there were two takers last year, both three score years and ten plus, is an accurate reflection of the size and age of the congregation). I couldn’t do it again, I told the vicar, until we’d talked. I won the battle, in that Mrs Pilkington had apparently left the church with a vow never to darken its doors again. But I lost the war. Homosexuality, I was told, is not God’s best plan. They meet in bars, you know, and they’re not really committed to each other.
Really? Really? Tell that to Yotem Ottolengi, who recently wrote a very moving article for the Guardian about his journey to fatherhood, with his male partner. To Patrick Ness, whose award-winning novels inspire countless young adult readers, just returned from his honeymoon. To a woman I count as one of my best friends, who was with her partner for twenty years before civil partnerships. To Claire Balding. To Mary Portas. To Jeanette Winterson. To millions of people, quietly living their lives (where they are allowed to) all around the world.
God’s best plan? Who knows a thing about God’s best plan? Isn’t that just to love our neighbours as ourselves? To judge not, lest we be judged? If we do anything other than that, we are buying into the very discrimination and bigotry we claim to abhor. Help me out here, Justin Welby. I want to go to church. To your church. I want to run my choir, and sing, and let my son have a go on the organ after the service. I can’t enjoy the peace and community I used to love, because I can no longer ignore the ugly morass that was revealed when the charming façade was peeled away. I could stick it back down. Except I can’t. I’ve stood up now. Thank God.
And so I offer this. By excluding couples who love each other, who elect to make an exclusive commitment to each other in church, the Church of England is signing up to every argument that has ever been made in favour of apartheid. They’re not like us. They’re different, their relationships aren’t as valid, God forbid we should allow them to breed. They can come in, but they can’t join in.
Listen to me, Justin Welby. I’m your everywoman. Women bishops, please, and gay marriage. It’s time. Truly, and with great respect, it’s time.
Another reader from across The Pond; your blog was linked on Twitter by no less than Gene Robinson, the retired Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. And now, after you’ve picked yourself off the floor, I want to thank you as my sister in Christ for sharing this, and plan to share it with several other members of the Anglican Communion here in the States. Peace be with you.
Goodness! Thank you. Thank you indeed.
THank you 🙂
and you!
Antonia, this is almost a mirror of what a friend of mine did. He stood up in church (we’re Roman Catholics) and interrupted the priest’s sermon, which was about how certain elements were going to cause the downfall of society (those certain elements being gay people). He stood up and said he could no longer listen to this homophobic rubbish polluting people’s minds. To this day he and his family have not been back.
Now the second part of this story is that I’m a lesbian. I had already been drifting away from the church but at that stage I left completely. I returned once to give out a letter I had written to the congregation. It was in response to the Catholic Archbishops’ letter against equal marriage. In my response I wrote my own story, that of the young gay people I support, a reasoned response to the Archbishops’ letter, and different interpretations of the scriptures. I too was shaking in fear because I was outing myself to people I had worshipped with for nearly twenty years. I waited until after Mass to hand out the letters and the priest was horrified to see what I was doing, but he couldn’t stop me because he was surrounded by parishioners wanting to talk to him. I managed to give out about three dozen of my tomes. Most people were supportive but some were dismissive or downright rude. I haven’t returned to church since, except once for Christmas Eve, to a different church as I was visiting my family in a different part of the country. I have no idea what I am going to do this Christmas. It was very odd at Easter not going to church. But I’m getting used to being ‘unchurched’, although there is a grieving process to go through.
Thank you for standing up for gay people. I know a gay couple who have been together for 19 years. I myself love someone so much I’d walk over hot coals for her. It’s not all about sex, whatever others would have you believe. It’s about love.
You brave, brave woman. It is all about love, and I am glad you have found it, but so sad for your experience. Thank you so much for telling your story here.
Please, TaT, do not stay “unchurched” because of the narrow-minded people that you have met in your community. I do not know where you live, but there must be some other groups of people of faith who welcome each other regardless of their sexual orientation, and thus, I believe, is obeying to Christ’s commandment. http://changingattitude.org.uk/find-a-church
This is a very moving piece–and I suspected I would have stood up with you. But the key question you ask is: ‘Who knows what is best?’ The answer to this is: God. That is why we need to listen really carefully to what God is saying, not least in Scripture.
I will – I do – I have done. In the end, for me, it comes down to the last commandment, which we were told is greater than all the others. I would have loved your company!
For sure—but that difficulty here is that Jesus appeared to consider it loving to warn people of the dangers of sexual immorality, which as a first century Jew would certainly have included same-sex relations as well as heterosexual adultery.
That does not settle the argument simplistically–but it also means that the argument cannot be settled simplistically the way you are suggesting either. IF God sees same sex unions as ‘immoral’ then it ISN’T loving to affirm them.
While I take your point, I do note that you’ve put IF in capitals. And the church embraces blended families as well as traditional ones now. I think we have to take the inclusive, loving path. Conversion therapy is only one inevitable result of not doing so.
Hi Antonia
Your piece is powerful and moving. I’m just relieved that the churches I’ve belonged to in the last 20 years seem to have been pretty supporting of gays and lesbians and of same sex couple. Overall and officially the CofE isn’t there yet though.
Looking at Ian’s point below, I’m reminded of a lecture I heard at Greenbelt several years ago on this issue. I can’t remember the speaker’s name but one of the things he said in his exegetical talk was that ‘abomination’, which is a word commonly associated with same sex relationships in biblical texts, didn’t mean what it now means but simply meant ‘not normal’ as in ‘not the norm’. His take on that is that if being gay means you’re in a minority then it would be correct to say it’s not the norm. However, the point was that this is a descriptive and not a judgemental expression. He discussed all the main texts used by those who reject same sex relationships and refuted the interpretations usually given to them.
I’m also not sure that immoral is an appropriate word to use for committed same sex relationships. One of the difficulties is that the church seems able to tolerate and work with pretty dysfunctional heterosexual relationships but keeps its distance from faithful same sex ones. We need to show our love consistently, as I believe God does.
That is so helpful and constructive. Thank you for taking the time to respond so fully.
I put the IF in capitals so as not to close down the conversation prematurely. The church accepts blended families, since there is a healing in the restoration of relationships following divorce; the church has never said that divorce ‘is a way of life hallowed by God’, which is what some would like it to say of same-sex relations. So there is not a strong parallel here.
I am afraid to say that the Greenbelt speaker was misleading your other reader. The texts on same-sex relations in Leviticus sit with others on incest and bestiality.
I understand there are people who are going to disagree with what the Scriptures say–but it is important to do so with full knowledge of what they actually do say. They are univocally against the affirmation of same-sex relations, and that is why the bulk of recent commentators who take the revisionist position do so by rejecting the view of Scripture.
“I understand there are people who are going to disagree with what the Scriptures say–but it is important to do so with full knowledge of what they actually do say. They are univocally against the affirmation of same-sex relations, and that is why the bulk of recent commentators who take the revisionist position do so by rejecting the view of Scripture.”
No, it’s not about disagreeing with Scripture – it’s about a disagreement over the correct interpretation of scripture. Moreover you say: “they are unequivocally against the affirmation of same-sex relations” – where in Scripture does it say that it is wrong to affirm same-sex relations? I don’t see it anywhere. I know very well all the passages that condemn same-sex activities – but the “revisionists” as you call them would argue that these verses refer to exploitative sexual relations and prostitution, and not to long term loving same sex relations. Now, for sure you’re entitled to disagree with that interpretation, and I won’t try to win the argument, but given different interpretations exist, I don’t see how you can say “unequivocally”.
(Hello again Iain!). I think it depends on how far you extend the meaning of ‘interpretation.’ The most common objections I read aren’t based on what could really qualify as ‘interpretations’, but on lack of reading the Scriptures. The most frequent are ‘The verses on Leviticus are next to ones about not eating shellfish so don’t apply.’ (The aren’t; they are with ones about bestiality and incest.) ‘These verses are about cultic practice’. (They are not–there is no reference to cultic activity.) ‘Jesus didn’t say anything about the question.’ (Yes he did, he spoke against all forms of what first century Jews considered immorality which included same-sex relations as well as heterosexual relations outside marriage.) ‘Paul was speaking about abusive relationships, not loving ones.’ (Not so–the word he coins in 1 Cor is based on Lev 17 and so if referring to same-sex activity in general.) ‘The world of the Bible knew nothing of stable, loving, same-sex relations.’ (Not true; in the ancient world there was a similar variety of relationships that we find today, and a similar diversity of responses to them.) I think it is fair to say that all these points are reasonably well-established in the literature.
I think that is why well-known NT scholars like William Loader, who does not accept the traditional view, believes that the NT *does* support traditional morality, but thinks it is wrong.
I don’t really want to get into a long debate as I don’t think this is the place (and in any case it seems hard to find the threads correctly on WordPress blogs once they get log). But I’d like to raise a couple of points that you made:
“The most frequent are ‘The verses on Leviticus are next to ones about not eating shellfish so don’t apply.’ (The aren’t; they are with ones about bestiality and incest.)”
In all my time of reading about this issue I have NEVER seen it claimed that the verses in Leviticus are “next to ones about not eating shellfish”, so I think you are mis-representing the argument here. The point is that we are already very selective about which laws we uphold and which we don’t. We no longer prohibit the eating of shellfish, or trimming the corners of your beard, or tattoos. Come to that as far as I know we don’t place a prohibition on sexual relations during a woman’s period, which is prohibited in Leviticus 18. (Can’t imagine why one would want to do this, but that’s maybe just me). Moving on to the New Testament, we no longer say that it’s a disgrace for a woman to speak in church & that any questions she has she should ask her husband back home who will instruct her in private (I Cor 14:34-35). If we did then we would have to say that both Lesley Pilkington and Antonia behaved disgracefully and should have kept silent. But no-one is saying that.
‘These verses are about cultic practice’. (They are not–there is no reference to cultic activity.)
Well … Leviticus 18:21 the verse that immediately precedes the famous “abomination” verse refers to the practice of presenting your children to the Canaanite god Moloch (sometimes translated as “sacrificing your children through fire”. Is that not a cultic practice? The verse on bestiality uses a different word from 18:22 “perversion” as opposed to “detestable (or abomination). I have read that the “abomination” of 18:22 is in Hebrew To-evah which is almost always used in conjunction with taboo religious practices.
So I still maintain that it is indeed a matter of interpretation. What you are saying is “my interpretation is correct and yours is incorrect”.
Iain, yes, it is difficult to get into detail here. But, taking your comments in reverse order, of course I am saying that might interpretation is right and yours is wrong—as you are to me. I guess the key question is the manner in which we do that.
The word used in reference to bestiality is, I think, a less strong word than ‘abomination.’
I don’t think it is a disgrace for women to speak in church because I don’t think Paul did either; he expects them quite clearly to pray and prophesy. So this issue is not a question of being selective.
But of course we are selective in general about what we think continues to apply to us. A key question here is: is this command specific to its context (as I think the one on shellfish is) or is it rooted in the wider story of creation, and taken up in the NT in Jesus and Paul? That is the issue to explore.
Ian, perhaps I’m being dumb here, but Paul says quite plainly “for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (I Cor 14:34b) and you say you don’t think Paul thought it was a disgrace for women to speak in church. That’s a flat contradiction, it seems to me. If elsewhere Paul says it’s fine for women to speak and prophesy – then the Bible contradicts itself – Paul contradicts himself, and you have to choose which statement you see as binding.
Now I can quite understand that you might argue that Paul wasn’t talking in general here but was addressing a specific cultural situation that doesn’t apply in general. I’d be fine with that, but the problem is that you absolutely won’t entertain the idea that the Leviticus 18:22 prohibition might also be addressing a cultural situation that doesn’t apply to long term loving relationships.
But a further question arises – if you wish to uphold Leviticus 18:22 to as applying to all homosexual relationships, how come you don’t uphold that homosexuals must be put to death (Lev 20:13)? Does not the severity of the proscribed punishment make one suspect that it is something other than a loving relationship between two people.
A further point – you have suggested that I am insisting my interpretation is right and yours is wrong. That’s an incorrect assumption. I’m willing to admit I might be wrong about this – I don’t think it’s right to be dogmatic, and I think the verses are ambiguous – there has been much debate over the meaning of to’ebah (abomination) and hence the logical possibility of holding different interpretations. But what my conscience tells me, my experience of talking with gay people ( I am a long term volunteer with the Samaritans and know exactly how haunted many homosexual people, how afraid of judgement even from a famously non-judgemental organisation like Samaritans) , and in reading the testimonies of gay Christians & the testimonies of people like Benny Hazlehurst on Accepting Evangelicals – all this tells me that in all conscience I must opt for the affirming stance. If I am wrong, … well I guess I won’t know till I meet my Maker.
Thank you, Iain. Guess I’ll be there too…
Gosh Iain in 2000 years of reading has no-one before you has ever spotted that apparent contradiction in Paul? Of course they have, and it means we have a choice. We either treat it with schoolboy simplicity, and choose for ourselves which bits of this muddle and contradictory text we follow. Or we actually credit the text and previous readers with some kind of integrity, and think carefully about the issues here—including whether we are imposing our own ideas on the text. I do this in some detail on this text and others in Paul at my blog http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/how-should-we-read-1-cor-14-34-35/
On Lev 18 I agree with you that this particular text is written in a particular social and cultural context, which for example determines the relevant penalty. Commentators are pretty much universal in recognising this. But the question is NOT does *this* text apply to us. The question is whether this issue is part of a single, culturally specific concern, or whether this particular cultural expression of an issue is just one part of a wider, consistent, trans-cultural concern throughout Scripture. The fact that all other texts in their varies historical, cultural and social contexts share a similar prohibition on same-sex acts does support this.
Dear Ian, and everyone who is taking the time and trouble to post on this thread – please could I ask that we treat each other’s views with respect and, while we’re taking the time to share our thoughts and opinions, take a little trouble also over how we express them? Terms like ‘schoolboy simplicity’ are not allowing for the fact that others may have read equally widely and drawn a different conclusion. Many thanks.
P.S. are we not told that we must become like children if we are to enter the kingdom of Heaven?
My apologies–I did not intend my comment to treat Iain’s with disrespect. I am not sure whether it is either possible or appropriate to get into the *content* of the discussion of the interpretation of texts, since your original post was about something else.
But what I did want to highlight is that Iain’s comment appeared to me to suggest that anyone defending the ‘traditional’ view was indeed treating these texts simplistically (‘It’s in Leviticus, so that’s settled it’) and that the position could be equally well refuted at this level.
I think it is really interesting that, for most people commenting in your support of your position, the arguments in relation to the Bible are very clear and very clearly also in support. You would not think from this that there was a considerable, learned, and respectable body of work in both academy and church exploring this issue, and that much of it does indeed support the traditional view.
My real concern in this whole debate is that the two have become quite separated. If the C of E is going to change it’s position, it is going to have to do that in the face of considerable arguments to the contrary in a way that it has never done before.
Ian – interesting blog post, though I could have done without the patronising sarcasm. Of course I wasn’t claiming to be the first person who spotted this. It seems convenient that you can claim there is “some evidence” that this wasn’t in the original text, or that maybe it meant chattering. How many other bits are there in the bible, perhaps less controversial, so not attracting scrutiny, are not in the original text and can be safely ignored, or perhaps meant something different from the given translation? The fact is, the passage on the face of it contradicts Paul’s earlier text AND it’s seen as socially unacceptable in the present day, so we look for excuses to say it doesn’t apply.
There also seems to be some evidence that the Leviticus sexual prohibitions were an arbitrary collection of rules that were edited in. As the Wikipedia page on Leviticus 18 points out, there is no prohibition on sex between father and daughter. The best explanation seems to be that it is obvious you wouldn’t do that. That seems rather a weak explanation to me.
As regards the New Testament references to homosexuality – I’m not convinced they aren’t independent of the Levitical prohibitions – if we assume, for the sake of argument that these referred to ritual prostitution. The Romans 1 passage states that the homosexual lusts were a punishment from God for the worship of idols. Also the word “arsenkoites” in I Cor 6:9 is simply a joining together of two words in the Septuagint translations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 – which would seem to me to constitute some evidence that Paul was referring to the same thing.
Yes I would agree with you that Paul is coining a word as reference to the Levitical prohibitions. Again this is quite well-established in the literary and again it is mostly ignored in contemporary debate (the standard line being that Paul is talking about abusive relationships). But I think the force of it is that Paul is applying this command more widely, ie lifting it out of its specific context, since he sees it as expressing a reality that belongs to the original creation order. we see links to creation language not only in this section of Leviticus but also in Romans 1 and elsewhere in Paul’s discussion about gender and sexuality. That doesn’t mean that he is referring to contexts of idol-worship.
Ian – sorry but I just don’t see your assertion that Paul is putting it in a wider context. The Romans 1 passage is very clear that men “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles” (surely a description of idolatory) and that as a consequence God gave them over to sinful desires.
Also if we look at I Corinthians 6:9, we have a list of evil-doers who won’t inherit the Kingdom of God we have:
The sexually immoral ( v15 equates this with sex with a prostitute)
Idolators
Adulterers
“Arsenkoitai” ( meaning of term under discussion at present)
Thieves
Greedy
Drunkards
Slanderers
Swindlers
All of these appear to be a thoroughly rotten lot who exploit other people, or worship idols.
Now compare this with a description of homosexual love from “Towards a Quaker View of Sex” ( an essay published 50 years ago last week – when homosexuality was still a criminal offence):
“An act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both, does not seem to us to be sinful by reason alone of the fact that it is homosexual.”
(Incidentally the same essay emphatically does NOT condone promiscuous sex or unbridled lust whether it be heterosexual or homosexual).
Now whether or not you agree with the second half of the sentence, does it not seem to be the case that “an act which expresses true affection between two individuals and gives pleasure to them both” sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of Paul’s list? The act described is one of love and affection between two individuals – no-one else is exploited, swindled, abused, cheated on etc etc.
So I think it’s inherently reasonable to interpret this as “sexually immoral homosexual acts” – men who have sex with men for thrills without a deep affectionate relationship, or men who use male prostitutes.
Iain I don’t think we can do detailed exegesis in a blog discussion (and I am concerned about trespassing further on Antonia’s hospitality). But I wonder if I could offer you not my view but the view of a number of leading scholars who have looked carefully at these texts and who, like you but unlike me, think the church should change.
“Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct” (Walter Wink)
“Professor Gagnon and I are in substantial agreement that the biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexual practice condemn it unconditionally…perhaps most importantly he [Paul] regards same-sex relations as contrary to nature (1.26-27), contrary to the order of the world as created by God.” (Dan O.Via)
“it is not surprising that, as most conclude, Paul employs same-sex relations as a proof of human sinfulness and assumes people would then share the presuppositions which led him to that conclusion, however we might assess them today” (William Loader)
“This is an issue of biblical authority. Despite much well-intentioned theological fancy footwork to the contrary, it is difficult to see the Bible as expressing anything else but disapproval of homosexual activity” (Diarmaid MacCulloch)
The condoning of slavery is equally clear. What’s your position on that?
No it isn’t. ‘In Christ there is neither slave nor free.’ Do read Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb.
But Ian, that verse goes on to say, ‘nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.’
“‘In Christ there is neither slave nor free.’”
Ian, that’s not a condemnation or prohibition on slavery. In Christ there is neither slave NOR free. If it said “In Christ there is no slavery” then you might have a point. Meanwhile, the OT has many, many verses condoning slavery, as I said. My point stands, and so does my question. I’ll ask it again:
“The condoning of slavery is equally clear. What’s your position on that?”
My position is that slavery was not part of the created order—in fact the idea in Genesis of humanity universally being made in the image of God strongly mitigates against it. The most central theological idea in the OT is expressed in the Exodus where God delivers his people from slavery and this is then carried over into the NT: Jesus is characterised as the one who delivers us from slavery. The slavery described in the OT law texts should really be understood as debt-bondage rather than slavery as practiced in the last few hundred years. It was an important economic mechanism to allow people to work themselves out of debt and did not eliminate what we might call human rights. And of course it was strictly limited. In the NT we have documents from a small and oppressed minority who were not in a position to campaign for change in their culture. Nevertheless Paul’s language as a ‘slave’ of Christ and his paradoxical language of Christ as liberator seriously undercut the idea that people should be slaves of one another. The ethical injunctions always remind masters that they actual have the same status before God as their slaves. Interestingly one of the condemnations of Rome in Revelation was for slave trading (Rev 18.13). Because of this significant theological content, those arguing for the abolition of slavery never had to say ‘The Bible approves of slavery, but we still think it is wrong.’ Instead, they drew on Scripture for their case.
By contrast, the creation accounts with their strong focus on male-female as the image of God, stand against same-sex sexual union. All the texts which refer to same-sex unions are negative, and so the discussion on the significance of the Bible in relation to our moral decision-making is quite different. There really is no parallel of the kind ‘We changed our mind on slavery despite what the Bible says, so we can do the same in relation to same-sex unions.’ The biblical data and shape of the arguments are quite distinct.
“The slavery described in the OT law texts should really be understood as debt-bondage … did not eliminate what we might call human rights.”
Sorry Ian, that doesn’t wash at all. The biblical rules on slavery allow that the children of your slaves can become your slaves. That doesn’t fit in with debt-bondage at all – how can you be a slave because of what your father did? And it certainly eliminates what *I* would call human rights.
“Those arguing for the abolition of slavery never had to say ‘The Bible approves of slavery, but we still think it is wrong.’ Instead, they drew on Scripture for their case.”
Perhaps. But the opposer of abolition certainly had no difficulty whatsoever finding multiple passages in the OT supporting slavery. Abolitionism was frequently branded an ‘atheist philosophy’.
Ex 21:7-11 – a man can sell his daughter into slavery to pay a debt
“And of course it was strictly limited”
Sure, according to Exodus 21:7-11, there are strict rules on how a man should treat a woman whose father has sold has sold her. But do you really support the idea of selling your daughter to pay off a debt in the first place, rules or no rules?
And how do you interpret Exodus 21:20-21
“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
It says ‘servant’ but many other interpretations say slave. Now, the best interpretation is that there’s no punishment if the slave recovers after a day or so. The worst is that there’s no punishment is the slave takes more than a couple of days to die! Either way, we’re talking severe injury at the least.
“The most central theological idea in the OT…”
And others have pointed out the central messages of Jesus was simply to love each other.
Sorry, Andrew—are you arguing that you think that, taken overall (rather than selecting proof texts) you think that the Bible *does* condone slavery as we understand it in the modern world?
Not sure what you mean by ‘overall’, but are there passages that clearly condone slavery? Obviously. Are you denying that?
As long as we aren’t clear what ‘overall’ means, then we have a problem with the discussion. Ethical thinking does need to be clear what the Bible ‘overall’ says, otherwise we are simply proof-texting. So, for sure, there might well be *some* verses that, when read in isolation, appear to give support to slavery. But that on its own does not settle anything.
“So, for sure, there might well be *some* verses that, when read in isolation, appear to give support to slavery. ”
We can remove the caveats from the above, because they aren’t needed:
“So, for sure, there are verses that support slavery”
They aren’t needed if you want to proof text. And since you can make any text, of any kind, mean anything once you remove it from its context, you have then given up on anything meaning anything.
The passages in question so CLEARLY condone slavery, that if you are able to convince yourself through spin that they mean anything else, then I’d figure you’d pretty much be able to interpret any text to mean anything you want. And then YOU have given up on anything meaning anything.
It’s got nothing to do with spin, and everything to do with reading texts alongside other texts. For most people thinking about issues of interpretation, this is a basic necessity.
“and everything to do with reading texts alongside other texts”
And as I said, the passages condoning slavery, including how the children of your slaves can also in turn become your slaves, do so in such an unambiguous fashion that any attempt to argue your way out of it is indeed spin. Thanks for the conversation, but I think we’re going round in circles. The one thing I can say is that since you do seem to reject the morality of slavery, there’s probably hope that you can some day reach the correct conclusion on gays too. All the best.
For me, I think our conversation illustrates that this debates (for Christians) is not just about culture or morality, but quite specifically about the role and interpretation of the Bible in Christian thinking.
But it would really help if all of us, in conversation, allow some integrity to the other party—for example, not writing off a well-considered and well-supported position as ‘spin’.
every blessing to you too.
“The most central theological idea in the OT is expressed in the Exodus where God delivers his people from slavery”
Right – he frees up HIS people. He never tells those people they shouldn’t keep slaves themselves. There’s no Commandment – “Don’t keep slaves”. And the strict rules for slave masters are all for when you’re enslaving other Jews. You get a lot more leeway when your slaves are gentiles.
“… and this is then carried over into the NT: Jesus is characterised as the one who delivers us from slavery”
Jesus clearly said he didn’t come to replace the OT law “but to fulfill it”, so there’s plenty of scope there for anti-abolitionists to say “See, you can’t say that slavery is now wrong simply because the New Testament did away with all that!”.
“There really is no parallel of the kind ‘We changed our mind on slavery despite what the Bible says, so we can do the same in relation to same-sex unions.”
I think there’s EXACTLY that parallel. It just doesn’t suit your argument to accept it.
If you want a short version of all that:
I don’t believe the abolitionists reached their position by carefully examining all the rules and edicts in the bible referencing slavery, freedom etc and weighing up whether on balance God was for or against it. Rather, they looked in their conscience, went to first principles, used common sense and concluded no loving God could condone slavery. Antonia and others supporting her here used the same process to reach their conclusion on gays.
I realise that this is not the place for detailed exegesis. But I am somewhat disappointed that you make no attempt to answer my question about I Cor 6:9, and instead choose to play the card of not trespassing on Antonia’s hospitality and then fob me off with a bunch of quotes that don’t answer the question.
I think my question is directly relevant to Antonia’s original post. Just as Antonia wasn’t prepared to sit and hear people she cares about described as evil, so am I not going to sit down quietly and hear that many of my friends who are homosexuals who are kind, compassionate and caring individuals (many of them are wonderful Samaritan volunteers for example), are to be categorized in the same group as drunkards, idolators, greedy, swindlers etc. If you are going to insist that Paul used the word from Leviticus and then placed it in a wider context and categorize all homosexuals as such, then to my mind this is little better than the pronouncements of the Westboro Baptist Church, except put more politely.
As I note you’re a friend on Facebook of Benny Hazlehurst, you presumably have read his testimony on the Accepting Evangelicals website of what happened when his wife was nearly killed after being run over by a truck – how his life and faith virtually fell apart, and the man who ministered to him, prayed with him, and held it all together with him was the gay almost-bishop Jeffrey John (right at the time when all the controversy broke and the press were camping out on his doorstep). That such a person of faith and goodness should be classified with drunkards, swindlers and the like is totally unacceptable. Either that bit of the bible is just plain wrong, or it means something other than what the traditionalist view takes it to mean.
You are all very welcome to debate and discuss here – I did invite you in, after all. And I am learning a great deal, and am grateful to everyone who’s read and responded.
‘Either that bit of the bible is just plain wrong, or it means something other than what the traditionalist view takes it to mean.’ But only if you accept your premise that people who do good things cannot be wrong on other things.
Personally, I would certainly aspire to the kind of compassionate action that characterises Jeffrey John’s ministry, and in many respects he is an excellent and engaging Bible teacher. But there is really good evidence that the passage in 1 Cor 6 *does* mean what ‘traditionalists’ have argued for. So the dichotomy is now ‘Jeffrey John is right, or that bit of the Bible is wrong.’ That is the dichomoty we are in, and I think an increasing number of commentators (on both sides of the discussion) think this, as I point out in this blog entry. http://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-bible-and-the-gay-debate/
Thank you for writing this, I hope I would have your courage in a similar situation. What you have written certainly inspires me to hope that I would have
.
It really didn’t feel like a choice at the time! Thank you so much for responding.
Thank you so much for this excellent piece and, most of all, for the courage you showed.
I add my plea to yours – Justin Welby, I want to be part of your church, I want to put on my dog collar again and stand up publicly as a priest. But, all the while things are fudged and gay clergy are asked (even if only at selection stage) to affirm that they will live by the rule of celibate-only relationships, I just can’t do so and keep my sanity or integrity.
Yesterday I rediscovered a piece I wrote in a parish magazine as a curate, during an inter-regnum, fifteen years ago. I said that it boiled down to this – when a same-sex couple asks for a blessing on their lifetime commitment do we say “yes, this is true love, a reflection of God’s love” and bless, or do we say it’s not real, it’s a pretence, and withhold our blessing. I said the Church of England was trying to make up its mind – fifteen years, and two Archbishops of Canterbury, massive shifts in society, and the CofE is STILL trying to decide and doesn’t seem to have got much further.
Of the many comments I’ve received, only one has had even vaguely negative content. I do hope this means that things are moving forward at last. Thank you for sharing your story here.
Well said, Antonia. The Anglican Church I serve is in Australia, in the Diocese of Sydney, and in our parish we seek to share God’s unconditional love and acceptance of all people, regardless of age, gender, race, marital or family status, sexual orientation, disability or wealth. It is not for us to define God’s will or God’s plan, or to decide who is and who isn’t part of it. We are here to help each other walk the mile and share the load.
Rev’d Gwilym Henry-Edwards
That is a wonderful thing to hear. Thank you for taking the time to tell me of your all-embracing parish.
How sincere and heartfelt your article is! It can be really scary to feel like that, but to have the courage of your convictions is exactly what Jesus meant when he said that unless a person takes up the cross, they cannot be his disciple. You truly took up the cross at the moment you stood up. Well done for having the courage to love as Jesus loves us!
From even further away in Australia.
It’s amazing to me to think of you reading this in Australia!Thank you, Jennifer.
Sarah, Click on the comment. Then you can get to the blog. This is the one I was telling you about. Kay Smith Riggle
“Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce.” Molly Ivins
________________________________
Thank you, indeed. Well said.
And thank you for taking the time to leave a comment.
A sincere thank you for standing up. I know how alone that can feel.
That means a great deal – thank you.
Here, here! (Courage I am ashamed to say I probably don’t have.)
Maybe there’ll come a time when you have no choice. That’s all it was. Thank you for commenting.
May you experience great joy in the oxygen that your courage and your faith will supply. — Louie Crew
Thank you, Louie – much appreciated.
I agree – a beautifully written and moving piece. Thank you for putting it so well and having the courage to stand up for your convictions. Not long ago, the house-group leaders from my church sent round an email to our group inviting us to sign the “Coalition for Marriage”. I immediately replied to all the group saying exactly why I was NOT going to sign the petition. In fact I got support from someone I wouldn’t have expected. Then, last week, several months later, the house-group leader told me he’d read and taken on board what I had said, that it was good and from the heart and that he was starting to think more seriously about it. I don’t think he’d changed his mind, but at least was starting to listen and take the other side seriously. I’m not sure I’d have been as brave as you in actually standing up in public! That takes much more courage than sending an email!
Thank you, Iain. Listening is the first step to understanding, so don’t underestimate the courage you showed.
Antonia, I was wondering what you made of Justin Welby’s recent comments that the church has to repent of homophobia etc? It seems his strongest statement yet – though he still has not changed the stance on gay marriage, but it would appear that his is thinking seriously about it, and prepared to listen. Perhaps, as another poster has suggested, it would be a good idea to send your blog post to him and see what the response is. I was surprised at the response to my email I referred to above.
Although an evangelical church attender, I have to say initially my heart sank when I read that they’d appointed an evangelical ABC as I felt he was more likely to be opposed to homosexual rights than Rowan Williams. But I am pleasantly surprised to find that he seems more decisive than his predecessor, and it appears there is a genuine willingness to listen.
Although I am heterosexual myself, I have to say that the “Conservative” church’s response to this issue has rather driven me away & my main place of worship now is the local Quaker meeting; to anyone reading this who is gay and feels alienated from their church I’d just say that Quakers are totally accepting and non-judgmental about sexuality and relationship status & were one of the first to seek a change in the law (in 2009) allowing them to conduct same-sex religious marriage services.
Thank you for the advice regarding Quaker meetings. I agree that Justin Welby seems to be truly engaging with this issue – the very fact that he said that young people would find the Church’s stance inexplicable shows his awareness. I am very hopeful – which is why I was moved to write this piece. I would love him to see it – but how to get it to him? I have tried Twitter.
Hi, Antonia, I somewhat doubt if using Twitter is going to be the best way of getting ++Justin’s attention – he has over 40,000 Followers on twitter and many tweets addressed to his account. He recently posted that he was sorry not to be able to respond to all of them, just insufficient time.
However – I don’t know what to suggest instead 🙁 Perhaps go to his website and see if there is a contact address.
Another possibility is Bishop Alan Wilson, who is on Facebook. Indeed it was on here that I’d seen the link to this article! He seems to be very much supportive of gay rights (and I think marriage) and he may have the ear of the Archbishop – or at least be able to suggest how best to get his attention.
Thank you – very constructive ideas.
This articulates so much better than I ever could, the deepest feelings of dismay and anger felt by many Christians over Justin Welby’s recent remarks. Thank you Antonia, I’m sharing this as widely as possible.
Thank you, Kate. I appreciate that so much.
Brava, Amen and God Bless … from across the pond.
The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena (Diocese of Los Angeles)
Thank you so much. I had no idea this post had crossed the pond!
Thank you for standing up and speaking in church. And thank you for sharing your witness with the rest of us. God bless you and grant you strength!
Thank you Paula. May you soon have the right to be a bishop.
A very good read – sad in detail, but spot on.
Thank you so much for reading, and taking the time to comment.
A wonderful piece. I’m pleased that I belong to a Parish which doesn’t discriminate and wouldn’t dream of allowing someone to speak to the congregation in that way. I’m afraid that there are still to many places where people hold views that don’t accord with Jesus’ 2nd Greatest Commandment.and the last one that he gave his disciples “Love each other as I have loved you”.
I wonder if I’d have been able to sit down again in the face of such ignorance? Probably not.
I was shaking too much to do anything else! But you’re right. Thank you for commenting.
Well done Antonia for taking a stand and this very thoughtful piece.
Thank you so much for taking the time to make such a lovely response.
Thank you for this beautiful written and very moving piece. For those of us whose relationship with the church we love and have often dedicated significan portions of our lives to is complicated by the constant fear of that kind of crushing and callous rejection over being the individuals we believe God created us to be, it’s wonderful and heartening to read such words of allyship and love.
Thank you, Matthew.