Last week, Martyn Snow, the bishop of Leicester and current lead for the Living in Love and Faith process debating sexuality in the Church of England, wrote an article in the Church of England Newspaper arguing that ‘Unity Matters—it really matters’. The article, and comments he makes in support of it, set out some remarkable and revealing claims.
Martyn’s central use of Phil 2.2 ‘being in full accord and of one mind’ is fascinating. He deploys a classic rhetorical strategy by bundling together something we would obviously reject with the thing he wants to challenge: ‘this verse does not imply sameness or agreement’. We would naturally reject the idea that we should all be ‘the same’—but why does this verse suggest we should not be in agreement on core Christian teaching? Indeed, he immediately notes how both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria draw on this passage to prove points of Christian doctrine.
The first of Paul’s two terms, sumpsychos, occurs only here in the New Testament, but is a compound of a well-known term psyche, sometimes translated ‘soul’ but really referring to a person’s whole life. The compound term Paul uses here has the sense of being in harmony, a deep unity of life. It is a striking contrast to the effect of the direction of travel some bishops are pushing the Church, causing deep division and anxiety. There is not a denomination anywhere in the world where pushing for a change in the historic understanding of marriage has not led to division and decline. One English bishop even told their evangelical clergy that, if they did not like the direction of travel ‘you can leave the Church’. This is not a picture of harmony! If ‘unity really matters’, we might ask why so many of the English bishops are pushing us down such a provocative and divisive path. If ‘unity really matters’, why has Justin Welby gone down a route which has split the Anglican Communion?
The second of Paul’s terms is clearly important to him, since he repeats it: ‘being of the same mind [literally ‘thinking the same’] … and of one mind [literally, ‘thinking the one (thing)]. The verb phroneo refers widely to our thinking; of course this includes our attitude to and regard for one another, but this cannot be separated from our understanding of faith. The related noun phronesis refers to the faculty of thinking and planning, the ability to understand, have insight, and be intelligent. It is a term Paul uses often in Philippians, in Phil 3.15 associating it with maturity of faith.
Paul was clear that there are some things about the Christian faith which are disputed, and about which we can ‘agree to disagree.’ In Romans 14, he includes issues about obedience to the food laws and observations of festivals; it is fine to have two views on these, so long as one group does not impose its views on the other. But sexual ethics and the understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman is never one of these ‘indifferent’ issues. It is striking that the bishops of the Church of England have yet to offer any argument as to why we should believe sexuality is a ‘thing indifferent’, on which there can be more than one view without this threatening our unity.
The reason that our understanding of sexuality and marriage is not a ‘thing indifferent’ is that Paul believes this teaching is rooted in our understanding of God as creator, making humanity male and female in his own image. This reflects Jesus’ own teaching in Matt 19 when asked about marriage, and both Paul and Jesus express the Jewish consensus which set all Jews apart from gentile attitudes to sex and sexuality. The creation of humanity, male and female, in God’s image, is a core creedal question and thus male-female marriage has always been a core ethical distinctive of the people of God.
Diaspora Jews had made sexual immorality and especially homosexual activity a major distinction between themselves and gentiles, and Paul repeated Diaspora Jewish vice lists (E P Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters and Thought pp 344).
Thus, for Paul, turning from sin and entering the new creation of the kingdom (2 Cor 5.17) means rejecting same-sex sexual intimacy (1 Cor 6.9)—along with other patterns of sinful behaviour which are incompatible with the kingdom life of holiness Jesus calls us to. Paul does not make a big deal of this—but assumes the Christians in Corinth understand it. It is part of their ‘one mind’.
But Martyn appears to take a very different view from Paul on how we should approach this question. He posted the text of his CEN article on Facebook, and in response one observer asked:
Can you explain how unity can exist, unless the Church of England collectively decides whether same-sex sex is either a) sin or b) not sin? If it is sin, how can any Christian leader accept the blasphemy of asking God to bless it? If it is not sin, how can any Christian leader accept the bigotry of continuing to discriminate against those who want same-sex marriage in a church?
Martyn replied: ‘But what if we can’t decide? Some say one thing, and others (equally genuine) say another. What then do we do?’
This gets to the heart of the issue. Let’s put aside for the moment the consistency, clarity, and coherence of the biblical texts on this question. Let’s also put aside the uniformity and consistency of the reception of these texts in churches of every tradition, culture and place, so that male-female marriage has been the consensus view of the church catholic down the ages. Let’s also put aside the overwhelming consensus of critical scholarship on what scripture says and how consistently it rejects same-sex sexual relationships (see a list of quotations here). These views are typical:
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, “Homosexuality and the Bible”).
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, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided, 1490-1700, p 705).
The task demands intellectual honesty. I have little patience with efforts to make Scripture say something other than what it says, through appeals to linguistic or cultural subtleties. The exegetical situation is straightforward: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good (Luke Timothy Johnson).
Instead, let’s just focus on the Church of England’s own doctrine, liturgy, and canons. These are completely clear and consistent that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that sexual intimacy outside of male female marriage is sin. This is how Canon B30 expresses it:
B 30 Of Holy Matrimony
The Church of England affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better for worse, till death them do part, of one man with one woman, to the exclusion of all others on either side, for the procreation and nurture of children, for the hallowing and right direction of the natural instincts and affections, and for the mutual society, help and comfort which the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. [emphasis added]
Note that this is not simply a decision made by the Church; this is the teaching of Jesus in the gospels which we have inherited, as a Church whose doctrine is ‘grounded in the Holy Scriptures’ (Canon A5) and is expressed in our historic formularies:
In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
This understanding of marriage has been confirmed in Synod Questions by the Bishop of London in the last year, and the Bishop in Europe further confirmed that this is not a ‘thing indifferent’ on which we can ‘agree to disagree’. It is this doctrine which Synod has voted will not change.
And all clergy have taken public vows at ordination that they believe the doctrine of the Church of England, that they will uphold it, and that they will teach and expound it.
Do you believe the doctrine of the Christian faith as the Church of England has received it, and in your ministry will you expound and teach it?
Ordinands I believe it and will so do.
This includes the teaching of Jesus on marriage which is expressed in Canon B30 and explained in the marriage liturgy.
How, then, can we be ‘undecided’? How can some believe one thing, and others another?
Read it all in Psephizo
