Adapted from a sermon preached on
The Second Sunday after Epiphany
at The Anglican Church of St. Thomas the Apostle, Kefalas, Crete
17 January 2024

The readings used were 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Psalm 139:1-9, and John 1:43-51. See the note at the end of this post to see why the selection of readings differed slightly from what the Common Worship suggested.    

Introduction

I am a member of the General Synod of the Church of England. One of the issues that we have spent much time on is what we can do pastorally for people who are in same-sex relationships. For some the answer is that we should advise them to get married, and, either in the service of Holy Matrimony or in a service of following a civil marriage, receive God’s blessing. Others see homosexual relations as sinful and counter to God’s written word and the teaching of the church, and so such proposals for blessing are unacceptable. Given this division within the Church of England the House of Bishops has proposed a compromise, in which the individuals in the couple are blessed, but not as a sexually active couple as such. The proposed blessings bless all that is good in the relationship, but there are no vows, no rings, no pronouncement that they are married. The proposals are silent about whether the couple are in a platonic relationship or sexually active, and whether they are married, in a civil union, or “just good friends”. These proposals are very optional, and no cleric is obliged to use them.

For some in the church this is still too much, a defining moment as to whether we follow scripture or whether we abandon it in favour of the mores of a depraved world. For others it is the most pastoral thing to do, given the circumstances of a divided church where no change to the marriage liturgy would be approved by the necessary 2/3rds super-majority of the three houses of General Synod. For many it is too little, too late. Of course, many people do not have a strong opinion one way or another, and would rather focus on other issues.

I do have an opinion. Personally I am in favour of such blessings, and while in Canada as a part of the Diocese of British Columbia, before moving to the Diocese in Europe and the Church of England, I blessed two same-sex marriages. Why do I feel this way? My reasons for doing so are, contrary to what some conservative Evangelicals or conservative Anglo-Catholics might believe, grounded in scripture, and especially in today’s first reading, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. So let me give you my understanding of Christian ethics – how we make decisions about what the right thing to do is.  

Paul’s Ethic of Freedom

My understanding of Christian ethics is specifically Pauline, and arises out of a problem he had with the members of the church in Corinth. We read in today’s first reading,

‘All things are lawful for me’, but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me’, but I will not be dominated by anything.

1 Corinthians 6.12 (NRSV)

Now, in most modern translations, “‘All things are lawful for me’” is in quotation marks, because Paul appears to be quoting something he had said to the church in Corinth, and had written in a previous letter to them, a letter which he refers to but is no longer extant.

‘All things are lawful for me’ is a powerful principle, and is rooted in the idea that in Christ believers are freed from the dictates of the Torah, and inspired by the Holy Spirit to do what God wants. In the gospel Jesus’s Jewish disciples are not portrayed as particularly observant, and in the Acts of the Apostles chapter 15 we read how Gentile converts are not required to be circumcised, how they need not follow the dietary rules, but just to avoid food sacrificed to idols, to avoid eating things strangled and food made out of blood, and avoid what in Greek is called τῆς πορνείας.

Well, some of the Corinthians appear to have been at least confused, and perhaps thought that anything goes. So Paul comes back in the First Letter to the Corinthians, and says, “not all things are beneficial” and “I will not be dominated by anything.”

This, then, appears to set the criteria by which Christians act – does it build up? Is a particular habit or behaviour create a form of domination over the Christian believer? The criteria are rooted in a sense that the Christian houses the Holy Spirit like the Temple in Jerusalem housed the Presence of God. Therefore the body is holy, and one should act in ways that glorify God.

So what rules must one follow? Obviously the ones which glorify God, which build up the individual and the church and the community, and those in which God is central, and something worldly does not take precedence. For the first Christians, for example, this meant that military service in the armies and navies of the Roman Empire was not acceptable, because its object was to glorify Rome, the Emperor, and his selfish, pagan goals. As well, the Empire was violent, and violence does not build up but is destructive. After all, it executed Jesus.

The Canadian Biblical scholar Peter Richardson wrote:

It is essential to note that primitive Christian communities did not adopt a laissez-faire attitude toward ethics. Behaviour was extremely important. Improper behaviour was condemned and good behaviour praised. It was not enough for Paul simply to leave them on their own with the Holy Spirit. Important as the Spirit was in directing the morality and conduct of Christians, advice, exhortation, and encouragement from those more mature was still necessary because of the struggle between flesh and Spirit, between law and license. Consistently maturing behaviour was most important. Basically the goal was to be an imitator of Paul, an imitator of Christ, filled with the fruit of the Spirit.

Peter Richardson, Paul’s Ethic of Freedom (Philadelphia PA: The Westminster Press, 1979), p. 82

First Corinthians deals with a variety of ethical issues, including: lawsuits between Christians before pagan judges; divisions in the church rooted in charismatic leaders; whether to eat food offered to idols or accept dinner invitations from pagan friends; a kind of sexual immorality that Paul does not name but may have involved incest; and whether to get married. He also deals with more doctrinal issues, such as the resurrection of the dead, gifts of the Holy Spirit, and how to manage the Lord’s Supper. In all of these cases he seems to apply the ethical principles suggested above, warning and admonishing the congregation in Corinth as they struggle with the flesh and the Spirit.

We can see this in chapter 7 of First Corinthians. In that previous letter to the Corinthians he appears to have written “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” They must have written back with some confusion, asking if he was serious that they should not marry. Thus he replies that “because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” He encourages them to give themselves to each other equally in an egalitarian description of sexual relations. He then goes on to say, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.” Here we see Paul giving advice, but then almost immediately qualifying it. Even while advising the congregation, he is respectful of the free choice of the members. He then notes situations where one of the couple is an unbeliever. He advises that if both are Christian they should not separate and remarry others, but live chastely and work on reconciliation. However, if an unbelieving spouse divorces the believing one, then the Christian ex-spouse is free to remarry. One gets the impression that Paul is working this out as he dictates the letter to his amanuensis.

So what about other sexual relations? Τῆς πορνείας, one of the things forbidden in Acts 15, can be translated as fornication, but I suggest, based on a careful reading of related passages in the New Testament, that we need to read that in the context of slavery and patriarchy. In the Greek and Roman establishment slaves had no rights, and the owners of slaves, particularly the male ones, used them for sexual gratification, regardless of what the slaves themselves thought. Likewise, women had no rights, and were potentially subject to the whims of their paterfamilias – who they would marry, how often they would have sex, whether the new-born children would be kept or exposed, and so forth. In contrast Paul and Jesus transgresses the lines separating male and female, slave and free, not to abuse or separate oneself from them, but to treat them as equals and work collectively to God’s glory. Thus, Paul’s concerns might be that Christian men might, if frustrated sexually with their wives, might take advantage of their slaves, or rape their wives; as well, most sex workers in that time were enslaved, and trafficked by their owners. According to the pagan mores of the times a male having sex with a slave or forcing his wife to have sex was just fine. So, In First Corinthians 7 Paul responds with an emphasis upon partners freely giving themselves to each other, coming to agreements about when not to have sex, and staying faithful within the marriage. Likewise, the prohibition in Acts 15 against τῆς πορνείας may have had a similar connotation. There Christian attitudes would have struck pagan outsiders as very peculiar.

Note that Paul does not quote legal passages from the scriptures and then develop an application for the rule. Paul does quote scripture, often, but he does it in support of the Christian ethic of freedom described above. An example of this is his use of Psalm 24.1 in 1 Corinthians 10.26. Christian ethics, then, is not the simple following of rules derived from passages extracted from the Bible, treating scripture as if it were a civil and criminal code, but rather it is based on the holy understanding of the centrality of honouring the divine, of building up the body of Christ, and extending the kingdom. It is rooted in an understanding of who Jesus is and how we are transformed by his example – a self-sacrificing person who is non-violent and loving, critical of those who are in power and lifting up the poor and hungry, who pours himself out for others. We are called to be imitators of him, and by God’s grace we are becoming what he already is.

No Easy Answers

Now, the challenging thing about this ethic of freedom is that it means we need to work out our salvation and what we will do. It is not just blindly following rules. Interestingly, the church has moved on in issues that in the early church were considered non-negotiable.

• Thus, going back to the expectation of early Christians that one could not serve in the armed forces of the Roman Empire, what do you do if the empire has become led by Christians, as it did with Constantine the Great and his successors in the Fourth Century CE? Is it permissible for Christians to engage in a defensive war? Can the sovereign engage in an offensive war for defensive purposes? Is violence justified in the name of evangelism? It was questions like this that led Augustine of Hippo in the early Fifth Century to develop his “just war theory” which continues to influence international conflict to this day. Of course, some, like Quakers and Mennonites, affirm that pacifism is the only true Christian way, and that the Fifth Commandment “You shall not kill” is absolute; I wish I had the radical courage to be a pacifist, but the truth is that I do believe people do have the right to defend themselves and that killing enemies may in some cases be justified.
• For centuries Christians were forbidden to lend money at interest; both the Roman Catholic Church and the churches of the Reformation believed that a loan any interest rate other than 0% was unacceptable. In the Middle Ages with the rise of banks in Italian city states this prohibition was defined so that what was forbidden was usury, or lending money at extortionate rates. In the early modern era, with the establishment of private banks and national banks, the prohibition was viewed as naive and not informed by modern economics. Most Christians today would say that earning interest and giving loans at interest is just part of the economy.
• Slavery is another issue where the Christian consensus has moved. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, for the most part, accept slavery as a universal institution. There are exceptions – Israel’s slavery in Egypt is unacceptable, and God commands Moses to help free his people from Pharaoh’s yoke. Paul does advise slaves to avail themselves of gaining their freedom if they can, and in the Letter to Philemon he more or less orders the recipient to free Onesimus, a slave who had run away. That said, freedom from slavery in Christian history was all too often spiritualised into freedom from sin and death – important enough, but a severe minimization of the oppression of slavery and the benefits of actual freedom. Only in the Nineteenth Century did radical Christians – often Quakers and Unitarians – begin to advocate not only for the freedom of some slaves, but for the abolition of it as an institution. Under the influence of leaders such as William Wilberforce in England and William Lloyd Garrison in the United States abolitionism became mainstream. It is unthinkable now that any true Christian would justify slavery.

So, how do we decide what’s the right thing to do? Well, one thing that is obvious to me is that we do not just quote passages from scripture and then build up on argument on them. We engage with scripture, but in a critical way, beginning with the historico-critical methods available to us. We consider the context of when a particular passage was written, and what the words might have meant at that time. I know some people claim that they just follow the “pain meaning” of scripture, but too often I find the “plain meaning” rather elusive. It is indeed be the case that “all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3.16), but that begs the question that we know how to read the scripture correctly. Certainly Paul is flexible in his use of the Old Testament, deriving Christological and ethical principles that are surprising and sometimes contrary to what some have read out of them. In the same way that he justified his ministry to the Gentiles and their freedom from the Torah, so the Church has felt free to change its mind on lending money, on taking up arms in defense of one’s country, and on slavery. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but the way the Body of Christ is in the world will change, devolve, and evolve.

In deciding what to do we may begin with scripture, but we do not stop there. We also engage with the Christian system of thought and prior theologies of good and evil, right and wrong. Thus, we look to the words of Jesus and the principles behind them, as well as those of the prophets and the apostles. We consider what previous theologians and ethicists have said, and enter into dialogue with them.

As well, we engage with various philosophies of ethics. Since before the time of Christ philosophers have advocated a variety of methodologies to determine what is right. Michael Sandel in his 2009 book Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? notes the major kinds of ethical systems popular in Western society today, among them utilitarianism, libertarianism, deontology (consistent following of rules derived from reason), consequencialism, “justice as fairness”, virtue ethics, and communitarian liberalism. The most developed Christian ethical system is probably that of Thomas Aquinas, which is based in Aristotle, scripture, Augustine, and some original thought, always but rooted in his particular understanding of an individual’s salvation from sin and death and sanctification in life. Aquinas is a typical Christian ethicist in that it has a strong metaphysical component. Lutheran and Calvinist ethics are likewise complicated in their dependence on scripture and tradition, their understandings of salvation, and the metaphysics inhering in all of that,

In truth, Christians rarely agree on what the right thing to do is. Thus, we disagree and differ. This is not necessarily a problem, unless it descends into violence and schism. It was in argument and disagreement that some of the best theology was formed. We should not be surprised that in our day there are disagreements, just as there were back in the days when slavery was considered part of the accepted order, when banks did not exist in Christian realms, and all Christians were pacifists.

It is on this basis that I have gone ahead and blessed same-sex two couples who were legally married by civil authorities. Just as it was allowed in my old Diocese of British Columbia, so I advocate that it should be allowed in the Church of England. I do not foresee this happening any time soon, but it may yet come to pass. I expect that some of you reading this may disagree with my opinion, but please do me the favour of not insulting me by saying that I am somehow being unbiblical or unfaithful to Christian tradition. I believe that my advocacy of same-sex marriage and same-sex blessings is very much rooted in the Bible, specifically a Pauline approach to ethics, and that my approach (and that of others) fits with many changes in teaching doctrine that were once considered unacceptably radical, but are now mainstream. If we disagree, let us remain in dialogue, and pray that the Holy Spirit unfolds the truth before us.

A note on the readings: I usually follow the Common Worship Lectionary, which is a modified version of the Revised Common Lectionary. Some Sundays I might omit the first reading from the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible or the second reading from Acts/Epistles/Revelation, leaving just two readings, always including the appointed gospel. Most of the time the Common Worship Lectionary and the Revised Common Lectionary are identical, but sometimes they differ a bit. This was one of those times! Had I properly followed the Common Worship Lectionary I would have chose two readings from 1 Samuel 3.1-10 (11-20); Psalm 139.1-5, 12-18 (139.1-9); Revelation 5.1-10; John 1.43-end; instead, I looked at an Episcopal Church website which had a different second reading, namely, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20. So, that is why our congregation wound up having a reading that day which probably no one else in the Church of England did. It was an honest mistake!