A thread on ethical reasoning and the normativity of scripture in Christian theology: sexuality as a test case.

Let me first say that my academic training is in philology, so I do not consider myself a theologian per se. Nevertheless I have some thoughts, and perhaps some of them might help The Discourse™.

This thread is mostly prompted by the recent release of the #LLF materials in the Church of England, which have created quite a stir and not a few disagreements over sexuality.

You can read more about that here: https://www.churchofengland.org/resources/living-love-and-faith.

Alright, let's begin. Conservative, non-affirming Christians often argue that Christians taking an affirming position on sexuality are "disobedient". But in what way are Christians supposed to "submit" or "obey" scripture?

It is crucial to recognize that, regarding the normativity of scripture, Christians are *necessarily* selective when they read scripture.

For example, Christians think some commands are normative for them, but others are not. Christians consider some commands not to be normative because they were commanded at a certain time for certain contingent reasons.

Other commands however are read as being fully applicable for everyone at all times. Let’s call these commands "absolutely normative".

Many christian theologians and pastors (etc.) often say that all of scripture is absolutely normative, and that Christians must unequivocally "submit" to it. This rhetoric often emerges in debates over sexuality.

But this move, in my view, is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually naive (or both). The people who say the commands of scripture are absolutely normative do not themselves obey every command in scripture.

Few Christians are looking to build a tabernacle, which Exodus commands (Ex 25.8). Apart from certain messianic Jews, Christians do not obey purity codes, which the Torah commands. No Christians are looking to kill any leftover Canaanites, which Deuteronomy commands (Dt 7.1–2).

The reason that Christians (generally) do not obey these commands is that they consider them contingent.

For example, as regards the purity code, Christians often make a redemptive-historical argument that the Torah was given particularly to the nation of Israel and/or only for a limited time until the coming of Jesus.

It is important to note that this conclusion is not at all derivable from the text of the Torah itself. Rather, this argument is made from the perspective of redemptive history. The argument is made from things external to the original text.

In Matthew 19, Jesus makes a similar argument. First, Jesus argues that a married couple should not get divorced (later in the passage he makes an exception for adultery).

The Pharisees rightly point out however that Deuteronomy 24.1 proceeds on the assumption that a man can permissibly divorce his wife, even simply if “she becomes displeasing to him”.

The Pharisees’ argument is a good one: the text of Deuteronomy assumes that divorce is fine, so how could Jesus override that and claim that this is not absolutely normative?

Jesus counters by arguing that command presupposed certain contingent assumptions: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but in the beginning it was not so”.

He then adds an appeal to Genesis, arguing that the ideal in the beginning was that a man and woman would stay together because they are "one flesh".

Thus, Jesus makes an argument about the contingent circumstances of a certain command, and on that basis he disregards certain aspects of that command as not absolutely normative.

And moreover, Jesus undermines the absolute normativity of a particular command (Deut 24.1) in scripture by appeal to another text in scripture (Genesis)

A similar move happens in Galatians 3.11–12. Paul qualifies the relevance of (or denies the relevance of!) Leviticus 18.5—"the one who does them will live by them"—by appealing to Habakkuk 2.4—"the righteous from faith will live".

This move is used in the context of an ethical dispute, in which Paul argues that Gentiles should not adopt the practice of circumcision.

Later, in Galatians 5.14, Paul appeals to Leviticus 19:18—"love your neighbour as yourself"—as absolutely normative, even for Gentiles. So Paul can take two originally absolutely normative texts and select one of them as applicable and the other as non-applicable.

***Here is the crucial question***: Does the normativity of scripture consist only in what it commands, or is the theological reasoning it employs also ethically normative?

That is should Christians only copy what scripture says to do or not do (which, I argue, nobody does anyways), or should Christians also employ the same kind of *interpretative principles* which scripture employs to make ethical conclusions?

Personally, I think the latter is more compelling. Scripture does not just tell Christians what to do and not do (though it in part functions that way), but it also teaches Christians how to read and engage scripture itself.

In that case, the same kinds of theological reasoning which is operative in Jesus qualifying Deuteronomy 24 by appeal to Genesis should not be treated as a unique and unrepeatable interpretative move.

Rather, one could argue that this kind of reasoning is instructive for how Christians should treat all of scripture, including the New Testament itself.

Why shouldn't Christians ethically engage the New Testament in the same way that the New Testament critically engages the Hebrew Bible?

If the New Testament treats certain commands in the Torah (which were originally absolutely normative) as contingent (and thus not to be practiced), why can't Christians treat absolutely normative commands in the New Testament as contingent (and thus not to be practiced)?

What if Christians envisaged "submitting" to scripture as including developing the interpretative practices exemplified in it?

The irony here is interesting: "obeying" scripture in this sense—by developing and redeploying scripture's own interpretative practices—means *not* treating every originally absolutely normative command as absolutely normative.

If the New Testament's reading of the Hebrew Bible teaches Christians how to read scripture as a whole, then this cannot be disqualified as a legitimate theological option.

So let's turn to the question of sexuality. Let's proceed on the assumption for the moment that scripture (both Hebrew Bible and NT) straightforwardly prohibits homosexuality. We must ask: should Christians treat these commands as absolutely normative?

It often occurs that affirming Christians will appeal to the principle of love (which is obviously all throughout scripture) to treat the prohibitions against homosexuality not absolutely normative.

Is this not analogous to the argument Jesus makes in Matthew 19 and Paul makes in Galatians 3?—using one text and making it qualify another text so that the latter is not absolutely normative.

One could also argue that certain contingent assumptions about sexuality and gender were operative when Paul (for example) depicts homosexuality as evil (e.g. Romans 1), and that these assumptions do not need to be adopted because they result in harm and thus are not loving.

(One could also make a redemptive-historical argument, which I won't venture into, but see Robert Song's book: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13558358.2017.1343574 )

One may reply and claim that this is cherry-picking what is absolutely normative and what is not. Why should one take Paul's commands to love as normative, but not his prohibitions against homosexuality?

Well, I would reply: How can Paul take Leviticus 19.18 as normative, but treat Leviticus 18.5 as not normative? Scripture does this to itself.

The theological arguments made by Paul and Jesus problematizes the common insistence of non-affirming Christians' that affirming Christians are not "submitting" to scripture.

There are valid theological reasons for claiming that the principle of love overrides the prohibitions against homosexuality in scripture. One could debate the particulars of course, but such ethical moves are not unfamiliar to scripture itself.

One implication of this is that non-affirming Christians should stop ridiculing affirming Christians as theologically naive. The arguments for an affirming position are not as far-fetched as non-affirming Christians make them out to be.

In fact, they often deploy the some the forms of ethical and interpretative reasoning exemplified in scripture itself. //END.