| Home |
by The Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music The Section on Scripture by The Reverend Dr. L. William Countryman Introduction This essay is an study of the section on Scripture, written by L. William Countryman, belonging to a document published by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music.(0) Prior to the 2000 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music released a report of same sex unions. That committee had been directed by the 72nd General Convention of the Episcopal Church "to continue its study of theological aspects of committed relationships of same sex couples, and to issue a full report including recommendations of future steps for the resolution of issues related to such committed relationships no later than November 1999 for consideration at the 73rd convention." The report by the Standing Commission on Liturgy and Music is a series of essays by members of the Episcopal Church. In spite of the fact that there are a number of different authors, several observations hold for all of them, individually and as a whole. First, the essays have no theological section, nor do they appear to have a consciously articulated theology. For this reason they do not address the "theological aspects of committed relationships of same sex couples." Secondly, in spite of the fact that the report articulates no real theology, there is a theology that underlies the essays. Like almost everything put out by the advocates of homosexual unions, that theology is a version of what I have termed the "ecstatic heresy." The writers of this report seem unaware of their governing theology. If they had been aware of it, they could set if forth in a conscious fashion and compare it to other theological alternatives. That does not happen. This means that those readers who lack a knowledge of theological alternatives have no defense against the conclusions of the report itself. In other words, the report is unbalanced, completely so. Thirdly, in spite of its calls for understanding, dialogue, listening to those with whom they might disagree, the report gives little evidence of having investigated the strongest theological positions contrary to its perspective. For these reasons, the report can only be considered a piece of propaganda. Countryman's begins by briefly describing the Anglican understanding of biblical authority. He claims that Anglican holds to a minimalist view of Scripture. By this he means that Anglicans are not required to believe things that cannot be proved by Scripture (Article VI). Further, Anglicanism asserts the unity of the Old and New Testaments, and limits "the applicability of the Torah" (Article VII). He also notes that tradition and reason play a role in Anglican biblical interpretation, and refers to Hooker on the role of reason. By reason Countryman means such matters as "knowledge of ancient languages, to history, culture, and systems of Christian theology, and to the larger world in which we are endeavoring to live as faithful people." All of this is true, in so far as it goes. On the other hand, Countryman ignores a number of critical Anglican beliefs. First, Anglicanism looks to the Creeds, to orthodox theology, to the interpretative tradition church, especially the Church Fathers, as providing the direction needed to rightly interpret Scripture. Within the Anglican Communion the accepted norms of authority are located first in the faith declared in Scripture, then in the safeguard of interpretation provided by the Catholic Creeds, and finally in the liturgical tradition of the Prayer Book and Ordinal, both of which are in essentials rooted in ways of worship much older than their sixteenth century origin.(1) Anglicanism is not alone in this. From the beginning the Church has known that anyone can use Scripture to prove most anything. In the second century, for example, the Gnostics developed novel interpretations of Scripture that violated an orthodox understanding of the biblical text. To counter this, Irenaeus upheld the interpretive tradition of the apostles. This tradition took form in the regula, the creed like affirmations of God that led to right interpretation. Anglicanism affirms this ancient tradition, affirming the creeds and the church's interpretive tradition, especially the teaching of the Church Fathers. Without this safeguard, Scripture is subject to abuse. Further, Anglicanism, as Countryman rightly observes, affirms the unity of the Old and New Testaments. Among other things, this means that the Old Testament moral law is binding on Christians, while civil and ceremonial commandments are not (Article VII). Countryman recognizes that Article VII limits the "applicability of the Torah," but ignores the fact that portions of the Torah are not ignored, namely, the moral law. Hooker, above all, is the Anglican theologian who discusses the matter of law, the various forms of law, what laws hold now, what can be abolished. As a doctor of the Church, aware of its universal teaching, he affirmed the eternal moral law, a law initially found in the Old Testament. In Hooker's day, it was the anti-baptists and other sects who claimed to be free of the moral law. As will soon become clear, Countryman does the same, repeating a distortion that has its roots in ancient Gnosticism. One consequence of understanding Scripture in a trinitarian and Christological fashion is that Scripture needs to be read as a single narrative (God is one), centering in Jesus Christ (Incarnation), composed of three great acts (God is triune). These three acts are creation by the Father, Incarnation of the Son, and the "life of the world to come," corresponding to Spirit. This leads to the biblical pattern of good creation, fall, law, prophets, restoration in Jesus Christ, Epistles, and eschaton. From this perspective, the Genesis creation narratives are critical for understanding God's original purpose for sexuality, a purpose that was distorted by the fall. This narrative pattern reflects the doctrine of recapitulation, a doctrine held by all the Church Fathers. Further, Anglicanism understands Scripture as the Word of God. That Word is God the Son, the second person of the Trinity. Scripture is the Word of God written, a belief held by all the Anglican Reformers. For that reason, Scripture is more than the social, religious, and economic ideas of an ancient people. Scripture is God speaking to his Church, interpreted in light of the Creeds and the interpretative tradition of the Church. My next step is to assess Countryman in light of an Anglican perspective. Specifically, Countryman has no concept of Trinity or Incarnation as relevant to his exegesis. He makes no appeal the exegetical tradition of the historic Church. He does not begin with the biblical pattern of good creation, fall and the corruption of creation, law, prophets, redemption in Christ, and final eschaton. Rather, he takes the passages that directly mention homosexual relations, removes them from their context in the biblical narrative, and then reduces them to something less than the Word of God. He is, above all, a revisionist. He appeals to Scripture, but interprets it from an alien perspective. I will consider his references in the order in which they appear in Scripture. In regard to the creation, Genesis one and two, Countryman states, Some have argued that the second creation narrative contains a positive command [Gen. 2:24] that all human beings are to marry heterosexually. The passage, however, can equally well be read simply as an etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being.Here Countryman ignores Genesis 1:26, the complementary nature of male and female and sexual reproduction, and focuses on Gen. 2:24. He does not consider this verse in relation to the whole of the biblical narrative, as God's intent before the fall, an intent confirmed by Christ (Mt. 19:4-6, Mk 10:6-8), nor does he consider it as belonging to the Word of God written. It is simply an "etiological story, telling how the institution of marriage came into being." In other words, he dismisses it as a bit of ancient lore, devoid of further relevance. Of course, it may well have been an "etiological story," but it is also God's Word to the Church, and the Church has always seen in this story an affirmation of God's plan for human sexuality. With respect to Genesis 19, the story of how the men of Sodom wished to have sexual relations with Lot's angelic guests, Countryman says this, Older writers on the subject tended to appeal to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 19] as evidence that the Bible condemns same sex sexual activity. Over the last few decades, however, this argument has generally been discarded, since other Biblical references to the story never make such a connection.Here Countryman ignores the exegetical tradition of the Church, referring to it as "older writers." Rather than the Church Fathers, he prefers certain contemporary exegetes, leaving them unnamed. Whoever they are, it isn't everyone. Von Rad, for example, is not known as a conservative exegete. His work has taken place in the "last few decades." He thinks the sin of Sodom was homosexual lust. "One must think of the heavenly messengers as young men in their prime, whose beauty particularly incited evil desire (Gu)."(2) Even more confusing is Countryman's claim that the story cannot be about homosexual lust "since other Biblical references to the story never make such a connection." Jude 1:7 does make such a connection. In general biblical usage, however, Sodom and Gomorrah are normally used to designate the fate of those who commit terrible sins. In this connection, Scripture mentions all sorts of sins in relation to Sodom and Gomorrah, but no sin consistently mentioned. By Countryman's logic, no sin was committed in Sodom since Scripture does not consistently mention any particular sin in relation to Sodom. But obviously, some sort of sin was committed in Genesis 19. The partisans of the homosexual agenda usually claim that the sin was inhospitality, but inhospitality is no more confirmed by "other Biblical references to the story" than is homosexual lust. And of course, the sin could have been lack of hospitality, made horrible by its form, homosexual lust. That is Von Rad's position. "Perhaps an ancient narrative, well known in Israel, about a frightful violation of the law of hospitality was connected only secondarily with Sodom as the seat of all sin."(3) Finally, and this is true of all Countryman's biblical references, Countryman removes Genesis 19 from the biblical narrative. In the context of the biblical narrative, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are the consequence of and further addition to the fall, the corruption of the human race that began with Adam and subsequently spread to all of humanity. That corruption was countered by the law, the prophets, and perfectly redeemed in Christ Jesus the Lord. All of this is missing in Countryman because his hermeneutic has no trinitarian and Christological foundation. Countryman next considers the prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus. There are also two verses in Leviticus [18:22; 20:13] that forbid some type of sexual activity between men (possibly anal intercourse). A question arises here as to the basis for the prohibition. Some hold it was to prevent cruel abuse of prisoners of war, others to prevent non procreative use of semen, others to exclude non Israelite religious rites. The text itself, insofar as it specifies a reason, treats the matter as a violation of ancient Israel's purity code, a code that New Testament writers treat as no longer binding on gentile (and perhaps even Jewish) Christians [cf. Acts 15; Rom. 14 15].As in all other cases, his treatment ignores the biblical narrative. Further, ancient law clearly had its roots in social custom, but Countryman's suggestion that the verses refer to treatment of prisoners, general use of semen, and exclusion of non Israelites, function in his thinking to deflect the text from its obvious reference to sexual encounters between those of the same sex. By suggesting the text is merely remnants of ancient customs, he obscures the possibility that we are not only dealing here with ancient customs, but with the Word of God, directly relevant to life today. Finally, he redefines the text as belonging to purity code, rather than the moral law, and then abolishes it by the New Testament. By purity code, he means laws that functioned to separate Israel from other nations.(4) Naturally enough, aspects of the Old Testament moral law could function as a purity code, but the moral law was also the revelation of God's will. Portions of Leviticus belong to the moral law, and if the tradition from Irenaeus to Hooker means anything, it is binding on Christians. Countryman is an antinomian. The argument he presents in the SCLM report is essentially the argument of his Dirt, Greed, and Sex. Here is his conclusion from that text, the pure antinomian "gospel." To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature. The Christian is free to be repelled by any or all of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them. What we are not free to do is impose our code on others.(5)In regard to the New Testament, he considers three passages which are "sometimes considered relevant." The first two he describes as follows, Two are occurrences, in what are technically called "vice lists," of the Greek term arsenokoites sometimes loosely translated "homosexual" [1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10]. Some connect this term with the verses from Leviticus mentioned above and see it as reconfirming their validity for later Christians. The term is rare, however, and there is no evidence to show what it actually meant to speakers of Greek in the first century.At this point, it might be helpful to quote two scholars. The first is Raymond Brown, one of the premier New Testament scholars of the modern era. The second is Joseph A. Fitzmyer, chosen by the editors of the Anchor Bible Commentary to do the commentary on Romans. The components arsen and koimasthai are found in Lev 18:22; 20:13, which forbid lying with a male as with a woman, i.e., having coitus with a male. Surely Paul, whose Bible was the LXX, had these passages in mind when he used the compound word to condemn homosexuality.(6)The term arsenokoitai may have been rare, but it is a compound of words used in the Greek Old Testament (the LXX). These two compounds were used in Leviticus to refer to men having coitus with men. As such, the term arsenokoitai would have immediately been recognized by any Greek speaking Jew who used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and that would have included Paul and all who had been taught the Christian faith. Given that, the term and its compounds in Leviticus would constitute "evidence to show what it actually meant to speakers of Greek in the first century." Further, the connection with Leviticus shows how the early Church used the Old Testament in relation to the new revelation in Jesus Christ. The moral law was not abolished by Christ. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In regard to Romans 1:18 32, Countryman comments, Finally, Paul, in Rom. 1:18 32, describes same sex sexual intercourse between men (and possibly between women) as unclean and disgraceful. According to the most careful reading of the Greek text, Paul does not specifically identify it as sinful; and nowhere is there evidence to show what it actually meant to speakers of Greek in the first century.If Countryman is right, Paul believes the following: 1. The wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness. 2. The root of this godlessness and wickedness is the worship of the creature rather than the Creator. 3. As a result of this idolatry, God delivered the idolaters over to the craving of their hearts for impurity that their bodies might be degraded. 4. The result of this idolatry and God's abandoning them to impurity is women exchanging natural intercourse for that which is against nature, and men abandoning natural relations with women, burning with lust for one another, and committing shameless acts with males. 5. Finally, if Countryman be right, that these shameless acts are not sinful, then Paul is claiming that the result of God's wrath and delivering human beings to impurity and degraded acts is virtuous behavior. I think of Hooker, I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous that this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as alchymy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing.(8)Further, for Paul and the early Church, the Old Testament was their Scripture. Romans 1:18 32 presupposes that Old Testament revelation. Romans is replete with Old Testament concepts and allusions, concepts such as God's wrath, the covenant, the affirmation of male and female as complementary created natures, references to sexual sins, and all these references are embedded the text of Romans. Any good commentary can sort this out and provide direct "evidence to show what it actually meant to speakers of Greek in the first century." Of course, the text may not have been intelligible to all speakers of Greek in the first century. But we are concerned here with the Church, the new Israel, spiritual descendants of Abraham, the edifice constructed upon the witness of the apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. The early Christians were educated into a tradition. They knew what the text meant, and a great many of them spoke Greek. Countryman does not belong to that tradition, for nowhere does he make use of it. Countryman begins his final paragraph with these words, Do these biblical passages help us in evaluating the claim, made by modern Christians of same gender sexual orientation, that God can and does bless their lives in and through their life partnerships? Do the biblical passages in question even speak to such a claim? It is not clear that they do; at best, they are open to varying interpretations.To being with, the Church has always known that Scripture is open to varying interpretations. For that reason, Anglicanism adopts the "safeguard of interpretation provided by the Catholic Creeds," and this entails the great exegetical tradition of the Church. Countryman ignores this completely. There is not a single reference to the exegetical tradition of the Church, nor to the Creeds, nor even to some of the best contemporary scholars who might disagree with him. Until he comes to grips with that tradition, and he has not, he cannot be taken seriously. Secondly, Countryman asks if God could bless the lives of "modern Christians of same gender sexual orientation'" "in and through their life partnerships" (note the plural). According to Countryman, Scripture does not address that question. Behind this question is the claim that Scripture was written by people who did not know about sexual orientation, and secondly, they did not envision committed same sex relationships. The term "sexual orientation" has scientific connotations, and I have discussed it elsewhere on this web page. The matter of sexual orientation would require a longer essay. The place to begin is with the biblical concept of heart, which means the overall direction of a person's drives and tendencies. It is not difficult to show that Scripture reflects a concept of sexual orientation, though it uses different language for the matter. In regard to the question of whether Scripture envisioned committed same sex relations, several comments are in order. First, even if they did not, Scripture is the Word of God, telling us of God's order for our sexual lives. The claim that biblical people did not envision same sex unions transforms the Word of God into ancient ignorance. It destroys the possibility that God has revealed a universal eternal moral law in Scripture. From that perspective, biblical peoples may not have envisioned committed homosexual relationships because they knew they were wrong, contrary to the will of God as revealed in the covenant. Secondly, the claim that the biblical peoples did not imagine committed same sex relations, is an argument from silence. They may very well have. As is well known, the ancient Hebrews adopted many, many practices of their pagan neighbors. Scarcely any area of life was left unaffected worship, language, economic and social life. In all these cases, however, foreign influences were transformed by the covenant and adapted to an Israelite form. In spite of its prevalence, not only among Israel's neighbors, but in the time of the New Testament, and throughout the history of the Church, homosexuality has never been brought under the covenant although the normal forces of assimilation, as much then as now, were at work. Finally, Countryman returns to the Anglican minimalist position, claiming that whatever cannot be proved from Scripture does not have to be believed. As a result, he concludes that it "would seem that the Bible, taken as a whole, is not definitive enough to demand a negative judgment on the present subject [homosexuality]." It is true, Anglicanism is, in some ways, minimalist. But that minimum includes the theological and exegetical teaching of the Church, especially the Church of the first five centuries. Countryman ignores all that. He does not consider Scripture as a whole with its pattern of God's good creation, sexuality between the man and the woman, sin and the fall, corruption of the human sexual desire, law, prophets, and redemption in Jesus Christ under the power of the Spirit. Rather, he isolates a few verses from the biblical narrative and reduces them to the social conventions of a bygone age. For him, there is no Word of God, no Trinity, no Christology, no exegetical tradition, no eternal moral law, nothing but a fading tableau where one can write the latest fashion of this wicked age. 0. http://www.integrityusa.org/samesexblessings/sclm2000.pdf. June, 2003. |