In our debates about sexuality, unity is important – and so is the truth

Last week, Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester and currently leading the Living in Love and Faith process discussing 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 the comments he makes in support of it, contain some striking and insightful claims.

Martyn’s central use of Phil 2:2 “in full accord and of one mind” is fascinating. He employs a classic rhetorical strategy of connecting something we would obviously reject with what he wants to challenge: “This verse does not imply equality or agreement.” We would of course reject the idea that we should all be “equal” – but why does this verse suggest that we should disagree on core Christian doctrines? In fact, he immediately notes how both Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria use this passage to prove points of Christian doctrine.

The first of Paul’s two terms, Sumpsychos, only occurs here in the New Testament, but is a combination of a well-known term Psyche, is sometimes translated “soul,” but actually refers to the whole of a person’s life. The compound term Paul uses here has the meaning of harmony, deep unity of life. This is in stark contrast to the effect of the direction in which some bishops are pushing the church, which is causing deep division and fear. There is not a denomination in the world whose push for a change in the historic understanding of marriage has not led to division and decline. One English bishop even told his evangelical clergy that if they did not like the direction they were pushing, “they can leave the church.” This is not a picture of harmony! If “unity really does matter,” we might ask why so many English bishops are pushing us down such a provocative and divisive path. If “unity really does matter,” then why has Justin Welby gone down a path that has divided the Anglican Communion?

The second term of Paul is obviously important to him, as he repeats it: “to be of one mind (literally: thinking the same thing) … and of one mind (literally: thinking the same thing). The verb Phroneo refers broadly to our thinking; of course this includes our attitude and respect towards one another, but this cannot be separated from our understanding of faith. The related noun Phronesis refers to the ability to think and plan, the ability to understand, to have insight and to be intelligent. It is a term that Paul uses often in Philippians, in Phil 3:15, where he associates it with maturity of faith.

Paul made it clear that there are some things in the Christian faith that are controversial and about which we can “disagree by mutual consent”. In Romans 14 he also addresses issues of dietary and festival observance; it is fine to have two views on these as long as one group does not impose its views on the other. But sexual ethics and the understanding of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman are never one of those “indifferent” issues. It is notable that the bishops of the Church of England have not yet provided an argument for why we should believe that sexuality is an “indifferent matter” on which there can be more than one view without jeopardising our unity.

The reason our understanding of sexuality and marriage is not an “indifferent matter” is because Paul believes this teaching is rooted in our understanding of God as Creator, who created humanity in his image as male and female. This echoes Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 19 when asked about marriage, and both Paul and Jesus express the Jewish consensus that distinguishes all Jews from Gentile attitudes toward sex and sexuality. The creation of humanity, as male and female, in God’s image is a central matter of faith, and thus marriage between a man and a woman has always been a central ethical characteristic of God’s people.

The Jews in the Diaspora had made sexual immorality, and especially homosexual activity, a major difference between themselves and the Gentiles, and Paul repeated the lists of vices of the Jews in the Diaspora (EP Sanders, Paul: Life, letters and thoughts of the apostle p. 344).

So for Paul, turning away 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 sinful behavior patterns that are incompatible with the life of holiness in the kingdom to which Jesus calls us. Paul doesn’t make a big deal out of it – but assumes that the Christians in Corinth understand this. It is part of their “unity.”

But Martyn seems 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 an observer asked:

Can you explain how unity can exist if the Church of England does not collectively decide whether same-sex sex is a) sin or b) not sin? If it Is Sin, how can a Christian leader accept the blasphemy of asking God for His blessing? If it not Sin, how can a 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 (who are equally sincere) say another. What shall we do then?”

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Let us ignore for a moment the consistency, clarity and coherence of the biblical texts on this issue. Let us also ignore the uniformity and consistency of the reception of these texts in churches of every tradition, culture and place, so that marriage between a man and a woman has been the unanimous opinion of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. Let us also ignore the overwhelming consensus of critical scholarship on what the Holy Scripture says and how consistently it rejects same-sex sexual relations (a list of citations can be found here). These views are typical:

Wherever the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I fully admit that. The only question is whether this biblical judgment is correct (Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible”).

This is a question of biblical authority. Despite many well-intentioned theological deceptions claiming the opposite, it is difficult to see anything in the Bible other than a disapproval of homosexual activity. (Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: The Divided House of Europe, 1490-1700p. 705).

This task requires intellectual honesty. I have little patience with attempts to invoke linguistic or cultural subtleties to make Scripture say something other than what it actually says. The exegetical situation is clear: we know what the text says. But what are we to do with what the text says? I think it is important to make clear that when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good, we are actually rejecting the clear commands of Scripture and instead appealing to another authority (Luke Timothy Johnson).

Let us focus instead on the doctrine, liturgy and canons of the Church of England. These are fully clear and consistent that marriage is between a man and a woman and that sexual intimacy outside of marriage between a man and a woman is a sin. As Canon B30 puts it:

B 30 On Holy Marriage

The Church of England affirms: according to the teaching of our Lordthat marriage is by its nature a permanent and lifelong union, for better or for worse, until death do them part, of a man with a womanto the exclusion of all others on both sides, for the procreation and education of children, for the sanctification and right direction of natural instincts and inclinations, and for the mutual companionship, help, and comfort which each should have from the other, both in good times and in bad. (Emphasis added)

Note that this is not simply a decision of the Church; this is the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels that we have inherited as a Church, whose doctrine is “founded in Sacred Scripture” (Canon A5) and is expressed in our historical formulas:

Such a teaching is found especially in the 39 Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayerand the ordinal number.

This understanding of marriage was confirmed by the Bishop of London in synodal matters last year, and the Bishop in Europe further confirmed that this is not an “indifferent matter” on which we can “disagree by mutual consent.” It is this doctrine that the Synod voted will not change.

And all clergy have publicly vowed at ordination that they will believe in, defend, teach and explain the doctrines of the Church of England.

Do you believe in the doctrines of the Christian faith as handed down by the Church of England, and will you expound and teach them in your office?

Ordinands I believe it and I will do it.

This includes Jesus’ teaching 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 everything in Psephizo