Eleven English Bishops teaching about Sex and Marriage

Today’s reflection is a comment on a letter sent yesterday on behalf of a group of eleven Church of England evangelical bishops to an Anglican Working Party which is preparing a document Living in Love and Faith (LLF). This is to be the authoritative Anglican statement on sexuality in 2020. The bishops sending the letter self-identify as evangelicals. They consider themselves to be among those who ‘seek afresh to understand biblical truth on contested issues and offer this as public truth for the common good in our pluralist, post-Christendom society.’ These eleven bishops mention with approval the activities of GAFCON. There is a need for unity when ‘recent history tragically demonstrates that introducing changes in teaching and liturgy has consistently divided Anglican globally and within provinces.’ Others may have more insight into the question as to which strand of Anglican evangelicalism these bishops represent. The House of Bishops would number many more self-confessed evangelicals who, for reasons of their own, have not identified with the letter. Whatever group these signatories represent, their aim is clearly to offer to the LLF process an Anglican evangelical perspective, one that is non-negotiable. Many Anglicans who do not agree with them ‘have rejected traditional Christian teaching on human identity, sexuality and marriage.’ They urge those preparing the 2020 statement to maintain the ‘central place of Scripture’. The letter also calls on LLF to reiterate the traditional teaching of the Anglican Communion. There is of course the standard appeal to the 1998 Lambeth resolution 1.10. This is quoted in full to remind the reader that only ‘marriage as a union in a covenant of love marked by exclusivity and life-long commitment’ is to be regarded as the ‘teaching of Scripture’. Anything else will only be tolerated if it is ‘sexually abstinent’.

I found myself reading this letter with growing irritation. It represents an appeal to Scripture and traditional Anglican statements which will only work if the person doing the appealing is not familiar with Scripture. It is, in particular, the assumptions about what Scripture has to say about marriage that caught my attention. We have presented to us in the letter the idea that the Bible has but one model of sex and marriage that is commended by Scripture for all time. If we take the complete Bible as the uniquely inspired word of God, we encounter enormous problems in maintaining that there is this single model for sexual behaviour and marriage. Many of the assumptions about relationships between men and women in the Old Testament are, by today’s standards, criminal and totally unacceptable. Exodus 21 & 22 contains a number of divinely given commands which relate to relationships between the sexes that have been outlawed for centuries. No one for the past two thousand years would tolerate the idea that a man can sell his daughter into slavery. Equally abhorrent is the notion that a girl should be forced to marry her seducer/rapist. The Old Testament kings such as David and Solomon sat very lightly on any notion of monogamy or faithfulness. Israelite soldiers who were victorious in battle were rewarded with ‘plunder’ and that would have included the wholesale rape of captive women. I always wince at the lesson from Isaiah 9 when the joy of God’s presence is compared to the way that men are glad when they share out the spoil. Such spoil would always have included captive women and there would have followed terrible scenes of sexual violence.

Of all the passages in the Bible about sexual relations between men and women, one of the most poignant is the passage connected with the defeat of Midian in Numbers 31. The writer records that God himself commands the division of the spoil and there is specific mention of thirty-two thousand girls who were virgins. We must surmise that these girls were mere children for the most part. After a half share of sheep, cattle and asses was handed over to Yahweh, the rest were divided up among the troops and this included the girls, many of them barely in their teens. It is hard to imagine that gratuitous sexual violence against women of any age helped these troops in the task of creating stable families once back home.

Another story in Scripture which shows religious edicts working against stable family life is in the Book of Ezra. In chapter 10 we have recorded the ‘dismissing’ of the foreign wives of the returning exiles together with their children. What happened to these innocent women and children is not recorded but clearly, they were felt to be expendable. The story reminds us of the story of Hagar who was sent away from Abraham’s household at the insistence of his wife Sarah. Whether or not Hagar survived seems to have been of little concern to Abraham or his wife. Certainly, no blame was attached to either of them for this action.

Sex in the Old Testament thus often involved rape, polygamy and indifference to the fate of women. All these behaviours were expected and to some extent tolerated. None of them fit well in helping men and women discover a form of marriage which is in keeping with our modern ideals, those which involve mutuality and permanence. A chaste picture of one man faithfully married to one woman is hardly the norm that we find in Scripture. The bishops who wrote the letter to LLF are presumably familiar with the pattern of sexual untidiness in the Bible and so, telling people that there is a ‘biblical’ model of monogamy and faithfulness is frankly dishonest. Even if we maintain that rape and sexual violence were not approved of in Israelite society, it is still hard to claim that the ancient Israelite expectations for the marriage relationship have much to offer our modern aspirations. Things do seem to improve by the time of the New Testament, but it is notable that conservative Christians seem today to make very little mention of Jesus’ clear injunctions about divorce. A great deal of energy is expended in condemning same sex marriage, on which Jesus has nothing to say, at the same time ignoring his words on the one area of marriage where he is clear. Too many church leaders, especially in the States, have ‘failed’ in this respect and second and even third marriages are common. They retreat to the convenient moral ‘ideal’ that of insisting all marriages to be between members of the opposite sex.

There is more to be said about why a group of bishops in England should take this position which has the potential to undermine the whole LLF project. I detect that in this stance the bishops are tempted by the reward of being bonded with other Anglican bishops across the world who are uniting in a tribal pact to insist that they alone have the truth in the way they understand the Bible. Strength through being part of the evangelical tribe is maybe what they seek in making this stand. Whether it can serve the cause of truth a completely different matter.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

34 thoughts on “Eleven English Bishops teaching about Sex and Marriage

  1. It’s quite incredible that these evangelicals, who claim to take the Bible seriously, could argue that the Bible offers only the one model of marriage and family. It suggests that they have closed their minds to facts which don’t support their own point of view.

    I notice too that they don’t follow Jesus’ example in staying single, or St. Paul’s in recommending that it’s best not to get married at all. I wonder why?

  2. Stephen (and some others who contribute to this blog) – I sense that rather than a struggle to get to grips with the meaning and reason for passages being in the Bible you seem to have walked away from it as having anything to say to the modern Church; further, that you feel the book or most of it is positively harmful and deleterious to life and an albatross round the neck of the Church. If I am misrepresenting any then I am happy to hear but this seems to be the sound I am getting from your bells.
    I am not saying this out of any aggressive attack for this blog has generally exhibited a good, open and gentle exchange but I do feel there is something that feels leaden. Blessings and peace to all.

    1. Leslie, I think you have indeed misunderstood. Stephen’s blog, and my comment, have both shown a desire to get to grips with the Bible; we have criticised these evangelical bishops for not doing justice to it.

      I was serious, too, in noting that the bishops, while extolling the ‘biblical’ ideal of marriage, have ignored the fact that St. Paul recommends singleness as the ideal state for a Christian. I’m not sure he would do so today, when single people are not part of an extended household and have to take on the whole burden of running the house by themselves, and without servants. But if the bishops don’t admit that Bible passages about homosexuality must be understood in their historical and sociological context, they can’t use that get-out here. They themselves are not living up to a biblical ideal.

      As a life-long single person I have found the Church’s over-emphasis on the nuclear family both irritating and painful, and I know I’m not alone in that. It’s time we restored a balance.

      1. Janet, I’m more than happy to get to grips with the Bible but there is almost a weariness about that task amongst some who would rather just ignore it altogether.
        On Paul and singleness we must read the whole of 1 Cor 7 and note his positive comments about marriage and sexual congress as well as comments about singleness. He is giving apostolic council on questions he has been asked (which we are not privy to) and he mentions the appropriateness of singleness “because of the present distress ” v27 Suggestions have been made as to what this was – persecution, famine etc.
        The Biblical metaphor of Christ and the Church as His Bride gives a good hint as to God’s ideal and though we be single in human terms we are bound in covenant love to Christ. Amen, so be it.

        1. Married people telling those who are single? Like rich people telling poor people that money isn’t everything. I’ve been in both places. Quite a few people are celibate later in life, either single again, or through illness or infirmity. If it’s not from choice, it may be what God wants, but not necessarily what you had in mind.

        2. You are right of course; and in 1 Cor. 9:5 St. Paul makes it clear that the other apostles are married and take their wives with them on their travels. However, in 1 Cor. 7:1 he recommends staying single for all men, and without qualification as to the times. Throughout the chapter he repeats the encouragement to stay single.

          ‘Because of the present distress’ in v. 27 may equally be rendered ‘because of the impending distress’, and it seems from the following sections that Paul is thinking that they are in the Last Times. That might equally apply today, when the present world order is crumbling around us; or at any number of times throughout history.

          Indeed, throughout most of its history the Church has idealised virginity as the holiest condition of life for Christians. Origen, in the early 3rd century, even castrated himself, thinking that was the way to please God. From the 4th century in the Roman church men, and especially women, were encouraged to commit themselves to a life of virginity, and that led to the development of monastic orders and eventually to clerical celibacy.

          So if we are going to appeal to Scripture and tradition as definitive and unchanging on the subject of marriage, as The Eleven do, we really need to give a nod to the strand which honours celibacy. They are simply not doing justice to the richness and variety of the Bible and tradition.

          Incidentally, evangelical bishops David Atkinson and David Gillett have responded to the letter from the Eleven on ViaMedia. Their arguments are well worth reading.

            1. Ah,… this is all about “good” and “bad” evangelicals. That word is used so broadly that it ceases to be of any use. I was told I was one some years ago because of what I believed but I never claimed the camp of my own accord. Why should you relate to me as such? Pigeon-holing is the great game of bulverism .
              I am happy to look at all scripture and seek to understand what is going on in it but there are some areas – and the sexual is one – where rational and calm debate flies out of the window. If I argue against the LGBT+ agenda I could as well be seen as supporting the clubbing of baby seals. I tend to move away when that happens.

              1. Leslie, I haven’t labelled you as an evangelical. And I am pretty much evangelical myself. I was raised not only evangelical but Calvinist too.

                I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. When I referred to the 3 ViaMedia posts from evangelicals, I meant only that it’s significant that the letter from evangelical bishops is being rebutted by prominent evangelicals arguing against them from an evangelical position.

                And I agree with you that the Bible recommends faithfulness within a committed relationship as an ideal. What I’m arguing against is The Eleven’s assumption that there is a single clear pattern of biblical and traditional behaviour regarding marriage and singleness. There is not.

                I maintain also that the New Testament and church tradition place a high value on singleness and celibacy – and that is something the church of our day has sadly lost.

                1. This is the “people agree with me who belong to your camp” kind of argument. If I disagree with people I hope it is because of their argument and not because of their group or camp. Let me say again that the evangelical label is of no use today if it can refer from Rachel Denhollander to Benny Hin.
                  I have heard before the argument that there is no Biblical support of a single or ‘correct’ view of sexual relations between people. I would want to ask where in the Bible is there support or encouragement or blessing of different relation to that of a faithfulness between a man and woman?

                  1. Stephen’s blog has amply answered your question.

                    But I would add that if you read the David and Jonathan story carefully, the very deep love between them is described in much the same way as the OT describes a committed relationship of love between a man and a woman.

                    And incidentally, though David was polygamous, unfaithful to his wives and quite possibly bisexual, he retains God’s love and God’s blessing. Indeed he is described as ‘a man after God’s own heart’. Which used to upset me, given David’s appalling treatment of women, until I realised that the phrase probably means something different here than the way we use it. I think it means not ‘a kindred spirit’, but ‘a man who really wants to know God’s heart’.

                    1. Do bear in mind we are talking about sex here not just loving relationships. The Bible gives plenty examples of sex between men and women and from the Adam and Eve stories a blessing on it though it passes by without comment on activity that transgresses the original man, woman coupling. The detailing of polygamy and rape is not a countenancing of it just that the Bible “tells it like it is”.
                      What I wanted to ask was where is there such a favourable view of same sex activity. It isn’t there. Your mentioning of David and Jonathan I’m afraid is once again assumption that is nowhere born out; Dan Brown does the same with Jesus and Mary but I hope you wouldn’t go down that way. Actually David and Jonathon can be a great role model for covenanted love between people that isn’t sexual.
                      Love and sexual behaviour are two different things but today it is difficult for two men or two women who live together to be thought of as anything other than gay and lesbian even despite the fact that may be deeply hurtful to them.

          1. My antenna twitched first after your statement about ignoring “the fact that St Paul recommends singleness as the ideal state for a Christian”. Someone reading that may go away with the idea that it was true and I wanted to challenge that by looking at the letter. The chapter in Paul’s letter begins with the words “concerning the things you wrote about”. So what did they ask? We don’t know in detail but it is important to know that the apostle wasn’t sitting down penning an apostolic diktat about personal relationships for the ages to come so to use the words you used was wrong.
            He follows that by saying that it was good for a man not to touch ”haptesthai”) a woman [I wonder what they were asking] however he goes on to say that because of sexual immorality each man and woman should have their own husband or wife. If there was to be a statement for the ages it might be “be sexually faithful to your husband or wife” and I would support that.

  3. Leslie, I take the Bible very seriously. That doesn’t mean I take it simplistically. Bits appear to contradict each other. Bits like dashing babies heads against a stone are obviously totally out of order. If we believe, and I think we do, that God is love, everything has to be seen against that perspective. God is power and justice, too. But he loves those who must face his justice. Surely, bullying, neglect, favouritism are never in his will? Whatever he may feel about people’s sexual activity, being unpleasant to another human being, made in his image, and dearly loved, cannot be right? I think we’re all pretty ‘sound ‘. We just differ sometimes.

  4. To survive church. That is the question.

    To survive sexually, to thrive, to sublimate or to express. These are important but lesser questions.

    But while we are on the subject of sexuality, most of us are still looking for constructive guidance at least.

    May I tactfully suggest that defaulting to our chosen stance be it liberal, be it Evangelical or whatever, is a distraction?

    That said, the flat-earth strategy of: “we’ll go back to what we were saying 60 years ago, and cling doggedly to that” will not do.

    Neither will currying favour with this or that group around the world in the vain hope that it will save the Anglican Communion.

    It is perfectly clear that the world outside the C of E cares less than ever before what we think.

    We have to do better, to do some thinking, to be constructive.

    So, how can we help people who feel marginalised, disapproved of, rejected? How do we help them to belong?

    Do we even care about people who aren’t exactly like us?

    1. Dear Steve,

      I hear, in your comment, the clear sound of “nails being hit (squarely) on the head”

      Dear Stephen,

      I fear that this particular “thread” will become quite rancorous ~ Please keep up the good work you are doing an excellent job

  5. No, I still stick with my feeling that there is a trend, a direction of travel, about the usefulness of the Bible and its Albatross-like nature hanging around the Church’s neck. Listen to the words ” If we take the complete Bible as the uniquely inspired word of God” Stephen says we encounter enormous problems. When we cite passages about women, children, slaves, violence, imprecatory Psalms, Paul’s teachings and more we are not saying “this is a bad book” like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins – not quite – but we are saying it is not worth while looking further into what’s behind this book whether God is really struggling to have his voice heard in it and we would be far better ditching it for something better that we could do ourselves.
    A young Curate once complained to his Vicar “Do we really have to say the Lord’s Prayer?” to which the Vicar replied “Not if you’ve got a better one yourself”
    The book deserves to be taken seriously and not departed from with a sigh.

    1. There may be a trend, as you say. And I’m not denying that you have come across people, even in the church who don’t take it seriously. But that’s not what I pick up from posters here. Just an acceptance that it isn’t always plain and easy.

  6. Leslie, you have misunderstood. We – or, I can’t speak for Stephen – I certainly am not ‘departing from [the Bible] with a sigh.’ I take the Bible very seriously indeed, and base my life and my faith upon it. But there is certainly a problem with claiming that the Bible has a clear, easily accessible, single unified teaching on marriage and family life, as the 11 evangelical bishops are doing.

    The Bible is a library of books of different genres written by a number of different authors. It was compiled probably over a couple of millennia or so, if we include the earliest oral traditions in that process – and I do.

    Having written blogs and articles myself, I know that it’s impossible to do justice to a complex argument in a thousand or so words. But in taking on The Eleven, it’s completely valid to point out that, even reasoning on their own terms and accepting their core hypothesis, their argument doesn’t hold water.

  7. Please note that I did not mention the gay issue in my post. As you are straying way off the topic I am removing the comment. Please keep your comments to the issues under discussion.

    1. So be it however I hope you would realise that the debate over the nature of marriage started there.

  8. I have no problem with the Message, but major concerns with its senior messengers.

    Like many commentators here who have studied the Scriptures daily and enthusiastically for decades, pat answers stopped working a long time ago.

    Many here have suffered greatly at the hands of others, often under the guise of misguided doctrine and of power abuse by church authority figures. There can be little doubt left except to the most head-in-the-sand ostrich, of the veracity of their claims.

    Authorities of Doctrine have a great deal of work to do in winning back followers. Words won’t cut it. Repentant actions would be a better start.

      1. I become more robust each week, thank you English Athena. Very pleasing. I went on a four mile walk this week.
        On the subject of this blog, I would previously have described my view of marriage as being biblical, whereas really, it is based on the teaching of Jesus and Paul. So “new testament” might be a better way of expressing it. I guess that applies to the bishops too.
        I can’t imagine the Israelite soldiers in OT times indulging in mass rape myself. It never occurred to me to interpret the word spoil as including that. It’s a shocking thought. It runs completely counter to love your neighbour and the alien living with you (Lev. 19:34).

          1. Thanks English Athena. I do 10 kilometres a day on my set of pedals which helps.
            This discussion has not yet referred to Genesis 2 – therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Both Jesus and Paul quote this with approval. Perhaps that is what the eleven bishops had in mind.

  9. The old “Marriage Guidance Council” changed its name to “Relate” a long time ago. It was an attempt to reflect the thrust of its work to help all types of people in close relationship to relate better to each other.

    If we are married, or “in a relationship”, we will be familiar with winning an argument but somehow losing the battle. Say our aim was congress (so to speak), tenderness is often more effective than tenacity in debate.

    ‘Why not rather be wronged?’ Asks St Paul, suggesting he knew a great deal about being married (as well as legal disputes between Christians).

    The way we relate to each other is supremely important. It’s Commandment number 2. And if we don’t get this right we can hardly claim success at no1, to love God, whom we have not seen.

    The manner of our debate is all-important.

  10. Leslie, yes, I was bearing that in mind, and the Bible does talk about the love between David and Jonathan in much the same way as it talks about sexual relationships between men and women.

    Some scholars also have pointed out that the word for ‘servant’ used in the account of the healing of the centurion’s servant, refers to a servant who was a sexual partner.

    It’s all part of the rich picture the Bible presents of human relationships, including sexual relationships, of all kinds.

    However I don’t think you and I are likely to a free on this, so I’m going to bow out of they conversation now.

Comments are closed.