Posts Tagged Bible

Ali is Feeling Good…

Ok; this is a story that I wrote when I got bored with the sermon I was writing on 1 John 4:1-6.  Behind John’s instructions to his little churches in Asia there was a major problem going on with the (pre-)gnostic teachers; their very ‘spiritual’ approach to knowledge, and the consequent detachment of ethics from Jesus.  But just lecturing about all that seemed very dry, so I made the attempt to give those bones a little flesh.  Given the conflation of two distinct (but all too often related!) forms of abuse in the story, several in the congregation found it a very uncomfortable reading.  The question I asked at the end of the story was, “At what point did the pastor clearly leave the path?”  What do you think?


Ali is feeling good,

and tomorrow is going to be even better.

She’s moved towns, successfully

shifted into the little sleep-out behind her elderly aunt’s house,

started her new job

and got through orientation week without any very embarrassing mistakes,

and she’s going to a new church tomorrow.

Sarah, the girl at work who’s been training her, had invited her to come

and Ali had leapt at the opportunity;

so much better than turning up alone!


Ali is feeling good because she hadn’t been sure she could do it;

all her life she’s been plagued by uncertainty;

unsure about her own abilities

and unable to completely trust people around her.


Perhaps it’s because her dad left when she was little,

or maybe it’s just her personality,

but trusting other people doesn’t come easily.

Nor does Ali trust herself so much.

Despite what everyone tells her,

she still blames herself for everything;

for her parents break-up,

for her older brother’s bad behaviour,

for her mother’s anxiety and stress,


There’s one person, however, she does trust, and that is Jesus.

Since she encountered him a few years ago,

since he’d made himself present to her

during that amazing midnight conversation with her best friend,

she’s known at the very centre of her being that she is loved,

and that she can absolutely trust Christ to stay with her always.


She has learned to pause,

to step back from whatever uncertainty she’s facing,

to slip within herself and to reach out to him,

and simply discovering, again and again, that he is always there for her,

that his love is unchanged,

that he is still who he claims to be,

has helped her to overcome her fears.


She had found herself more able to concentrate on schoolwork;

had done well enough to get good marks, and go on the training course,

and now, here she is,

a new graduate in a new job,

in a new town,

making new friends.


And all because Jesus loves her.

Ali is feeling good.

And tomorrow, she will find out about this new church.


Now it’s tomorrow, and Ali is facing an enormous table, loaded with food;

on her left, Mrs Rhees, (“Call me Esme, dear, there’s a love.”)

is piling potatoes and corned beef onto her plate,

and to her right, Mr Rhees, (“We just call him ‘The Major’, mostly”),

is telling her about his years in the territorials,

and promising that later, she should see his collection of old medals.

Opposite her is their middle-age daughter, Rosie,

and her husband, Paul, nodding and smiling

as they hear again the stories that are part of the family furniture.

And at the end of the table,

Pastor Austeer is spooning white sauce onto his mounded plate.

Ali thought he looked especially hungry;

not surprising after all the energy he had put into his preaching that morning.

She’s not used to sermons that go for more than fifteen minutes,

and this one had taken almost an hour

– but she’d barely noticed the time flying past,

he was so animated and engaging, and,

although she couldn’t remember much of what he’d said,

she remembered that it had been very interesting.

Not surprising that he is staring at his pile of pink beef

almost as though he’s about to dive into it teeth first.

His gaze suddenly lifts from his plate to her face,

and she feels slightly scorched by the intensity of his stare,

before he flicks his eyes away, and, taking Esme’s hand from beside him,

and her daughter’s with his other hand, leads them in a prayer of thanksgiving

– shorter than the sermon, thankfully – and they begin eating.

Conversation is general at first

– they chat about Rosie and Paul’s children,

and about a new business opening up in town,

and about Ali’s home and family

(“So few couples seem to hold together these days”, sniff Esme.

“I’d never know what to do if The Major, here, left me.”

“Leave you!” he replies. “And have to eat my own cooking!?

Not likely, love!”)

and then about her new job.

“How are you finding the work, Ali?” asks the pastor.

“Not too strenuous?”

“No, the work isn’t too hard at all – yet, anyway.

And Sarah’s a real help while I get used to everything.”

“Yes, lovely girl, isn’t she?”  says Esme.

“Such a pity she had to rush away afterwards and couldn’t join us.

You know her mother once helped me with that Drama we did…”

and the conversation moves on to the drama society politics,

and then on to local body politics,

and then turns to the sermon from that morning.

“I didn’t quite get it,” the Major is saying.

“What was that you were saying about the Spirit?”

“What God teaches,” replies the pastor,

“Is that we all have the Spirit,

and the Spirit gives us all truth,

and so we all have all truth.”

“I find that hard to get my head around,” comes the objection.

“If we have all truth, why are so many Christians so blinkin’ wrong!”

“Clearly,” comes the cool, quick answer,

“not all who claim to be Christian actually are.”

Across the table Ali notices Paul fidget uncomfortably for a second,

and then go still again.

the pastor continues,

“and though we can quickly see that some are false Christians

simply because they embrace error in their doctrine,

others among us merely need to learn how to hear the Spirit’s voice.”

“So you say I’ve already got all truth, but maybe I’m not listening to it?”

“We all have all truth,

but not all of us are able to hear every word of the Spirit.

It takes … practice … to learn to recognise that still, small voice.”

“How?” Ali is surprised to hear her own voice enter the conversation.

“I mean… sorry, I’m new.  How do you practice?”

Pastor Austeer considers her for a second as he dabs sauce from his lips,

and then says, “There are various spiritual exercises that help us to ‘tune in’.

Would you be interested in learning?”

“Ooh.  Say, ‘yes’, Ali, do!” says Esme.

“Rosie and I did this course, and it’s really interesting!”

“What does it involve?”

“Mostly conversation, and some guided meditations,” said the pastor.

“Don’t worry, nothing spooky.

It’s just a useful way of getting rid of stuff from the past

that might be blocking our spiritual ears.

I have some space in my schedule at the moment.

You’d want after hours time, right?”

“Well, yes, if it wouldn’t be a bother…”

“No bother at all.  It’s what I’m here to do and I’m glad to do it.

Would you like to meet on a Thursday?”

And just like that, Ali finds her life taking a new direction.


Her home life is flat and uneventful,

as she cooks and cares for herself in her little room,

seeing her aunt only as often as she needs to pay her rent.

Work was at first challenging and stimulating

then became more predictable and even tedious

as she quickly masters her tasks.

Most of her workmates are older than her,

other than Sarah,

but Sarah, while friendly, is deep in preparations for her wedding,

and lives for the weekends when her fiancé is in town.

With no other friends, and certainly no romantic relationships,

Ali finds an unending diet of wedding talk grating,

and is glad, on Thursdays, to walk home in a different direction,

and knock on the frosted glass door of the pastor’s study behind the church.


At their first meetings he’d greet her with a warm handshake,

and then seat her on a couch, provide her with a coffee,

and take up station behind his desk.

Once there he talked at length about ‘doctrine’.

He covered all sorts of topics;

the responsibility of Christians to tithe and to give,

the importance of strong fellowship and regular attendance at worship,

the necessity of showing the world how pure their faith was,

and the dangers of the world –

how the world could distract and confuse young believers,

and how the world must be rejected like a rotten apple;

good for nothing but compost.

Ali asked an occasional question,

or sometimes he asked her something,

but mostly she simply let his words wash over and around her,

like she was a rock in a stream of words.

It was sort of restful

and a little bit flattering that he should give her so much individual attention.

He talked a lot about obeying the Spirit;

he talked of how Saul had been so drenched in the Spirit

that he had lain naked and prophesied before Samuel,

but also how Saul had disobeyed Samuel, and been rejected by God.

He mentioned others, too:

Tamar who was moved by the Spirit to dress like a prostitute

and so gave Judah the children from whom Jesus was descended,

Ruth, who obeyed Naomi and uncovered Boaz’s ‘feet’

(She blushed when he explained that this was a euphemism)

and became the grandmother of King David,

and Solomon who sought nothing but God’s wisdom

and was rewarded with great wealth, many wives, and long-lasting peace

as well as world-renowned wisdom,

and how God had entered into the temple Solomon had built.

“And now YOU,” he declaimed, staring intently at her,

“are the temple of the Spirit into whom God has entered!”

He emphasised how God wanted nothing but the best for his children;

that was why he gave the Spirit!

He was fond of Jesus’ saying about fathers, who were evil,

knowing enough to give their children good things,

so surely God would give his children good things, too,

or, as Luke put it, surely the Father would give the Holy Spirit.


This led them to a discussion about fathers

and the first of those guided meditations he had mentioned.

He sat beside her on the couch,

asked her to close her eyes and relax,

and stepped her back, slowly, through her memories of her father.

Eventually, painfully, she opened her eyes to find them swimming with tears

that slowly trickled down her cheeks,

and she quickly looked down so that her hair fell forward to hide them,

but he reached out and, very gently, wiped one tear away,

then turned to his desk for a box of tissues,

and a small pamphlet with a meditation on God’s divine father hood.

Then, when she recovered a little, he simply said, “See you next week”

and let her out.

She felt that she floated home in a soft mist;

slightly cut off from the world around her by the release of that old sorrow,

and also strangely touched,

intensely aware of the feeling of his fingertip on her cheek.

Their next meeting, he greeted her as warmly as ever,

and moved his chair to sit in front of his desk as he spoke about God’s love,

and his command that we should love one another,

and how love was the greatest gift of the Spirit,

but he didn’t mention her tears,

and she was grateful for his sensitivity.


Each week she meets more members of the church,

and is always impressed by how they all call each other sister, or brother,

how they treat each other with obvious affection,

and how they could ask each other the most searching questions.

“Are you giving as you should be, brother?”

“Sister, how are you getting on with disciplining your Jacob, now?”

but The Major and Esme always make a special point of catching up with Ali,

and Esme always asks how the course is going.

“Are you hearing the Spirit, yet, dear?” she asks.

“I’m not sure – I mean, Jesus is always with me, I know,

and I love to stop and …I don’t know, just be with him, I guess, but…”

“No, no, dear, not Jesus – we’re talking about the Spirit!

Have you heard that still small voice, yet?”

and Ali blushes and mutters that she’s not sure.

Esme looks at her steadily,

and said, quietly, kindly, but very firmly, “You’ll know when you do.”

And then she looks around and asks, “Where’s Sarah, today?”

“Oh! She said she was going to go see her fiancé this weekend,

and that they were going to go to his church, this time.

She’s never been, and he’s been asking her so she said she would.”

Esme looks startled at this,

and turns to the Major, behind her.

Ali is surprised to see that he is frowning deeply,

but he says nothing to her, simply turning and walking away.

Esme hesitates a moment, looking as though she might say something,

but then just hurries after him herself.


At her next meeting with the Pastor, he greets her with a stiff hug;

he’d started to do this each Sunday,

and she’d noticed that many people greeted each other with a hug,

so thinks nothing of it,

and they continue as previously.

This time he starts by asking her if she has anything on her mind?

She hesitates, and he quickly says, “You look troubled…”

“Oh.  Well, it’s nothing really.

Just, Esme was asking last Sunday, could I hear the Spirit yet,

and, well, I’m not really sure…”

“Would you like to be more sure?”
“Well, yes!”

“Then sit down, here,” and he moves to sit beside her, again, on the couch.

“What you need to understand,” he says, in a low, earnest voice,

“is that the Spirit is not of this world,

and so the voice of the Spirit can seem quite strange.

Even odd.

And that is why our obedience is of the utmost importance.

If we waited until we understood everything

then we would never do anything.

we need to be ready to obey even before we understand,

no matter how odd the Spirit’s command might be.

Do you understand this?”

“Yes, yes, that makes sense.”

“And so, when you begin to hear the voice of the Spirit,

you must obey without hesitation.

You must not quench the Spirit!”


“Sometimes, what the Spirit asks might even seem wrong,

but that is because we are infested by the lies of the world.”

Ali looks at him.  He seems to be waiting for some response from her.

“I’m …I’m sorry.  What do you mean?”

“Well, consider.  If the Spirit said to you to kiss someone,

not a member of your family.

To kiss a man.

What would your mother say?”

“Well …she’d say it was wrong.  It was … dangerous.”

“I think you said your mother …she’s not a Christian, is she?”

“No,” Ali admits, in a small voice.

“Then she’s from the world.

and “you are from God, and have conquered them;

for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

5 They are from the world; therefore what they say is from the world,

and the world listens to them.

6 We are from God.

Whoever knows God listens to us,

and whoever is not from God does not listen to us.

From this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.[1]””

“That was the apostle John said that, wasn’t it?” Ali asks.

“Yes. Well recognized. From his first letter.

Do you read the Bible much?”

“Yes. Well, most nights.”

“So you know that Paul said that we are “ministers of a new covenant,

not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.[2]”?

“What did he mean?”

“Simply that we shouldn’t let the scriptures bind us, my dear.

It is the Spirit that gives life, not dead letters.”

“But, surely the Bible…”

“Oh, yes! The Bible is a voice of the Sprit, too

– it is the Bible, after all, that tells us to greet one another with a holy kiss,

despite what your worldly mother may think –

but it isn’t the only voice of the Spirit, nor even the most important.

The most important, is right… here.” and he lays a long finger on her chest,

above her suddenly thudding heart.

He lets it rest there a moment, as he gazes at her,

then returns his hand to his lap,

turns slightly away from her,

and looks into the distance.

“Shall we practice listening to the voice of the spirit, today, then?”

Ali becomes aware that she is barely breathing,

and says, in a whisper, “Yes,” without taking her eyes from him.

“And if you hear the Spirit speaking,

are you willing to obey him?

Are you willing to put aside the distractions of the world,

to reject the advice of the world

and obey only the Spirit?”

She nods, and he turns back to her, and smiles.

“Then relax,

and close your eyes,

and wait.”


Ali waits, and hears nothing except her heart beating,

and her breathing slowly returning to normal,

and when she opens her eyes again, after perhaps five minutes,

it is to see Pastor Austeer smiling at her.

“Don’t be disappointed if you heard nothing.

The voice of the Spirit comes as it wills

and no-one knows where it comes from.

Keep listening throughout the week,

and remember, Obey!

Even if it seems an odd thing – especially if it seems odd!

Even if just a little thing.

Don’t ask to understand; just obey.”

“Yes. Ok.”

He smiles again, and sees her to the door.


Throughout that week, Ali tries her hardest to listen for the voice of the Spirit.

She starts to notice lots of little thoughts running through her mind.

“Kick the cat,” is one, when a cat crosses the road in front of her.

She’s fairly sure that isn’t the voice of the Spirit.

When she is brushing her teeth one time, she thinks “Upside down.”

as she gazes at her toothpaste.

It isn’t upside down,

but she practices obedience anyway,

and turns it upside down.

Going home from work one day, she is waiting at the crossing,

and thinks “Go,” though there is a car coming.

She closes her eyes, gulps, and doesn’t go.

The car roars across in front of her

and she walks home in confusion.

If she had stepped in its path, would it have stopped?

Or is she meant to have been injured and hospitalised,

and maybe killed?
Is that God’s plan for her life?

What with her wondering, and her listening, and her confusion,

she is not as focused on her job as usual,

but she’s startled out of a fugue at her workstation on Wednesday,

by Sarah saying, “Ali. Ali! ALI!”

“Oh. Sorry, Sarah.  I was… daydreaming.”

Sarah grinned.

“You’ve got up to the bit about listening for the Spirit, haven’t you?”

“Yes! Is it obvious?”

“A little bit.  You should have seen Rosie when she did it.

It was a few years ago, now, and I was just a junior in the Youth Group,

but I remember her wandering around in a total daze!”

“Have you done the course?”

“No. I don’t know that it’s for me, you know?

I’ve talked to a few people who’ve done it,

and they say that he just talks to them a lot.

Well we get that on Sunday!

I’d rather do something in a group.

Like a Bible study.

Hey! Why don’t we start one?  You and me?”

“Ah, maybe.   I don’t think, right now, though –

I mean, I’d like to finish this course, first…”

Sarah rolls her eyes. “Alright, whatever.”
Ali feels herself flush.

It sounds like Sarah doesn’t like hearing Pastor Austeer talking!

“I just want to see if I can hear the voice of the Spirit.”

“Well, I guess if you hear the Spirit all the time,

like the pastor seems to,

then you wouldn’t really need to study anything, would you?

The Spirit gives life and the letter killeth, right?”

Ali’s jaw drops open.

“How did you know that he…”

“Did he say that to you?

Well, he does say it a bit.

Usually when someone else is quoting the Bible. “

Sarah grins.  “Anyway.  I still think a group is a cool idea.

I think I’ll talk about it to Esme and the Major.

They’ve invited me around this evening.”

And off Sarah goes, leaving Ali more confused than ever.

As she walks home that evening,

she strains her ears for the voice of the Spirit

and eventually, throwing open the door to her little room

she slumps onto her bed in disappointment,

and flops backwards onto the pillows.

“Oh, Jesus, help me.” She says to the presence in the quiet behind her eyes,

and suddenly, she feels completely at peace.

Without knowing how she knows, she knows that it is ok.

Jesus is still there for her,

despite her inability to hear this voice that the pastor talks about,

and Jesus will never leave her.

She turns her face to the pillow and sobs,

and the next day feels much better.


That afternoon, as she sits on the pastor’s couch once more,

she tells him about the cat

and she tells him about the car,

and she tells him about the toothpaste,

and she tells him about her prayer

and the immediate relief she had felt in Jesus’ presence.

She doesn’t tell him about Sarah, however;

she just doesn’t know how to say what she feels.


He is interested in everything she does say,

and most of all in the tooth-paste!

“That was excellent, Ali, excellent!

That was wonderful obedience!  Well done!”

“But the car…”

“Maybe that, too, was the voice of the Spirit.

Who knows what may have happened!

Certainly it was a test of your faith, Ali, wasn’t it?”

He looks at her so intently,

she feels her breathing hitch again, and whispers a “yes”.

Without taking his eyes from hers,

he pulls his seat up and sits directly in front of her

as she perches on the edge of the couch.

“Let’s try to hear the Spirit again, now, together.

No – keep your eyes open this time.

Listen – and obey.”


Ali listens,

and finds her mind beginning to fill with the many words spoken here,

washing around her;

“Love one another…”

“What they say is from the world…”

“A holy kiss..”

“The letter kills…”


And then, blazing to the forefront of her mind, the words, “Kiss Him!”

Her eyes drop from his to the thin lips beneath,

and then up again

as she replays those words in her mind

and hears again their insistence,

and so she obeys,

leaning into his kiss as he reaches out for her

and takes her into his arms.


That evening, as she prepares for bed,

and all the next day,

she feels like she is in a Rosie-like daze,

as she replays in her mind those few, fervent moments.

The pastor had confirmed that he, too had heard that command,

and that though it didn’t matter what the world thought

– they were free in their obedience to the Spirit –

it was best to avoid all appearance of evil,

and not put any stumbling blocks in the way of weaker brethren,

so not to mention it to anyone else just now.

Rather, wait, and see what the Spirit might command next time they met.


They see each other at church on Sunday, of course,

and Ali blushes slightly as he gives her a warm embrace,

and places a chaste peck upon her cheek.

He says nothing,

but she sees anticipation in his eyes

and spends most of the sermon wondering what, exactly

the Spirit might say when next they meet.


Afterwards, however, as she talks with the Rheeses,

her thoughts are turned in quite a different direction.

After asking about Rose, who is pregnant again,

Ali remembers that Sarah had been going to see them last week;

“How did your evening with Sarah go?

Did she tell you her idea about a Bible study?”

The major’s pleasant face turns thunderous again,

and he turns away, leaving Esme to answer;

“Well, yes, dear, she did,

but we don’t think it’s right.

You see, she doesn’t hear the Spirit.

Her Bible study would be quite wrong.

And besides; we can’t meet with someone who’s been dis-fellowshipped.”

“Dis… what?  Sorry, I don’t understand.”

“Oh, it’s nothing to worry about.

I’m sure she’ll come around.

Pastor will explain it to you later this week.”
And that was all she would say on the subject.


Sarah wasn’t at church that day,

and throughout the following week,

Ali gets the impression that she is avoiding her at work.

Finally she finds her seated at her workstation,

doing data entry.

“ ‘Scuse me, Sarah.  Where does this account belong?”

Sarah takes a quick look at the file in Ali’s hand, mutters “Give it to Fiona,”

and turns back to her work.

“Sarah,” Ali tries again, “Is there something wrong?”

The previously bouncy bride-to-be glances up at Ali,

opens her mouth as though to say something,

then snaps it shut again.

With her lips pressed together in a thin line,

she turns back to her screen once more,

and shakes her head mutely.

Ali stands for a second, then, with a shrug,

returns to her own work.

There is a message waiting for her, there.

“Pastor Austeer says half an hour later this Thursday”.

She reads it, wonders, and then crumples it up.

No doubt he will explain when they meet.

But that meeting is starting to look very unlike the one she had anticipated.


As she walks up to the frosted glass door on Thursday,

it bursts open and an obviously unhappy Sarah steps out, sees her,

and swings around to walk back to the road across the neighbours’ lawn

rather than come past her.

As Ali stands gaping, she sees tears on her friend’s cheeks,

her complexion burning brightly beneath them,

as though she is deeply embarrassed – or overwhelmingly angry.

As she turns back to the door,

she sees the pastor there,

spots of colour on his cheeks, too.

He reaches out to embrace her,

but then drops his arms as she stiffens,

and simply stands aside and says, “Come in.”

Ali means to ask him about Sarah,

and what ‘dis-fellowshipped’ means,

but he raises the subject himself;

“Ali, does your work require you to talk much with Miss Massingham?”

“No. In fact, she won’t talk to me at all, now, if she can avoid me.”

“Ah. It would be best if you left her alone as much as you could, now.

Can you do that?”

“Well… yes, but why? What’s she done?

Is this what ‘disfellowshipped’ means?

Is this because of her Bible study idea?”

“No, Not because of the Bible study idea

– though that was obviously inappropriate –

but because she has chosen to walk, once again, in the ways of the world.”

“What’s she done?”

“She is pledged to keep fellowship with us, here,

but she has been attending meetings of false Christians

where they teach error and confusion.

She must not be double-minded,

and she will not commit to stay away from them in the future.

She is antichrist: “19 They went out from us, but they did not belong to us;

for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us.

But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us.”

If I can quote John, again.

She has been avoiding you

because she was hoping to weasel her way back into our fellowship

by not breaking the rules of disfellowshipping.

And I suppose she may have been trying to protect you from any taint.

Has she succeeded, I wonder?

Are you ready and willing to obey the Spirit in this, Ali?”


Ali sags onto the couch, and squeezes her eyes shut,

feeling tears pricking behind her eyelids.

What is the Spirit saying?

As though reading her mind, the Pastor immediately quotes from Revelation;

15 ‘ “I wish that you were either cold or hot.

16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,

I am about to spit you out of my mouth. …

You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked…

21 To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne,

just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.’

22 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying …”

Ali, you can conquer this,

you don’t have to be poor and blind,

you can sit on the throne with God!  With me!

Let me lead you.

Are you willing to obey, Ali? Are you?”

She feels him, kneeling in front of her, just inches away;

his hands upon her shoulders tremble slightly.

She’s terrified that if she opens her eyes,

she will see again the mouth that she kissed just a week ago.

In the dark privacy of her mind, she calls out as she had before,

“Oh, Jesus help me.”

And immediately opens her eyes to look directly into the face before her.


“I… I’m not sure what the Spirit is saying to me,

but… but I wonder – I don’t know – where is Jesus in this?”


“Well, yes.  He was always so kind when people came to him.

I… this… it just doesn’t feel like something he would do.”

“ Jesus! Jesus was just a man.

He died, abandoned by God.

It is the Spirit of Christ which matters.”

“Jesus doesn’t matter?”

“No. The Nazareth carpenter was just a disguise God used;

a suit of clothing that he no longer has any use for.

It is the Spirit not the flesh, that we must obey.

Will you listen to the Spirit, Ali?”

“But the Bible says…”

“Don’t get hung up on the dead letter!

It is the Spirit that counts.”


Ali reaches into her purse and draws out her little Bible,

opening it at the marked page with trembling fingers.

“I was reading what we were talking about a couple of weeks ago.

Just before he says that we are from God and they are from the world,

he says this:

“Beloved, do not believe every spirit,

but test the spirits to see whether they are from God;

for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

2 By this you know the Spirit of God:

every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.””


“But the deadly letter…”


Ali stands up.  “I don’t know what Paul meant by the letter,

but I do know that the Spirit he’s talking about

is totally different to the one you’re serving!

I’ll stick with the spirit of Jesus if that’s ok.”

She turns in the doorway;

“Please say goodbye to Esme and the Major for me.  They were kind.”

and then she leaves.


Ali is feeling good,

and tomorrow is going to be even better.

She’s moved towns, successfully,

she’s doing well in her new job,

and she’s going to a new church tomorrow.

Sarah, the girl at work who trained her,

has asked her to be her bridesmaid at the wedding,

and Ali is glad for the opportunity.



[1]1 John 4, NRSV, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers) 1989.

[2]2 Cor. 3:6


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Bible and Homosexuality; Analogous issues and conclusions

So where does this leave us?

One commentator says

Whereas re-exegeting the biblical texts that bear upon this issue certainly has shed light on what those texts mean and in some cases leads to a re-reading of them, this seems to me to leave the basic issue unchanged.  What revisionists must contend with is not four relatively isolated texts that prohibit, but a whole biblical witness to human sexuality that permits and affirms. …the vision of male and female in the complementary and productive union for which their bodies equip and prepare them.  No other vision is offered.[1]

Alternatively, though the bible affirms only one model of sexual relationship, does that mean that it necessarily denies the validity of all others? Another writer states

…there is in principle nothing to prevent our affirming the central importance of Christian marriage without necessarily in the same breath condemning other responsible sexual relationships.  Marriage between Christians may be both sacrament and vocation and as such embrace and transform a natural coupling.  It may in a unique way show us something of the Trinitarian mystery while informing us of the true nature of the relationship of Christ to his Church, It is not these things simply because it is ‘natural’, however, nor does its being these things and therefore God’s ideal for us necessarily have to deny the legitimacy of other ways of relating where this ideal is precluded for whatever reason. [2]

In other words, simply because we uphold marriage (or celibacy) as Christian callings and sacraments, does that mean that we therefore reject other forms of sexual relationship?  This is a central question for us.  What does the bible say?  Where do we fall between the two views expressed above?

In reviewing the specific scriptures referring to homosexuality, we see that the bible never, apart from in Leviticus, addresses homosexual behaviour as a topic in itself.  Paul, on three occasions, uses it as an obvious example of vice in pagan society.  Many have noted that the homosexuality referred to in the vice lists, and possibly also in the Romans passage, very likely referred primarily to the forms of homosexual relationship that were known to Paul at the time; pederasty.  It can be shown that other Jews who wrote about homosexuality at that time described such behaviour in such a way that they were clearly influenced by their social surroundings[3].  Thus we can say that Paul was condemning what we would describe today as pederasty – but we should also say that, for him, that was equivalent to condemning homosexuality per se.  What was wrong with these relationships, for Paul, was not just that they were exploitative or non-reciprocal or age-inappropriate, but that they were homosexual – they exchanged ‘the natural use’ of male and female roles in a very specific way.

Finally, then there is the law of Leviticus.  As noted, this is the one occasion where the bible actually focuses (albeit, very briefly) upon homosexual behaviour per se.  Again, like Paul’s statements in Romans, it can easily be read as having very broad applicability[4] – to men, at least.  When we seek to understand the principles and concerns underlying the law as it is given, we can see that it is probably aimed at limiting specific activities (cultic prostitution and abuse).  However it can’t be proven that the original intent was simply to restrict abusive, idolatrous, and dangerous practices, and promote fertility.  The context of Leviticus chapters 18 & 20 within the holiness laws requires us to read them also in terms of the confusion of categories that is inherent in homosexual relations.

So then we come to the specific question facing us; can these scriptures be taken to refer to loving, exclusive, and respectful same-sex relationships today?  This is, after all, what it comes down to.  All the biblical statements against homosexuality could be explained (away) as opposing lustful, exploitative, or idolatrous practices and therefore as irrelevant to the relationships that many gay Christians[5] seek, enjoy, and hope that the church will bless and support.   Is that the best way of dealing with these scriptures?  Do such explanations deal with the scriptures completely, or do the scriptures still speak to those relationships which aren’t prostitution or pederasty?

Analogous issues:  Before we leave the scriptures, we should consider the many analogous issues which are regularly raised in this debate.   An analogous issue is one that is similar in some way to the subject at hand.  By thinking about how we have dealt with this other matter, we throw light upon how we can deal with our current concern.

The most frequent is that of other ‘irrelevant’ laws, as suggested above.  We often hear the argument that the church is reading the OT very selectively in upholding one verse in Leviticus 18, and ignoring a great many of the verses around it.  The proposed analogy here is with laws such as that prohibiting mixing fabric in clothing.  In reading Old Testament law, there are several criteria by which we consider it; firstly, as I have done throughout my discussion of the Leviticus passages, we should consider what good the law promotes, and what evils it seeks to prevent.  While some do so from a materialistic perspective (i.e. how do these laws promote the health and socio-economic well-being of God’s people) this cannot be detached from a spiritual perspective; how do these laws promote God’s glory among his people, and limit idolatry and other sins which separate people from God?  Many OT laws certainly had powerful material benefits, but none of them should be separated out from their religious context.  In this respect we have noted the social and familial benefits of the restriction of homosexual relations in ancient near eastern households, and we have also noted how the Leviticus law might function as upholding God’s good creation of male and female, of God’s gift of life through procreation, and of the separation of God’s people from the surrounding peoples, emphasising holiness.

Secondly, we should consider how the laws impacted upon the people of God in their specific culture; this tells us something about the intended impact of the law.  A notorious example of this is the separation of kinds of fabric in clothing, or seeds in horticulture in Leviticus 19.  Many people point to these laws today, and say that as they serve no purpose, we have (rightly) discarded them, and should do the same with other OT laws.  I hope I have shown, however, that the impact of such laws was not meaningless in their original context, but served to remind God’s people in everyday life of the holiness (i.e. separateness) of their God and therefore of his People.   We have to ask ourselves if the intention of this OT law is still relevant in our society, and if so, how we would express that relevance today.  What do we believe to be the intention of the Leviticus law?  How relevant is that in our society?  How should that be expressed today?  It is abundantly clear that God’s call to holiness is by no means redundant.  How do we show our distinctness from society around us in relation to issues of homosexuality?

Thirdly, we should consider the way in which those specific laws were dealt with in the New Testament, and thus seek the guidance of Jesus and his Apostles in our interpretations.  In our specific case, it is clear that the Leviticus law against homosexuality was seen by Paul as still relevant, and his writing makes direct reference to it through the use of the word arsenokoites.

Jesus didn’t ever mention homosexuality, but nor did he mention idolatry so we should not take his silence on the matter to imply his indifference to it.  Also, as we have seen, in sexual matters generally Jesus didn’t just affirm the OT teaching, but moved it from the realm of action to that of attitude.  He also shifted marriage from being simply a legal contract, subject to law, and referred to it as part of God’s creative intent of the creation of maleness and femaleness, strongly affirming the creation mandate to marry, and to be one flesh.  At the same time he made marriage a subservient institution to the over-riding importance of the Kingdom of God.  NT teaching generally is strongly pro-marriage and also strongly pro-celibacy.   Thus, we have to say that comparing the Leviticus laws on homosexuality (or incest, or bestiality) to ‘other irrelevant laws’ doesn’t really work.

Gentile inclusion  Another key analogy that is found in the debates[6], is the inclusion of the gentiles in the (previously) completely Jewish early church; how the witness of the Apostles to the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of gentiles led them to re-examine the scriptures, and come to a new decision about the requirements of the law for all Christians, thus welcoming into the church those who were previously banned, without requiring the gentiles to conform to the standards of behaviour that had previously been thought to be normal (Acts 15).  While the key point is that the Gentiles did not have to become Jews in order to be Christian (or, in our analogy, homosexual people wouldn’t have to become heterosexual), a substantial secondary point is that the Jerusalem council took some pains to provide clear instructions on what ethical expectations they did have[7], if the whole of the Torah was not relevant in its literal form; they didn’t have to stop being gentile and start being Jewish, but they certainly had to change their lifestyles in ways which were costly, and which led, eventually, to martyrdom for some[8].  If we were to push the analogy, then, we would have to say that homosexual people are certainly welcome in the church – as is anybody who is filled with the Holy Spirit of Christ.  But the church should have no problem in saying that the characteristics of the individual’s life which were seen to be sinful prior to their conversion are still seen as sinful after and need to be repented from. 

A much closer analogy may be the case of Eunuchs;[9] banned from the temple (Leviticus 21.20) and from citizenship of Israel (Deut 23.1) by OT law, these men were still an everyday part of civic life, serving in various capacities (2 Kings 23:11; Jer 38:7) as they did throughout the middle-east.  There was a word to them from the prophet Isaiah:

3 Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,

“The Lord will surely separate me from his people”;

and do not let the eunuch say,

“I am just a dry tree.”

4 For thus says the Lord:

To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths,

who choose the things that please me

and hold fast my covenant,

5 I will give, in my house and within my walls,

a monument and a name

better than sons and daughters;

I will give them an everlasting name

that shall not be cut off. [10]

And this word was fulfilled in Acts ch. 8, when the Ethiopian eunuch was baptised, and set off to found the first church in Africa.  The parallel here is, like that in Acts 15, that a group of people thought to be unacceptable to God, (in this case because of sexual ‘difference’) are now accepted as God’s people without any alteration to the essential point of difference that previously excluded them.  There is nothing here, however, to suggest that there was anything about Eunuchs apart from their inability to procreate that excluded them from God’s people previously; that is, they were identified by a ‘negative’ quality – something they lacked rather than a positive quality (something they did or were).  In other words, Eunuchs didn’t have to cease any specific behaviours in order to enter the church.  Would the same be said for homosexually oriented people?

Women’s Roles, Race, and Slavery are issues which are occasionally brought up in this debate.  The question is usually framed that, if the church was wrong about slavery and racism, and if the church was wrong about the role of women, and if the church now interprets some scriptures differently than it did fifty years ago, could the church be wrong again, now?[11]

In response to this argument, others have pointed out that to say “wrong on slavery and women, and therefore wrong on homosexuality” is to draw an unwarranted conclusion reached on other grounds.  Simply because a teaching is traditional doesn’t make it wrong, or that which it denies right.[12]  And of course the converse is also true – just because a teaching is traditional doesn’t make it right.

The value of the analogy is that it teaches us to be careful that our reading of scripture is not simply an acceptance of social norms (often, given the inherently conservative nature of the church, the norms of the previous century), but is a genuine attempt to discover the fullest meaning of scripture taken on the whole.

As regards women and slavery, a reading of the scriptures within the context of their times reveals that the provisions of the bible in their regards were essentially humanising, and, by comparison with their context, profoundly liberating.  Thus we came to see that scripture contained within it a tension between the social norms of the day as reflected in scripture and the liberating power of God as regards slaves and women.  Is there any similar tension as regards homosexuality?  As far as our reading has gone, the only visible tension in the scriptures regarding homosexuality is that between the social norms of their day that accepted various homosexual behaviours, and the consistent biblical emphasis upon faithful heterosexual relationships as the only acceptable form of sexual relationship.

Contraception, Usury and Divorce; Finally, it is sometimes pointed out that the church has accepted, fairly uncritically, social norms without much reflection on the biblical material.  Why, it is asked, don’t we do the same as regards homosexuality?  Is it not simply ‘homophobia’?  While it is true that modern innovations, such as consumer capitalism, contraception, and convenience divorce, have been accepted and even blessed by churches, that is not a good argument for saying that we should do the same with every trend; rather, we should revisit our stance, perhaps, in regards to some of these other matters, and strive for a higher standard of holiness than we presently do.  It is valid, however, to note that there is a greater reluctance to accept change on sexual standards that don’t affect the majority.  In fairness, we need to consider whether we would be so quick and simplistic in our thinking about homosexuality if it affected as many of our members as does divorce and contraception.

This concludes our survey of the key scriptural texts, themes, and additional, analogous issues.


In presenting this material, my aim has been to fairly, clearly, and comprehensively communicate the arguments that are frequently heard and used in debate within the church about homosexuality.  I have not covered every aspect of the debate, but I hope I have covered the core issues in such a way that decision-making will be well-informed and careful.  While I have critiqued arguments on both sides of the debate, I’m sure that my own opinions are reasonably clear. Nevertheless, I hope that the arguments speak for themselves, and that others will be able to sort through them and come to their own conclusions.

[1] (Wright 2002, 142)

[2] (Patterson 2000, 136-7n)

[3] (Scroggs 1983, 78 – 79, 88 – 96)

[4] One commentator notes that Jewish exegesis carefully delineates exceptions to the laws so that they can be applied easily – but that there are no exceptions recorded for this law, concluding that “A text without exceptions in Jewish literature probably really is a text without exceptions!” (Ron 2003)

[5] I am aware that some see the phrase “gay Christian” as an oxymoron; I use the term as it is used by those who own it.

[6] See, e.g. (Rogers 2006, 89-90) (Goddard, 2001) (Siker 1994, 154-156)

[7]  Of note here, is that while the word translated ‘sexual immorality’ (porneia) listed among the prohibitions for the gentile believers in the Acts 15 narrative is not explained by the text, but it may arise from the Leviticus purity regulations (17.1 – 18.30) which applied not just to Israelites, but also to the aliens living among them (ch 17.8-16, 18.26).  If that was the case, then it points to all the sexual boundaries listed in Leviticus 18.

[8] Rev 2.13.

[9] (McNeill 1994, 57) offers this analogy.

[10]Isaiah, 56:3, NRSV

[11] (Rogers 2006) is an excellent example of this type of argument.

[12] (Goddard, God, Gentiles and Gay Christians; Acts 15 and Change in the Church. 2001, 13)

, , , , , , , , , , , ,


The Bible and Homosexuality: Some Old Testament Passages

The Biblical passages specifically referring to Homosexuality

These passages are examined below in their order of importance to us.   One commentator[1] has noted that if we focus exclusively upon the biblical texts that seem most relevant to the issue at hand, however, we allow the issue to define our approach; we need to come at the issue not just by asking what the bible tells us about homosexuality, but also what the bible tells us about who God is, what Jesus has done, what the role of the church is, and what we expect to happen next.  Please bear these considerations in mind as we examine the specific texts before us, and the debate around them.

Genesis 19 and Judges 19 are the best-known and most frequently referred-to texts relating to homosexuality.  As they are both lengthy narratives I haven’t included them here, but the various versions all convey essentially the same facts; in both instances overnight hospitality is offered to a traveller, then the men of the town besiege the home where the traveller is staying, and demand that the guest is handed over so that they might ‘know’ him.  In both cases women are offered instead.  In the Genesis account (Sodom) the virgin daughters of Lot are not accepted as a trade, and the guests (angels in disguise) render the townspeople harmless for the night by striking them blind.  The next day the town is destroyed by God[2].  In the Judges story (Gibeah) the host offers his virgin daughter, and the traveller (a Levite) offers his concubine to the importunate townspeople; the concubine is thrust outside and they rape her until dawn.  She is then dismembered and her body used to illustrate the iniquity of Gibeah.  This sparks a civil war, leading almost to the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin.

While some go so far as to say that homosexual actions are not mentioned in these stories at all, they are not convincing.  Usually the argument runs that the word ‘know’ does not imply sexual activity, but refers to the suspicion of the townspeople towards strangers, and their desire to interrogate the visitors.  Against this, most commentators[3] set the offer (refused in the one story and accepted in the other) of women as substitutes for the men – hardly satisfactory if the intent was to glean information from them.  The abuse of the Levite’s concubine confirms that their intent was sexual violation.  It also shows us that specifically homosexual sex was not their objective.  Most commentators go on to say that while the attempted rape was homosexual it is not, therefore, a blanket condemnation of homosexual behaviour – any more than the offer to substitute a young woman should be seen as condoning giving up our daughters to sexual violence!  Clearly gang rape is condemned, and it is very likely that the homosexual nature of the rape was seen to add to its abhorrence, as homosexual rape was sometimes used to humiliate conquered enemies in ancient near eastern cultures.  Very few serious biblical commentators among liberals or conservatives look to the Sodom story or to the Gibeah parallel for a biblical perspective on homosexuality.

Sodom in the Scriptures:  This is confirmed by the way in which other bible writers refer to Sodom; Isaiah links Sodom’s judgement to injustice and arrogance; Jeremiah to false prophecy and Idolatry, as does Ezekiel, who also specifies pride, wealth, lack of compassion, and ‘doing abominable things’.  Amos talks of her oppression of the poor and needy, Zephaniah of her taunting and boasting, and, in Matthew, Jesus compares her fate to those of the cities who have rejected the Gospel.  In Luke he talks of her as an example of the suddenness of God’s judgement. In 2 Peter, Sodom is an example of God’s judgement upon those who are “licentious”, “lawless”, “who indulge their flesh in depraved lust, and who despise authority.”  In Jude they are again an example of God’s judgement and are described as indulging in sexual immorality and “pursuing unnatural lust” or, more literally “going after other flesh”.  As conservative commentator Richard Hays points out[4], the Jude reference could hardly be a reference to homosexual desire; to go after “other (Greek = hetero) flesh” is precisely what homosexuality is not.  Given that immediately before the Sodom and Gommorah reference, Jude alludes to the Genesis 6 story of angels seeking intercourse with human women, it seems more likely that the next verse is a reference to the men of Sodom seeking intercourse with angels – distinctly ‘other’ flesh!   Jude also mentions ‘sexual immorality’ and Peter talks of ‘licentiousness’, and ‘depraved lust’, but these terms don’t point specifically towards homosexuality, though they may include it.  Similarly, Ezekiel may have had in mind the ‘abomination’ of homosexuality (see on Leviticus 18 and 20 below) but neither does he specify it, and probably wanted to imply a wide range of abominations rather than fix upon one.  So we can see that the biblical writers only sometimes saw sexual sin as one among the many sins of Sodom, and when they did it was not specifically homosexual sin that was in view[5].

It is not until Philo, a Hellenistic Jew around the time of Christ, that Sodom came to be associated specifically with homosexual sin, and it was from Philo that the early Church Fathers took most of their cues in discussing both Sodom and homosexuality.  This tradition may be venerable, but it is not biblical.  We may not take the sins of Sodom to include homosexuality per se.  Homosexual gang rape, is condemned, and is clearly a sin, but it cannot be made into the pretext for a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity any more than the condemnation of heterosexual rape can be made the pretext for rejecting all heterosexual activity.

Deut 23.17-18, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7 and maybe Job 36.14 all refer to what was probably temple prostitution.  There is considerable controversy among the scholars as to whether the prostitution was, in fact, associated with idolatry, and again, more argument as to whether or not it was homosexual prostitution[6], but all agree that it is prostitution that is referred to.  Again, these texts are not especially relevant to our discussion as we cannot generalise from homosexual prostitution (idolatrous or not) to all homosexual relationships any more than we can generalise from heterosexual prostitution to all heterosexual relationships.  What is condemned here is prostitution, not homosexuality.

[1] (Redding 2000)

[2] If you aren’t familiar with the story, you need to know that God’s destruction of Sodom (and the sister city of Gomorrah) was not specifically because of the actions narrated in the Genesis 19 story, but that he had already decreed it’s destruction because of their many sins.  The events of the final night were final evidence of those sins, but not the complete cause of God’s wrath.

[3] eg (Scroggs 1983) (Hays 1996)

[4] (Hays 1996, 381)

[5] “…for Rabbis of this [post-biblical] period, Sodom symbolised evil in general, pride and economic violence most particularly, and, only in one possible instance, homosexual lust.” (Scroggs 1983, 81)

[6] (Scroggs 1983, 71)

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

The Bible and Homosexuality: Key Biblical Themes 1

While debate regarding social, cultural, medical and scientific knowledge is informative, and should contribute to shaping our responses, it is not determinative; scripture is.  As the church, we do not exist or act primarily in response to changes in human knowledge, but in response to knowledge that is not accessible to humans by our own powers; we are formed by the revelation of God.  That revelation is first and foremost the Lord Jesus Christ, and the testimony of the church to Him in the form of scripture.  That revelation is experienced in an ongoing way in the life of the church through the reading and preaching of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit.  The mission of the church, Christ’s Body, is to continue to incarnate God’s love by the Holy Spirit’s power, and in this mission the scriptures are an invaluable aid.  They are first and foremost the revelation of God himself.  Secondly they reveal to us who we are in relation to God, and God’s will for us.  In considering this issue, we must attend carefully to what Scripture says.

Key biblical themes: Sex and Sexual Immorality: The Bible is not especially focussed upon sex, but nor is it silent on the matter.  The sexual misadventures of numerous biblical characters are part of the record (David, Samson, Judah, Herod) as are the more everyday difficulties (Jacob and Rachael / Leah, 1 Cor. 7) and delights (Isaac and Rebecca, Song of Songs) of sexual relationships.  While it includes both dire warnings against sexual excess and rhapsodic poetry about sexual love, overall the bible is very realistic about sexual matters.

Marriage/sexual imagery is used in the scriptures:

In the Song of Songs, Ezek. 16 & 23, Hosea 1 – 4, 9, Matthew 22:1-14, 25:1-13, Eph 5:21-33, Revelation 19.7-9 & Ch. 21.  The appearance of wedding feast imagery at the culmination of John’s apocalyptic vision is not just an echoing of Jesus’ parables of the feast of the Kingdom, and the coming of the Son of man being like the coming of a bridegroom, and Paul’s teaching that marriage is modelled on the relationship of Christ and the Church.  It is also a recapitulation of the Eden story, renewing the ‘marriage’ of Eden in its spiritual dimension through the renewed relationship between creator and redeemed creation.


Genesis 1: Male and female are the image of God:  In the Creation accounts special attention is paid to the sexually relational aspect of human being.  The Genesis 1 creation story makes the creation of humanity the culmination of creation, declares that Adam (here meaning human-kind rather than a specific man) is made in the image of God, and then immediately says, “male and female he created them.”  It was theologian Karl Barth[1], in the modern era, who drew attention to the meaning of this fact; that it is in our male/female likeness and unlikeness, separateness and connection that we are human and that we image God; as so often occurs in Hebrew thought the second statement is an interpretation and extension of the first.  Just as God is three-in-unity so we are three-in-unity with God. This relational image of God found in our sexual relatedness is what makes images of marriage and adultery so poignant as descriptions of God’s relationships with his people through the centuries and throughout the scriptures.  It is therefore of high importance to us.

Genesis 2: Our Likeness and Unlikeness make Men and Women Right for each other: The Genesis 2 creation account is less focused upon the ‘image of God’ aspect of our sexual complementarity, and more upon the human aspect; that we are not fitted for isolation, nor is the companionship of animals enough, it is the one who is ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ to whom we are drawn, and for the sake of which we leave our past in order to enjoy (re)-union with the ‘help meet’[2] God has provided for us.  It should also be noted that the command of God to “be fruitful and multiply” in chapter 1 and the “leaving father and mother, and cleaving to his wife, and becoming one flesh” of chapter 2 occur before the fall of chapter 3.  Sex (and the children who come) are commanded and blessed by God, and are neither the cause nor the result of the fall.  There is absolutely no biblical warrant for making eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil of chapter 3 into a symbol for sexual relationships. Thus the creation stories tell us that our sexual complementarity has a vital role in imaging the person of God, and that it is in sexual union that we find a completeness without which life can be very lonely.

Genesis 3:  The Fall corrupted our sexual relationships as well as those with the Earth and God.   Chapter three of Genesis is also significant, as it tells us that sexual relationality was one of the aspects of our life that is ‘cursed’ by the fall; in opting to become morally independent of God (knowing good and evil for ourselves) we find that sexual relationships become competitive and exploitative, and we are ashamed of our nakedness where previously there was freedom and openness.  These aspects of sexuality are writ large in the ongoing story of God and his people both at the national and at the personal level as the scriptures in the box above so graphically illustrate.  Sexual immorality and guarding against it are henceforth a regular, though not a dominant, aspect of scriptural teaching, found in the law, the wisdom tradition, the prophets, and in the teaching of Jesus and his followers.

Sex in Redemption: Jesus and Sexual Sin  What happens to sexuality in redemption?  In relation to immorality, believers in Christ are called to imitate his holiness (I will examine holiness separately below), but more positively, it appears that sexual union is sidelined!  Jesus was clearly in favour of sexual morality, teaching that immorality should be understood in terms of motivation as well as in terms of actions[3].  He was remarkable for his kindness and forgiveness towards those who were the victims of sexual sin, and just as remarkable for his fury towards those who “do not practice what they teach – they tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the shoulders of others, but they themselves are unwilling to lift a finger to help them.[4]”  This ‘type’ of person is seen in action in the person of Simon the Pharisee[5], in contrast to the ‘sinful woman’ whose faith saved her.  Jesus appeared to be very compassionate towards those who suffered the tragic nature of everyday life, on the one hand, and very impatient with those who made religious pronouncements on the other.  He was no liberal, but neither was he punitive.

Jesus and Marriage:  As regards sexuality in general, the only appropriate expression of sexuality in Jesus’ day was in marriage, and Jesus’ presence at the wedding feast in Cana, where he performed his first miracle, has been taken as an endorsement of marriage per se.  While this is reasonable, it is also limited.  Jesus undoubtedly did bless marriage, just as he blessed the children who are the fruit of marriage.  Nevertheless, he also made both marriage and family subservient to a higher goal.  Whereas the teaching of the epistles tends to be described as socially conservative[6], the teaching of Jesus can only be described as shockingly radical.  When asked an academic question about the resurrection from the dead, intended to trap him between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, he tells them that their conception of the resurrection is totally inadequate because of their assumption that current relationships will continue unchanged.  This is not so, “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven[7].”  Earlier, in response to another such ‘trap’ question, Jesus evades looking like either a moral liberal who condones divorce, or a biblical illiterate for ignoring Moses’ teaching on divorce, by pointing his questioners back towards the Genesis mandate for marriage and refers to God’s original intention – but then goes on to commend those who don’t marry for the sake of the kingdom of God[8].  Most radically, Jesus teaches that the call of the Kingdom trumps every other responsibility; even, shockingly, those of family – wife, brother, sister, father, mother, and children.[9]  So while we can see that Jesus upheld marriage as God’s good intention, and taught against those who treated it lightly, or who engaged in sexual sin, he did not give it an eternal status at an individual level.  It is inconceivable that marriage is the only way for us to be in the image of God as per Genesis 1, or else we would be saying that Jesus could not image God as a human being – and he undoubtedly did do so.

The Apostles and Sex:  Similarly, Paul was also unmarried, and did not see marriage as the most important social status.  At the corporate level, Jesus used marriage as an image of the kingdom to come (as shown above) as did the apostles after him; but, like him, they did not see marriage as the greatest good; Paul, especially, highly commended life-long celibacy, but this was in the context of saying that marrying (or not marrying – or slavery or freedom, or being Jewish or Greek) was not as important as our status in Christ[10]. Elsewhere, Paul regularly lists sexual immorality as a significant evil to be avoided[11] as do other Apostles[12], and as did the council of Jerusalem[13].  Marriage, according to the writer of Hebrews, is to be honoured, and the marriage bed to remain undefiled for God will judge fornicators and adulterers[14].

An Essential Passage:  One of the most significant passages in this respect is Paul’s plea to the Corinthians[15] to separate themselves from sexual immorality, specifically a form of incest.  He instructs the church to expel the guilty party, noting that while they can’t either judge the world, or refuse to associate with the immoral of the world, they must do so in the case of those who call themselves Christian.  As Paul develops his argument, he lists various ‘sinners’ as types of those from whom the church must be separate. Initially he uses a list of four (5:10), then expands that list, repeating the first four and adding another two items to it (5:11), then climaxing his argument by repeating the list again and including a further four items (6:10) – it is at this point that we see the inclusion of “male prostitutes, and sodomites” (see below on the 1 Cor 6 passage).  It is sometimes argued that vice lists such as these are incidental to the point of the passage, being simply stereotyped lists of vices that Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Jews agreed were abhorrent.  However, the inclusion of several specifically sexual sins in this list is quite deliberate, as Paul has a further point to make.  If we notice that Paul first addressed a specific situation of sexual sin, and then continued by addressing an instance of economic exploitation (one believer taking another to court) we then see that this list is heavily weighted towards the condemnation of economic and sexual sins.  Paul’s expostulation that those who perform such sins are denied entry to God’s kingdom is contrasted with the status of the believers as holy, washed, and made righteous (‘justified’) in Christ and by the Spirit of God (6.11).  This echoes the earlier language about holiness (5:6-8) in terms of pass-over holiness, with a reference to Christ’s sacrifice as a pass-over lamb.  The culmination of the argument that follows is of high importance to us: 12 “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. 13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food,” and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, “The two shall be one flesh.” 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. [16]

The Body in the Apostle Paul’s Theologysoma [body] is a relational concept.  It denotes the person embodied in a particular environment.  It is the means by which the person relates to that environment, and vice versa.  …it is precisely ‘bodiness’ (corporeality, corporateness) which enables individuals as bodies to interact with each other, to cooperate with one another. Redemption for Paul was not some kind of escape from bodily existence, but a transformation into a different kind of bodily existence. …as it is human embodiment which makes society possible, so the church is the means by which Christ makes actual tangible encounter with wider society.

(Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle 1998, 56,61,563-4)

Another View: Bonnington and Fyall (1996, 6) note that modern preoccupation with the body emphasises either pleasure, health, strength, or beauty, whereas a biblical preoccupation with bodily life is “ethical, eschatological, and theological”; “Glorify God in your body (1 Cor 6.20)”

The specific sexual sin targeted here is the use of prostitutes.  The significance for us is that Paul, over and against those who see bodily life as irrelevant to the spiritual life, sees our bodily being as an essential aspect of discipleship.  Paul was clearly dealing with a form of hyper-spirituality, where some of the Corinthians are saying that, either because there is no physical resurrection (1 Cor 15) or because the resurrection has already happened in a ‘spiritual’ sense (1 Cor 4.8), they are no longer subject to normal restrictions, and bodily existence is purely a thing of this world which is passing away.  This explains both sexual immorality in the church, and a push towards asceticism (1 Cor 7:1)[17] as well as the assumption of spiritual superiority because of the more demonstrative spiritual gifts, and the disordered worship (1 Cor 11 & 14).  In contrast, Paul says that our body[18] is the temple of the Holy Spirit and our individual bodies are, literally, members of Christ.  What we do with our bodies matters, and to use them for illicit sex is to use the body of Christ for illicit sex.

In Conclusion:  All this is significant because we must not allow ourselves to simply negate God’s good creation of bodily and sexual human being, but we must see that it is ordered in very specific ways for our benefit, and for the sake of the gospel, and, ultimately, while it can be laid aside for the sake of that gospel it may not be abused without damage to that same gospel.  We “wait for the redemption of our bodies”[19] – we are presently part of the redeemed body of Christ, and yet, though we have the “first fruits of the Spirit” we continue to struggle with sexual temptations.  Our present task is to strive for holiness by God’s power, and to demonstrate Christ’s forgiveness in our fallenness, rather than pretend to the perfection for which we wait.

[1] (Barth 2004, 8, 184 – 185, 194 – 5, 322)
[2] The KJV term ‘help meet’ means ‘suitable helper’ and as has been pointed out many times since, is by no means a description of subordination, as the same term is regularly used of God.
[3] Matt 5:27-30,
[4] Matt. 23:3-4
[5] Luke 7:36-50.  Several commentators have wondered how it was that the woman was able to have such free access to Simon’s house, and how it was that he recognised her.
[6] I have described elsewhere ( how much of the teaching of the epistles regarding family and other social relationships only appears conservative to modern eyes – in its day it was often radically subversive.
[7] Matt. 22.30
[8] Matt 19:1-12
[9] Luke 14.26
[10] 1 Corinthians 7
[11] Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 5:1, 6:13, 18, 7:2, 10:8, Gal 5:19, Eph 5:3, Col 3:5, 1 Thes 4:3
[12] 2 Pet 2:10; 1 John 2:16; Jude 7,
[13] Acts 15
[14] Heb 13.4
[15] 1 Cor 5 & 6

[16]1 Cor 6:12-20, NRSV
[17] Both these features are found in Gnosticism in the second century, where they are strongly associated with a Greek philosophical dualism between spirit (good) and body (bad or irrelevant).
[18] Here in vs 19 and also in vs 20, the word ‘body’ is singular, but the personal pronoun ‘your’ is plural.  In other words, the body that belongs to all of us – the church – not our individual bodies as such.
[19] Rom 8:23

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment