The Silence of Jesus

The Pilling Report notes: “On two things concerning Scripture and sexuality, almost everyone is agreed: the Bible contains no positive depictions of, or statements about, sexual activity between people of the same sex, and Jesus himself is not recorded as mentioning the subject at all. But the significance of these two facts, and of other questions of scriptural interpretation on the subject, is deeply contested” (par. 220).

There are general hermeneutical reasons why one might be reluctant to appeal to the silence of Jesus in favour of revising the Church’s teaching on this or any issue. Anglicans are not known to be “red-letter Christians” even if the Gospels are privileged over other parts of Scripture; pro-slavery campaigners have used the argument from the silence of Jesus; it is specious to argue from silence to approval (cf. Ps. 50:21).

By and large, those who argue that the teaching of the Church on sexual ethics should remain unchanged believe that the silence of Jesus (in the Gospels) is of little consequence because Jesus affirms sexual immorality as evil, locating this evil in the heart (Mark 7:21-22), while giving us no reason to believe that his understanding of what constitutes sexual immorality differs from that of the book of Leviticus or the Jewish people around him. Evangelicals, but not only evangelicals, may want to add that the risen Christ continued to speak and did in fact have more to say on sexual immorality once the pagan world came into greater view, e.g., through the letters of Paul to the Romans and the Corinthians.

But those who seek to revise the Church’s teaching arguably have even less reason to make much of the silence of Jesus. If affirmation of gay sex is a matter of justice, as is often argued, it has either become a matter of justice more recently or it has always been a matter of justice, albeit maybe only more recently recognised as such.

If the former, the silence of Jesus can be excused, maybe on the grounds that LGBT people were not oppressed in the first-century Jewish context in which Jesus taught. There would have been therefore no need for Jesus to speak up for them.

If the latter, the silence of Jesus is embarrassing. If he who came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18) said nothing to liberate people from heterosexism, he must have had a massive blind spot, if heterosexism was as prevalent and damaging then as it is felt to be now.

Either way, it is difficult to see how the silence of Jesus can further the case for changing attitudes to full sexual expressions between members of the same sex. Maybe better keep silent about the silence of Jesus.

In truth, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that appeal to the silence of Jesus is a smokescreen. Are those who consider the silence of Jesus on this matter significant the same people who are keen to abide by the words of Jesus on divorce and remarriage? This is not my impression. Those who argue for a liberalisation of sexual ethics usually favour a more liberal approach to divorce and remarriage as well and indeed appeal to it for proof that the Church can change its teaching.