David Runcorn’s contribution to the Pilling
Report suggests a reading of Biblical texts which would allow us to affirm
same sex partnerships without setting ourselves against Scripture. Assuming that
all same sex relationships known to biblical authors were abusive, he argues
that biblical prohibitions on same sex sexual activity do not apply to the “contemporary
phenomenon” of faithful, committed relationships.
This post examines whether David Runcorn’s
readings (DR) are sufficiently plausible to justify the claim made in the
Pilling Report that Biblical teaching concerning sexually active same sex
partnerships is very uncertain. A first post examined David
Runcorn’s reading of Genesis 2.
Genesis 18-19
DR believes that the “actual concern” of
these chapters is hospitality and that this is “very relevant to, and all too
often ignored, in this debate.” As with Genesis 2, DR only allows for extreme positions. The
goodies believe that Sodom’s sin is “a failure to honour the stranger in the
midst” and the baddies that homosexual desire is condemned.
The situation is more complex. Genesis
19:8 refers to Lot’s responsibility to protect his guests rather than “the
covenant obligation” of the inhabitants of Sodom “to honour the stranger in the
midst” (what covenant?). DR asks in this connection
(But what should be the marks of a Christian reading of this harrowing story, set in a male-centred world in which a binding hierarchy of social obligation requires the honouring of (male) guests above the most basic obligation to protect your own family? In such a world a man will offer his own virgin daughters to distract gang rapists rather than breach this code. Doesn’t this culture reveal unredeemed extremes of violent sexism and patriarchy?)
I’m glad DR finds Lot’s offer horrific
but he misunderstands the way biblical narrative works when he assumes that the
narrator commends Lot's offer because the story is told without judgement on
Lot.
Seeking a Christian reading of
this story, it would have been appropriate not to ignore the passage in the New
Testament which makes explicit reference to the sin of Sodom:
Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the towns surrounding them, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in gross immorality and pursued strange flesh, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1:7)
The concern in Jude is with people who “pervert
the grace of our God into licentiousness” (v. 4, NRSV) and the “likewise” in
verse 7 refers to angels transgressing (v. 6), most likely a reference to the episode
at the beginning of Genesis 6. There is a discussion to be had whether the
phrase “strange flesh” refers to homosexual activity or not, but there is
little doubt that in Jude the sin of Sodom is sexual immorality.
Sodom’s sin comes to expression in attempted gang
rape of Lot’s guests. Whether or not, in the perspective of the narrator, this
is aggravated by the fact that the rape in question was homosexual in intention
may be a matter of discussion. Clearly one should not deduce from the narrative a
condemnation of homosexual orientation as such. (DR conflates “behaviour” and “orientation”
in such a careless manner that it is likely to frustrate anyone who thinks that
a distinction can be made between the two.)
DR rightly cautions against taking
this story of abusive and violent behaviour to condemn all homosexual orientation
and relationships as evil. But many “conserving” evangelicals will not recognise
themselves in his characterisation of their reading. Nor will they easily
accept that they are members of a community that excludes LGBT people “to
ensure the maintenance of its own
hierarchical, moral or social preoccupations.” In some cases this may be
because they are blind to their prejudices, but not in all.
Again, DR may have
some appropriate scorn to offer to knee-jerk homophobes but little food for
thought for any who have engaged thoughtfully with these texts before.
