David Runcorn Reads Leviticus 18

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22, NRSV)

In his contribution to the Pilling Report David Runcorn attempts to show that “it is at least questionable whether the concern here is with homosexuality at all.”

This is part of an argument that seeks to demonstrate that what is condemned in Scripture has no relationship to the “contemporary phenomenon” of faithful, committed, and we may now add egalitarian, relationships.

DR postulates that “the setting” of Leviticus 18 is “a culture in which male role, status and behaviour is the sole, driving concern.” Even overlooking the unwarranted use of the qualifiers “sole” and “driving,” we should ask whether this is the only factor of its setting which is relevant here. The justification for the limits on sexual activity given in Lev 18 itself, in the frame in verses 1-5 and 24-30. These limits were meant to differentiate Israel from the Canaanites whose behaviour in this realm is judged abominable.

This raises, possibly unanswerable, historical questions but certainly should caution us against painting the whole of antiquity with the same brush of obsession with “male ownership and possession” – attitudes to homosexuality in ancient Canaanite, Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts need to be compared with what we find in Scripture.

What is, however, even more remarkable is that DR then makes it sound as if “the controlling belief in male dominance and superiority” is not only the setting but also the intent of this biblical law. Is a prior conviction that all strictures on homosexual activity express a concern with male status the reason for thinking such a concern lies behind Lev 18? Or is there anything in Lev 18 itself which would point us in this direction?

DR appeals to difficulties in translating Lev 18:22 but believes that “the concern here seems to be men behaving ‘like women’ (ie passive/submissive) in same sex intercourse.” In fact, it seems to be reasonably uncontroversial to say that the text condemns “a man treating another man sexually as he would treat a woman.” DR interprets “the insertion of the penis” as an “act of male possession” and suggests that it would have been considered inappropriate for a man to take possession of another male in this way.

DR offers no evidence for the claim that penetration equals possession in biblical law but an argument to that effect can be found in Gareth Moore, A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality (London: Continuum, 2003). Given that biblical laws concerning slavery allow for men becoming the possession of another man, it might have been useful to explain what exactly –in this view– was abominable about a sexual act of possession in the cultural context postulated.

The view also fails to explain the rationale of the next half-verse. If sexual penetration is all about possession, it makes sense to prohibit the penetration of a woman by an animal (Lev 18:23b) but it is less clear why the penetration of an animal by a man (Lev 18:23a) is condemned. This suggests that maybe there is more here than a concern with property and hierarchy.

The concern with penetration does, however, explain the absence of condemnation of lesbian sex in Lev 18 and Garteh Moore is right to point out that Lev 18 does not prohibit, e.g., men kissing each other.

Seeking to understand the logic behind a condemnation is a good thing. Moore offers a helpful illustration (Question of Truth, pp 63-65). But we should not dismiss the relevance of a text on the assumption that it was driven by a concern which is no longer ours. We have not yet fully understood and heeded Scripture, if we content ourselves with ignoring a text because we know ourselves more enlightened today.

As a self-professed evangelical, DR needs to face the question whether God’s instructions for Israel were indeed concerned with strengthening male status and on what grounds this was appropriate then but is not appropriate now. Why did God apparently reveal laws which were not merely designed to function in a male-dominated society but actually shaped to further strengthen male status?

Given the rationale for the condemnations in Lev 18 offered in the passage itself, should we conclude that Canaanite culture was insufficiently androcentric in God’s eyes? Maybe reducing this text to a concern for male status is ill advised in the light of textual features which are thereby ignored.

David Runcorn Reads Genesis 18-19

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.

David Runcorn Reads Genesis 2

The aim of David Runcorn’s contribution to the Pilling Report is to provide an alternative to the reading of the Biblical evidence concerning same sex partnerships adopted by “conserving evangelicals” and many others, including many who do not disapprove of same sex sexual acts.

David Runcorn’s minority report assumes that “faithful, committed same sex relationships” are a “contemporary phenomenon” with no parallels in the world of the Bible and that for this reason Biblical prohibitions on same sex sexual activity do not apply to these 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 uncertain to a significant degree. (In some sense, our interpretation must always be provisional but there is a difference between a stance of humility and one which expresses a lack of confidence in being able to understand what Scripture says on a given issue. The latter is also an appropriate stance in some cases but not in other cases and may in fact express a proud refusal to accept what Scripture says.)

Genesis 2

DR acknowledges that the first two human beings were “made for each other” in a sense which required that they were of a different sex from each other. He could have used David Clines’ famous question “What Does Eve Do to Help?” (chapter one in What Does Eve Do to Help? And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990]) to highlight that the woman was created to help the man to procreate.

DR then points out that this does not require us to believe “that the whole created order has a bi-focused structure” as is apparently argued by some. (DR provides no references here.) I’m glad to agree with DR that Genesis 2 does not “actually exclude any other kind of human relationships” but surprised to discover that he thinks anyone holds a view which, if pursued with rigour, would entail a denial of “friendship, community or society” other than marriage.

Marriage, as introduced in Genesis 2, is far more than the union of two individuals. In ancient Hebrew culture it expresses a vocation to community. This is often missed. But can the language of bifocus express this truth at all? Or is society itself bifocused – and if so how?

It is true that marriage “is far more than the union of two individuals” although the focus in Genesis 2 is on procreation more than relationships with the wider community and it is not clear what the basis is for the claim in the second sentence. (The footnote refers to pp 32-34 in Brueggemann’s Genesis commentary which do not obviously support the claim and are in any case not about Genesis 2.)

DR then goes on to argue that in the New Testament bifocus “is more often presumed to be part of the old order overturned by the gospel (male/female, Jew/Gentile, etc.)” with reference to Galatians 3:28. 

Given that Paul writes, “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (emphases added), it could be explored whether the first two binary oppositions are declared irrelevant within the church, while the male/female one is transcended without being altogether irrelevant. In any case, it seems a bold move to conclude from the absence of slavery and marriage in the perfected new creation to the absence of sexual distinctions.

Is DR fighting a straw argument of his own making? This impression is confirmed in the following which conflates “image of God” language (Genesis 1) with marriage (Genesis 2):

Is the claim being made that man and woman in married union somehow ‘complete’ the expression of what it means to be made in God’s image? It needs to be shown that God’s image in humanity is understood as expressed through marriage and sexual differentiation in Hebrew or Christian theology. And can this be so without implying sexual differentiation within God – something utterly foreign to the biblical tradition?

Maybe DR should have tried to differentiate his reading more explicitly from real, existing readings of Genesis 1 and 2 rather than setting it in opposition to a hypothetical construct of his own making.

The final two paragraphs in this section claim that Genesis 2 is awash with cultural assumptions which result in it being “a very long way from a Christian understanding of marriage.”

His ‘including’ reading highlights that a “hunger and longing for relationship lies at the good heart of being human.” From the fact that God waits with the creation of woman until Adam has recognised the need himself, he concludes that “only Adam, it seems, can recognize” who is a suitable helper for him. This is of course unwarranted, as any parent or teacher should know. In many areas it is important that learners get to develop an understanding of the needs and answers themselves; whether others do or do not already know the answer is neither here nor there.

(It is interesting to note that DR now claims that Adam’s reaction to the creation of woman recognizes and celebrate companionship when two paragraphs before they were considered a naming ceremony which expresses dominion over the woman. The male-centeredness is said to be subverted by the reference to “side” and the use of “helper”. I am confident that this revised reading can be shown to fit the details of the text better.)

“Marriage now appears almost as an aside,” argues DR by glossing “for this reason” as “while we are on this subject” (without justification or hint of any awareness of how such phrasing works in the book of Genesis). He wants to persuade us that what Genesis 2 is about is not so much the appropriateness of a woman to help the man to procreate but the need for everyone to find their life partner without having a companion forced on them.

In sum, DR claims that the choice here is between allowing for the possibility of same sex partnerships in analogy to marriage or to exclude “any relationships outside of heterosexual marriage.”

Good Readers of Scripture

What makes a good reader of Scripture? David Runcorn relates his emotional journey towards becoming an “including evangelical” which highlights that the context in which his faith was re-awakened was one in which “homosexuality drew very particular condemnation” as “the sin of sins.” He observes that this means that “for many in this tradition the subject of same-sex relationships comes charged with powerful emotional responses.”

Revulsion, distress or anxiety are not measures of the rightness of any viewpoint. Still less are signs of biblical fidelity. They may just be telling me I am revolted, anxious and distressed about an issue. And that calls me to attend more carefully to my personal journey into a mature and secure awareness of my own sexual identity and desires.

There is a widespread assumption that anyone opposing same-sex marriage must do so from deeply felt or buried irrational revulsion. (Claiming that one does not recognise within oneself any revulsion, distress or anxiety in relation to LGBT people will then be seen as proof of repressed emotions.) It is not clear whether David Runcorn himself believes that revulsion lies necessarily at the heart of less permissive readings of Scripture but where it does, it can indicate a problem. Certainly, good readers will seek to be aware of their emotional responses and examine them with the help of others.

I must start with self-examination. How defensive or defended am I? How do I cope with criticism? What is my response to being found wrong or making a mistake? How graciously do I receive and take time over viewpoints that challenge my own in ways I cannot simply refute? I will need the help of truthful friends to know the answer to these questions.

This is sound advice as much as the need for reading within community which is particularly important for any who are tempted to put themselves at the centre of the process of reading Scripture, believing that they are in control of text and process. 

Such humility must include respect for facts – historical and linguistic facts among others. Richard Burridge called for the inclusion of biblical scholars in the facilitated conversations in the wake of the Pilling Report. We can surely agree that exegetes can “offer the Christian community some expertise and methods to enable them to grapple with the text themselves” and probably also that their role is not to provide “the correct answer” as if they were the final authority on reading Scripture. Nevertheless, trained exegetes will sometimes need to say that a particular reading is implausible because it rests on unsound linguistic or historical assumptions. With all respect for “ordinary readings,” not all readings are equal.

A good reader of Scripture is also a canonical reader. Given the widespread ignorance about Scripture even among the clergy this is a significant challenge. Again, both is true: people with little knowledge of the Bible can offer profound insights and should be heard, but readings are validated with reference to the whole of Scripture and those with a fuller grasp of the canon are therefore in a better position to judge the validity of readings than others. 

There is a creedal and catholic context to the interpretation of Scripture. Ian Paul points out what happens when this context is set aside, quoting Jeff Astley’s Grove booklet Taking Ordinary Theology Seriously. It is important to respect “ordinary readers” but we should not be naïve about the impact of sin on our readings. One need not believe that there is only one correct reading of any given passage to claim that some readings fails to be Christian and therefore cannot claim the same status within the church as other readings. There is an interrelationship between the individual and the community. The church’s reading of Scripture is not a simple aggregate of readings offered within a church context. Cf. the Wisdom of Richard Hooker.

There is a pastoral context to the interpretation of Scripture. David Runcorn notes

Pastoral and personal experience makes plain that the evangelical tradition has not been fruitful in communicating the love and life of Christ to LGBT people.

We should not respond to this simply by pointing out that a number of LGBT people will not feel loved and affirmed, whatever your welcome, as long as sex outside marriage is disapproved. This is true and is not a sufficient reason to adopt a more permissive stance to sexual activity outside marriage, if chastity is part of what it means to imitate Christ. But it is also true that (some) evangelicals have been quick to condemn, appealing to texts such as Ephesians 5:5.  Many LGBT people do not recognise themselves in such biblical condemnations of same-sex activity. David Runcorn urges

We need to take it seriously when one of the most familiar results of trying to apply biblical texts to contemporary same-sex relationships is that those being referred to simply do not recognise themselves there at all. This is not that. Indeed the very idea is actually offensive.  We need to listen to this.

We need to listen indeed – and ask questions of ourselves and the texts. The conclusion may be that the sexual greed condemned in Ephesians5:5 is not a good fit with a particular same-sex relationship.

In his contribution to the Pilling Report, David Runcorn refers to Romans 1 in this context. The picture of depravity there does not look anything like many people in same-sex relationships that he or I know. But nor does it look anything like any Hindu people I know. While it is possible that Paul had no knowledge of “faithful, covenanted, same sex relationships,” it is very unlikely that he had no experience of morally upright idol-worshippers. 

Most people today would not recognise themselves in Romans 1 but we have little reason to believe that many first-century pagans recognised themselves in this picture either. It is a composite worst-case scenario (so to speak). There are few, if any, people then or now to whom every single thing listed in Romans 1:21-32 would apply. We would mis-interpret the text if we concluded from it that because someone is a gossip, they must also be an idol-worshipper, or because they engage in lesbian sex, they must also be heartless. Listening to our pastoral context can help prevent such a misreading.

Humble and self-reflective readers listen to the voice of biblical scholars and theologians as well as to the experience of those affected by our readings without allowing either to shape our readings uncritically. Or, to put it the other way round, not all reflections on experience are accurate and reliable, neither are all contributions by biblical scholars, but it would be foolish to dismiss such contributions whenever they do not fit our preconceptions of what Scripture says.