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.
