What is James Jones *actually* saying?

Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!

You may have seen by now the teensy fuss that is growing over this miniscule little article in today’s Guardian:

One of the country’s most senior bishops has argued that the Bible sanctions same-sex relationships, using the bonds between Jesus and John the disciple, and David and Jonathan as examples.

The Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Rev James Jones, a conservative evangelical, expressed the views in a book, A Fallible Church, in which he apologised for objecting to the appointment of the gay cleric Dr Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. He was one of nine bishops to sign a public letter criticising the proposed consecration.

The bishop also apologised for his conduct and its effect on John, who eventually withdrew his acceptance of the post after bowing to pressure.

Jones said: "I deeply regret this episode in our common life. I still believe it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr John and his partner."

He called for Anglicans to "acknowledge the authoritative biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender most notably in the relationship of Jesus and his beloved [John] and David and Jonathan".

Obviously, one or two people aren’t terribly happy about it. Michael Johnson, for example, replies:

Except that there are no "authoritative biblical examples of love between two people of the same gender" and Jones knows it.  So his theory is certainly unencumbered by evidence.  And it makes David’s encounter with Bathsheba rather difficult to understand.

Deep down, homosexuals and their supporters must be terribly unsure of themselves.  Why else would they constantly recruit dead people into their ranks?  It’s not tough to find long lists of historical figures who really were gay, you know, and everyone knows it.  This despite a complete and total lack of empircal evidence of that alleged fact.

Well yes. Quite.

Granted, I haven’t read the book, just the article, but I do wonder what it is that +Jones is actually saying. It seems that this isn’t an endorsement of gay sex per se, rather, he’s coming to the view that committed, celibate, relationships might have something going for them. That, it was claimed, was the kind of relationship that Jeffrey John had (has) with his partner and therefore since it doesn’t go against the Biblical injunction on homosexual activity, and since it mirrors some "covenantal" relationships in the Bible, I think I can see where he’s coming from on that.

Not that I agree of course.

There is a fundamental flaw in Jones’ argument and it is simply this. The Bible isn’t talking about eros and the likes of Jeffrey John are. Let me explain.

No one has any problem with the idea that there was a disciple who Jesus loved. The question is, what was that "love" that is being talked about? We can ask lots of questions about whether he was lying on Jesus or very close to Jesus, but really this has little to do with whether there was a "covenantal" relationship between them. Indeed, there is absolutely no hint of anything of the sort, simply a little bit of ambiguous Greek on the location of the lying disciple and this wonderful word - agape (or technically the indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular of the verb agape, but let’s not get picky eh?).

Agape - that’s the kind of love that Jesus had for his disciple. The word crops up again and again in the New Testament but curiously, and get this because it’s the clincher, it doesn’t mean a sexual relationship. It might appear in the context of sexual imagery (for example Ephesians 5 [show]Ephesians 5 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.(1) In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [5:27] Or 'holy and blameless'
) but normally it is used of the outpouring of self-less love. In Eph 5:2 [show]Ephesians 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (ESV)
we are commanded to live a life of agape, just as Christ agaped us. Nothing sexual in that is there? Is Paul commanding us to go out and have sexual relationships with all and sundry because that’s what Christ did? Nope - here agape is completely desexualised and rightly so. You simply can’t infer a sexual or "covenantal" relationship between Jesus and John simply on the basis of the word "agape" or on an ambiguous bit of Greek locational grammar.

What about David and Jonathan? Well the fact that Jonathan loved David doesn’t in any way imply it was sexual. "ahav" (a rough transliteration) is another generic term that doesn’t just mean partnered sexual relationships. The same word is used time and time again to talk about God’s love (Zep 3:17 [show]Zephaniah 3:17 The LORD your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.
), friendship etc. The fact that in 2 Sam 1:26 [show]2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was extraordinary, surpassing the love of women.
David says that Jonathan’s love surpassed that of a woman doesn’t mean that their relationship was sexual in any way. You simply cannot surmise that from the text, there are no clues to indicate it and frankly, given that David’s sexual exploits are smeared all over Samuel 1 [show]1 Samuel 1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim of the hill country of Ephraim whose name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. He had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other, Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. Now this man used to go up year by year from his city to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD. On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and daughters. But to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though the LORD had closed her womb.(1) And her rival used to provoke her grievously to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb. So it went on year by year. As often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. And Elkanah, her husband, said to her, "Hannah, why do you weep? And why do you not eat? And why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?" After they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh, Hannah rose. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the LORD. She was deeply distressed and prayed to the LORD and wept bitterly. And she vowed a vow and said, "O LORD of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head." As she continued praying before the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. Hannah was speaking in her heart; only her lips moved, and her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli took her to be a drunken woman. And Eli said to her, "How long will you go on being drunk? Put your wine away from you." But Hannah answered, "No, my lord, I am a woman troubled in spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD. Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for all along I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation." Then Eli answered, "Go in peace, and the God of Israel grant your petition that you have made to him." And she said, "Let your servant find favor in your eyes." Then the woman went her way and ate, and her face was no longer sad. They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD; then they went back to their house at Ramah. And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife, and the LORD remembered her. And in due time Hannah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Samuel, for she said, "I have asked for him from the LORD."(2) The man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and to pay his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, "As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, so that he may appear in the presence of the LORD and dwell there forever." Elkanah her husband said to her, "Do what seems best to you; wait until you have weaned him; only, may the LORD establish his word." So the woman remained and nursed her son until she weaned him. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull,(3) an ephah(4) of flour, and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh. And the child was young. Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. And she said, "Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. For this child I prayed, and the LORD has granted me my petition that I made to him. Therefore I have lent him to the LORD. As long as he lives, he is lent to the LORD." And he worshiped the LORD there. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [1:5] Syriac; the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. Septuagint 'And, although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion, because the LORD had closed her womb' 2. [1:20] 'Samuel' sounds like the Hebrew for 'heard of God' 3. [1:24] Septuagint, Syriac; Hebrew 'three bulls' 4. [1:24] An 'ephah' was about 3/5 bushel or 22 liters
and 2, you would think there would be just a teensy weensy hint wouldn’t you?

No, what we have in both cases is simply friendship. Deep friendship yes, but friendship none the less. And that should be that shouldn’t it and at a cursory glance the likes of +Jones seem to be standing up and saying "But that’s all we’re asking for - to acknowledge deep friendships and convenantal relationships".

But the problem is that the relationship being presented to us to endorse isn’t one of those. It pains me to have to point to people who are alive and analyse their personal relationships, but sometimes we need to do so in order to apply biblical theology correctly. Take, for example then, the case of someone who has written and spoken on the subject of gay relationships and is an advocate of blessing such unions. When such a person enters into a Civil Partnership and lives within it as a "celibate", is that a willing Scripture driven choice to live a celibate life and to reject  the notion of homosexual activity being holy in any curcumstances? I really don’t think so. Such a relationship is driven by eros and as such doesn’t fit the David / Jonathan model. You cannot map the Jesus/John or David/Johnathan model onto that kind of relationship because that modern relationship is intrinsically sexual whereas the Biblical ones were not.

For example, if my wife and I didn’t have sex with each other for a month, would that make our relationship non-erotic? Absolutely not, for we would still be acting in a number of ways that would express the truth of our relationship. We don’t need to get naked to show we have an erotic relationship - a simple hand slid down a covered back in a certain way is enough to establish that. Are we really kidding ourselves that the relationship that doesn’t have full sexual contact but is highly sexually intimate is not erotic and therefore not one that goes where Scripture tells us not to?

Don’t get me wrong - Some people do manage to fashion a household that is two (or more) people of the same sex living together in intimate friendship, but without an erotic content. It does happen, it’s not "gay" (even if the members of it might be homosexually orientated), it’s simply friendship. It might even be "covenanted" friendship, the kind that David and Jonathan had, but it’s not erotic and neither does it pretend not to be when it is. If eroticism emerges it is brought onto the table and dealt with and handled in a mature Christian manner. That kind of household is one worth exploring and defending. Sadly though, I don’t think that’s what +Jones means (though I may be mistaken).

I have one final thing to add. The ultimate problem with an erotic (if celibate) same-sex relationship is that it places the members in a position where they cannot be used by God to signify the union of Christ and the Church (Eph 5 [show]Ephesians 5 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not become partners with them; for at one time you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret. But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, for anything that becomes visible is light. Therefore it says, "Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you." Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.(1) In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (ESV) Footnotes 1. [5:27] Or 'holy and blameless'
) that some humans are called to. Husband and wife signifies Christ and the Church. Husband and husband does not (and in fact signifies God’s disinterest in humanity) and wife and wife does not (while actually signifying humanity’s rejection of God). A single person places him/herself in the position where they refuse to allow themselves to sexually express something contrary to the truth of the union of Christ with the Church. The same goes for someone who enters a specifically non-erotic same-sex friendship/covenant.

That cannot however be said for someone who enters an erotic same-sex union. The sexual connection, whether coitus or otherwise, is a deliberate rejection of the body’s design by God to signify the union of Christ and the Church, not just for the moment but for one’s whole life.

If the Bishop of Liverpool is asking us to consider seriously the Christian understanding of celibate, non-erotic same-sex friendships then more power to him (and less to the Guardian who have used his words for their own agenda). But if instead he is calling on orthodox Christians to embrace erotic same-sex activity then he is very (biblically) mistaken.

Update : Vicarious Ugleyous has a copy of the essay together with an analysis similar to mine, and you can read the Jones essay for yourself here. It appears that Jones is taking the first of my two options above, but in such a way that leaves him open to a positive interpretation by the pro-gay lobby.