In the past couple of months, a number of very good reviews have been written or are still in the process of being written on Ken Wilson’s A Letter to My Congregation. In this series of posts, I won’t simply rehash the various critiques of ALTMC as so many have done previously. For these more general reviews and critiques, I would encourage you to check out those of thinkthelogy.org’s own Luke Geraty, as well as UK blogger Thomas John Creedy and Ken’s former executive pastor Don Bromley.
Instead, I rather think there is much to commend Ken Wilson’s engagement with these issues. In this blog series I want to affirm a number of observations of Ken’s analyses and build upon them by proposing a broader biblical framework which Ken himself is talking around the edges of throughout his text. Ultimately, I want to offer an alternative Scriptural model to Ken’s use of Romans 14 and 15 for understanding and responding to these difficult issues within the Church.
When I first heard Ken present the core content of what would become ALTMC at the SVS 2013 conference in Anaheim, I felt that Kens usage of Romans 14 and 15 was problematic on a number of accounts, not the least of which was Kens lack of treatment of the Corinthian correspondence on that same issue. When I asked Ken about some of these tensions, Ken simply responded with a smile and said, “Well, that’s for you biblical scholars to figure out.” Since this conversation over a year ago, a number of individuals have provided (or are forthcoming with) robust critiques on Ken’s use of Romans 14 and 15. My hope is to affirm key elements of Ken’s argument while suggesting an alternative scriptural framework to both understand the situation and map a way forward for the Church.
Even though I have only met Ken on a handful of occasions, I have great respect for him as a fellow member of the Vineyard tribe and my brother in Christ. My hope is that throughout these posts, my tone is both cordial and collaborative as Scripture, Ken’s position, and these crucial issues are engaged.
First of all, let me say that I deeply appreciate that Ken looks to Scripture for a model to understand and guide our response to this difficult issue within the Church. I similarly agree with proponents of Ken’s position that we need an eschatological hermeneutic, guided by the Kingdom and our Christian telos, to interpret and respond to this issue appropriately.
I think that Ken’s pursuit of a model for responding to this issue within Scripture’s letters to various churches is a great place to start. The Church, from the very beginning, has consistently needed correction and guidance. In fact, over half of the New Testament is exactly this: letters whose purposes are to bring correction of orthodoxy and orthopraxy to Spirit-empowered communities and churches that have missed the mark.
Ken’s pastoral intuition regarding the connection between how we respond to LGBT issues and the legitimacy of marriage and divorce is astute. While I know some of Ken’s critics don’t agree with his connection of these two issues, I think there is a fundamental connection between these two ideas that we need to affirm. Ken’s attempt to zoom out from focusing on LGBT issues to the exclusion of other sexually illicit issues is much needed in this discussion. In order to respond to these issues, we really need a much more holistic, consistent response to sexual brokenness.
In Scripture, this category of sexual brokenness and the range of sexually illicit activity are referred to as porneia (and the associated porn- cognates). This family of terms underwent a vast transformation and redefinition in the centuries leading up to the composition of the New Testament. A veritable library has been written in the past couple decades debating the meaning, development, and expansion of this term. Some, like Dale Martin in Sex and the Single Savior (Westminster, 2006), argue that the precise meaning can’t be known, while others, like Kyle Harper in the more recent “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm” (JBL 2012), have sought to understand the range of this term while appreciating its developmental volatility.
This post is the first of a multi-part series. In the rest of this post, I will be looking at the biblical concept of porneia (and its associated cognates) and tracing the development of this term from its classical usage through its usage in the New Testament. Hopefully this will lay some groundwork for my proposal in the next blog.
On Porneia
In the classical Greek language, porneia was generally used to describe the event, trait or activity of “fornication” or “licentiousness.” The context of this activity within classical Greek is almost universally with an opposite gender prostitute (involving a financial exchange) although there is at least one occurrence referent to same sex activity within a similar context.[1]
Correspondingly, the noun pornē is used for the “harlot” or “prostitute” and pornos for those who frequent the harlot’s services. Occasionally, the pornos can also be used to describe male prostitutes. The verb porneuōdescribes the verbal action of porneia with the passive used of an individual prostituting themselves. The verb ekporneuōseems to carry the same sense but is a stronger form of porneuō. For our purposes, porneia will be the focus of our discussion given its significant presence and role within the New Testament but these other terms will similarly be considered as needed.
Even though the activity of prostitution, both cultic and secular, served a central role in Greek and Roman societies, porneia was not that common of a word, appearing in the works of only four classical authors. These sparse occurrences stand in sharp contrast with the presence of porneia occurring “nearly four hundred times in Jewish and Christian Literature before 200 C.E. and over eighteen hundred times between 200 and 600 C.E.”[2]
The semantic range of porneia greatly expanded in Second Temple usage as the receptor term in the LXX (Greek translation of the Old Testament) for the Hebrew root znh. In the Hebrew Bible, zānâ is used for a variety of purposes including prostitution, adultery, exogamy, general promiscuity, as well as spiritual harlotry/idolatry.[3] Beyond singular meanings, the pairing of dual harlotry, both religious and carnal, occurs again and again throughout the Hebrew Bible.[4] This joint harlotry is particularly evident in the golden-calf and Baal of Peor narratives. Throughout Hosea, Jeremiah, and Ezekial, Israel’s apostasy is described as both “whoredom” (zānâ) and “adultery” (nā’ap), but Richard Davidson notes that “whoredom” is the much more frequent metaphor than adultery throughout these texts.[5]
In later Second Temple and Hellenistic Judaism, porneia expanded in usage even farther to include virtually any prohibited sexual activity from Torah.[6] Included in this expanded usage are extra-marital intercourse/harlotry, adultery, incest, unnatural vices, sodomy, unlawful marriages, bigamy, exogamy, and same sex activity.[7] Very similar to Paul’s argument regarding the link between same-sex activity and idolatry in Romans 1, porneia is causally linked with idolatry in Wisdom of Solomon 4:12-17. In the book of Jubilees, porneia defiles not only the individual (30:2, 6) but also the family (30:7), the land, and all of Israel (30:15). Astute readers will note how very similar this understanding in Jubilees is to how the whole range of sexually illicit activity in Leviticus 18 is said to corrupt and defile both the people and the land (Lev 18:24-30). In his excellent article on porneia, KyleHarper rightly observes that, “the term condensed the cultural differences between the observers of the Torah and Gentile depravity.”[8] In sum, licit sexual activity was defined by Torah and served as a cultural boundary marker where everything beyond Torah-observance was categorized as illicit and labeled as porneia.[9]
It is this range of usage that we arguably find throughout the New Testament. The noun pornē,is used to describe professional prostitutes (Luke 15:30; Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25); pornos is used in three instances to describe individuals involved in illicit sexual activity (1 Cor 6:9; Eph 5:5; 1 Tim 1:10.); porneia is found in seven different vice lists (Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; Rev 9:21). Jesus seems to implicitly suggest there is some material difference between the activity of adultery (moichaō) and porneia in the Matthean exception clauses (Matt 5:32; 19:9).[10] The excessive sins of Sodom and Gamorrah are described as ekporneuō in Jude 7. In 1 Corinthians 5:1ff, Paul suggests there are “types/kinds” of porneia, of which one type is incest. Also in the Corinthian correspondence, Paul argues that toleration of porneia of even a single individual implicates the whole local church, risks corrupting the status of the community as a pure bride, and equates to an eschatological threat against the community as a whole.[11] In 1 Thess 4, porneia is portrayed as contrary to “sanctification” and rejection of this reality constitutes rejection of God himself.[12] Given these observations, it should not be surprising then that one finds porneia as one of the four prohibited activities Gentiles were to refrain in the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25) and that the likely background for these prohibitions is found in Israel’s holiness code.[13]
For the early Church, porneia was a big deal. I believe Ken is right to link how we respond to both divorce/remarriage and same-sex sexual activity since they are intimately connected in the NT under the under the umbrella term porneia as sexually illicit activities. In the next blog, we will look at a place in Scripture where the themes of porneia, epistolary letters of correction, eschatological communities, the commands of Jesus, prophetic leadings, and arguably the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15) all come together to hopefully speak into our contemporary conversation. Oh, did I mention that of the 56 occurrences of porn– roots in the New Testament, over one third of these instances occur in the book of Revelation…?
End Notes
[1] See TDNT 6:581 for specifics.
[2] Kyle Harper, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” JBL 131, no. 2 (2012):369.
[3] For various discussions of these see, Hauck and Schulz, “po,rnh,” TDNT 6:584; Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2007), 306n27; Phyllis Bird, “Prostitution in the Social World and the Religious Rhetoric of Ancient Israel,” in Faraone and McClure, Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (University of Wisconsin Press, 2005), 49-55.
[4] Aron Balorda widely tracks this tendency throughout various periods of OT history including the antediluvian period (Gen 6:1-4), the patriarchal period (Gen 24:3; 26:34-35; 28:1-5; 34), the period of the exodus and entry into Canaan (Exod 32; 34:15-16; Num 25; Deut 7:3, 4; 17:17; Josh 23:12, 13), the period of the judges and monarchy (Judg 14:1-3; 16; 1 Kgs 3:1-3; 11:1-8; 16:31; 2 Chr 18:1), and the postexilic era (Ezra 9:1-10:44; Neh 13:23-30; Mal 2:10-16). Balorda concludes his survey by suggesting that, “it is usually the case that the carnal harlotry, esp. when committed collectively, brings about the religious one” (99). See Aron Balorda, “The Jealousy of Phinehas in Numbers 25 as the Embodiement of the Essence of Numinal Marriage” [M.A. thesis, Andrews University, 2002], 98-126.
[5] Davidson, Flame of Yahweh, 311.
[6] Harper, “Porneia,” 379.
[7] Here is just a sampling of sources for these various usages: extra-marital intercourse/harlotry (Ab., 2, 8; Gr. Bar. 4:17; 8:5; 13:4; Asc. Is. 2:5; Treasure Cave, 12.); adultery (Sir. 23:23; Test. Jos. 3:8); incest (Test. R. 1:6, 4:8; Test. Jud. 13:3); unnatural vices (Sib., III, 764; IV, 33-36,); sodomy (Test. B. 9:1; Jub. 16:5; 20:5); unlawful marriages (Treasure Cave, 37, 6.); bigamy (Damascus Document 4:20.); exogamy (Tob. 4:12.); and same sex activity (Philo rejects all porneia including pederasty (Spec. Leg., III, 37f) and arguably homosexuality/transgender more generally (Spec. Leg., III, 41).
[8] Harper, “Porneia,” 374-75.
[9] Harper rightly goes on to summarize, “Classical pornei,a was the act of selling oneself, not a whole class of actions categorized as immoral. Jewish and Christian pornei,a could evoke the whole array of extramarital sex acts of which Greek and Roman culture approved.” (“Porneia,” 383).
[10] There has been a significant discussion on these clauses in the last century. My point with this reference is to simply acknowledge that the umbrella of illicit activity of pornei,a may be broader than simple adultery or even incest as some suggest. In the late fourth century, Gregory of Nyssa articulated the division between pornei,a and moiceia in this way: “the sin is judged within this categorical division: a sin of desire which is accomplished without injustice to someone else is called pornei,a, but that which entails injury and injustice toward another is moiceia” (Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. can. ad Letoium 3). Building upon this, Kyle Harper, in his article “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” has presented a compelling suggestion that as “moiceia was sexual violation of a respectable woman—extramarital sex with a wife, daughter, or widow. pornei,a was extramarital sex that did not injure a third party such as a husband, father, or male relative who stood in a position of protection over a woman’s sexual honor” (“Porneia,” 364). Harper traces the development of pornei,a from earliest usage until the late fourth century Christian developments as represented by the quote from Gregory of Nyssa. This is a worthwhile study for any wanting to wrestle with the meaning of this ideologically-charged term.
[11] See 1 Cor 5:1ff; 2 Cor 11:2; 12:19-21. For similar NT thought, see Heb 12:14-17.
[12] See 1 Thess 4:1-8. A similar idea may be behind Rom 1:18-32 and the link between sexual deviancy and rejection of God.
[13] While there is debate on the background of these prohibitions, Richard Bauckham and Joseph Fitzmyer have made compelling arguments for the Leviticus 17-18 as the intertexutal background for the Acts 15 prohibitions. See Richard Bauckham, ed., “James and the Jerusalem Church,” in The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting (BAFCS 4; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 458-462; Richard Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 5:13-21),” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed. Ben Witherington; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 172-178; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 31; New York: Doubleday, 1998), 556-58. From the observations of the range and function of porneia in this study, it should be noted the mapping of these to the range and function of these within Leviticus 18 is strikingly similar. In this time period, porneia is used as a referent to activities including incest, adultery, bigamy*, same sex activity, and bestiality which all appear in Leviticus 18 (*: Bigamy is arguably in view in Lev 18:18 following Richard Davidson’s argument in Flame of Yahweh). Similarly, the structure of Leviticus 18 itself suggests it is a whole unit (i.e. the nation’s ordinances and practices versus the Lord’s, etc.) and the context of this is establishing a boundary between the practices of Israel, the people of God, and those of the other nations. Both the individual illicit sexual activities described porneia and how the term functioned in Judaism at the time (as a boundary between the Gentiles and the people of God) only reinforces the proposal that Leviticus 17-18 be understood as the background for the Apostolic decree. I think it is worth noting at this point that some proponents of developing positions on LGBT practice within the Church often look to Acts 15 and the adoption of the Gentiles into the Church as a guide for how we are to respond to LGBT individuals—and I think there may be value in this proposal but probably not in the same way some anticipate.
I would like to be the first to simply say that I think your alternative model looks quite intriguing.
This has a lot of relevance to the post I made on Friday in regards to Ken’s use of the Old Testament because porneia’s background is clearly found in the OT… and certainly built upon the Levitical data!
Great post… I look forward to more…
Good post, Thomas. Very good. Thanks.
Thomas, good stuff, I am interested – as you know – in the ones who practice porneia and have a conversion experience. I hope you address this in future posts.
I was reading some texts over the last few days about how Paul appears to address this – being redeemed from a life of sin to a life in the Spirit – I am in tension about it.
If we agree all porneia is sin and prohibited, than it appears Paul’s resolution for the relationship between the body and that activity is death. A transfer of bondage happens from sin to righteousness. I think Paul argues (I’m with Hays) for “faith of Christ”, that is our faith in the faith of Christ, is our righteousness. Our new found bondage to that, is our hope. My take on how this “works” is that holiness is progressive. Righteousness is complete immediately in Christ, but holiness works itself out over a lifetime as we put the old to death and the new rises.
It appears to me there are ethical categories in scripture. Ethical trajectories. I would argue that someone who has never engaged in porneia and has converted to Christ is commanded to abstain from porneia. I.e. the Christian who has same sex attractions is called to wrestle with the call to celibacy.
The person who has practiced porneia and is called to Christ later is going to experience a different ethical trajectory.
In 1 Cor. 6/7 Paul argues for staying in covenant relationships for the sake of the gospel (men with women and women with men). I am wrestling with how that plays into this. Do you think the trajectory of Paul’s argument creates a category calling the Same Sex Monogamous Married Person who comes to Christ to stay in covenant relationship?
We, at least I, would make this argument for divorced and remarried people, would we? I think this is part of what Ken Wilson is on about. He does not make this case very well, I don’t think. It’s been so long since I read the book now, I need to read it again.
I think this raises the question then of what does it mean for the person who puts their sexual identity before their identity in Christ and practices porneia above practicing faith in Christ for a season, yet is called back to faithfulness?
My question is, don’t we all do this? Have identity crises? Sexual ones at that?
For me, Jason, you’d need to demonstrate the equivalence of same-sex couples to married couples. Scripture is well aware of non-believing couples marrying – and divorce and remarriage is a complex area that I think Ken is using as a bit of a red-herring.
Some people (I think rightly) have observed that, if we believe gender-neutral marriage is a non-sequitur, then gender-neutral divorce/covenant is too. Thus, regardless of what the world/law/culture/other faiths might be saying, there is not a covenant to be broken… Just my first thoughts.
Jason, thanks for your substantive engagement. I will certainly be tackling in some of this discussion moving forward. I wholeheartedly agree with the progressive nature of holiness but I am not sure that I can affirm a “different ethical trajectory.” I think the trajectory is the same–I just think it will be a longer trip for some.
I need to reflect more on whether those in same-sex monogamous covenants are called to remain in those relationships, which will probably entail considering the legitimacy of their covenant and what remaining in such covenant would practically look like.
I think the question of what does it mean for a person who puts their sexual identity before their identity in Christ is a very central one. This is the heart of the issue I think and I believe the scriptural passages I’m considering next week will speak to the incisively to this.
In fact, I’m glad to that you are discerning that this crisis of porneia is bigger than same-sex activity. Stay tuned; theres more to come 🙂
I haven’t read Wilson’s book — and I won’t buy it, given what I’ve read about it in other scholars’ writings — so if I retread some ground here, please forgive me.
I think there is a crucial point not often discussed in conversations like these: sexual activity, per se, is neither a human nor a civil right. Rather, sexual activity is the result of a personal decision (or choice) to gratify one’s sexual desires; one can decide to act sexually or not to act sexually. Even civil/criminal law recognizes this and puts a protective fence around children under “the age of consent” with regard to being the object of any adult’s sexual desires for them: to decide to act sexually with them is illegal. Similarly, the common experience of gay or straight persons who are in “monogamous” marriages (or “relationships”) and discover that their partners have had sex with someone else is the emotional pain of feeling betrayed, wronged, etc., because they know that the partner could have chosen not to act sexually with the third party. Civil or familyl law recognizes the free decision here, as well, and will grant divorces and alimony/palimony to the wronged party on that basis. Finally, s
As a Christian, I believe that I’ve long held the view that acting on one’s sexual desires for another person is a privilege given by God to heterosexual people married to each other. In other words — and
Oops! I hit the send without meaning to! Sorry!
In reading your piece, Thomas, I was drawn back to Romans, but a different part than what I’ve seen cited, i.e., Chapters 1, 2 and 12. In my understanding, Paul wrote this letter to prevent Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians from considering themselves superior to — and, thus, entitled to judge — the other group by virtue of their genetic or theological heritage. Rather, he explains in Chapter 1, the Gospel is the great equalizer: Every person in both groups had failed to live “righteously” before embracing the gospel and benefiting from God’s righteousness and grace revealed in Christ, and receiving the indwelling Spirit’s power to live righteously for the rest of their earthly lives. Thus the righteous live righteously by (lit., “out of”) faith in Christ, not by (or out of) their genetic or theological heritages.
Note that Paul begins his discourse by spelling out why the Gentiles had always been accountable to and punishable by God for their unrighteousness, and the process through which they became unrighteousness (1:20-28). (1) God’s righteousness is everywhere evident [vv. 19-20]; (2) People refused to recognize Him as God [vv. 21-22] ; (3) People started making and worshipping idols [v. 23], (4) “THEREFORE [my emphasis], God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” [v. 24] and “BECAUSE OF THIS [worshipping and serving idols, v. 25], God gave them over to shameful lusts…” [v. 26a, my emphasis again]; (5) same-sex sexual activity of both genders began to take place and Paul called this “unnatural…, indecent…, their perversion” [v. 26b-27]; and, finally, (6) God gave them over to a depraved mind…” to do what ought not to be done [v. 28]…every kind of [non-sexual] wickedness, evil, greed, and depravity…” [v. 29-32]. He ends this section with “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” [v. 32].
Paul goes on to say that not one of his readers is faultless when evaluated by (one assumes) vv. 29-32, and therefore should not judge others who are doing the same things they are (2:1). In chapters 2 through 11, he shows that anyone who believes — Jew or Gentile — was previously a sinner, was saved through God’s grace in Christ (not by their own or Moses’s law), has been empowered to live righteously by the Spirit, can leave behind past unrighteousness and instead choose righteous/obedient action, and will face the righteous judgment of God and receive, on the basis of her/his choices, eternal life or “wrath and anger” (2:8)/”trouble and distress” (2:9), and, in both cases, “First for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (2:9-10).
I think that it is significant that when Paul turns to specifics about how one should live as a Christian (Chapter 12), he calls for his readers to reverse the process of being/becoming unrighteous laid out in Chapter 1! First, the mistaken choices made in 1:18-27 are to be reversed: Rather than continuing to worship false idols (including self), which resulted in their indulging their bodily desires, Paul tells them, “Offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual [or “reasonable”] worship” (12:1). Second, that same mistaken focus on idols, which resulted in God’s giving them over to “a depraved mind, to do” and think all kinds of evil (1:28-32) is to be replaced by focusing on their knowledge of God (12:2), “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” with the result that they “will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing, and perfect will”.
In my view, then (and acknowledging that homosexuality is not the only sin discussed in the passage), Romans 1 and Romans 2 clearly define ongoing same-sex sexual activity as unacceptable to God; further, anyone’s approval of same-sex sexual activity is also unacceptable (1:32). To sacrifice to God the sexual desires and gratifications involved in same-sex sexual activity by refraining from it is, indeed, a form of worship of God, based on the experience of gratitude for what He has done through Christ and the Holy Spirit; s/he who sacrifices them does so in response to her/his stronger desire to be holy (set apart for) and pleasing to God. And when the thought of making that sacrifice for the rest of one’s life seems to be too much to bear (much as the thought of a lifetime without alcohol seemed to me to be too much to bear 22 years ago), Paul turns the reader back to focusing her/his mind on God and His righteousness, His will, in this moment (and, in AA parlance, “Take it one day at a time!”), which will be possible through the Spirit of God who lives in her/him
Finally, that Paul expects his Christian reader to abstain from all forms of extramarital heterosexual sexual activity is clear in 1 Corinthians 6:9-20. Paul repeats the warnings he gave in Romans, that “the wicked” — explicitly including adulterers, homosexuals, and the sexually immoral/fornicators — “will not inherit the Kingdom of God. And that,” he continues, “is what some of you were. But you were washed, your were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God…Flee from sexual immorality…Honor God with your body.” If only through Christ and the Holy Spirit, then, the choice to refrain from those forms of sexual activity is possible.
And now I MUST stop, because I haven’t done any of what I must get done today! I’ll be looking forward to hearing more about your thoughts when you post additional parts of your writing! Thank you for sharing it!
Thank you for your engagement, Robin Swieringa. The “reversal of Romans 1” interpretation of the rest of the book is an interesting proposal that I will need to check out more fully. However, I was a little surprised by something in your comments. After you emphasized so clearly the “therefore” and “because of this” in Romans 1:24, 26, you nevertheless seem not to have noticed that attraction to the same sex is therefore being described in this passage as the consequence of sin. You write as though Romans 1 had described it as an example of what causes separation from God (i.e. sin) rather than as an example of the results of estrangement from God. That’s rather like suggesting that Israel’s exile in Babylon was itself a sin against God rather than the punishment of their sin. Have you considered that and what it might mean for our understanding of this passage?