But the Bible... ..main page

Difference Is Not A Sin

Chapter 5: THE BIBLE AS A MORAL GUIDE

THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE

The authority of the Bible for Christians rests ultimately in that it is here that Jesus Christ is revealed. "The books of the Old Testament came to have authority within the church because Jesus Christ set the seal of his own authority on them and interpreted them as preparing the way for himself. The books of the New Testament came to have authority because the church recognized in them the testimony of the apostles to Jesus Christ." (Peak's Commentary. from the article `The Authority of the Bible.' Michael Ramsay p.1)

In fact no Christian believes that all parts of Scripture have equal value. The Gospel of John is infinitely more important for Christians than the book of Numbers. The Letter of Paul to the Ephesians is far more important for our understanding of our faith than the Letter from Jude. And we all know what Luther thought of the Letter of James!

However the Bible has commonly been seen and used as a general moral guide and authority for personal and social behaviour. It is the biblical condemnation of homosexual behaviour which is used to justify the church's anti homosexual stance today. There are clearly profound reflections on the human condition in the Bible - on how God reaches out to his people and his world, on how we should behave towards each other, and how we should live in society - which are of timeless value. However you don't have to look very closely at the ideas in the Bible to realize that it is a very uncertain moral guide unless it is approached critically and warily. This is known and accepted by all but the most fringe and bigoted Christian fundamentalists. In fact the homophobia of the church has little to do with the Bible, that is merely an excuse. The people who use the Bible in this way are just as selective as the rest of us, non fundamentalists, in the weight they give to different parts of the Bible. It is curious that they give the verses, which they say condemn homosexual behaviour, an authority which they give to few other parts of the Bible. This has much more to do with personal prejudice than it does with good biblical exegesis.

In the Anglican church we believe that there are three pillars on which the church bases its understanding of the faith; the Bible, the Tradition of the Church, and our own intellectual and moral understanding: quite simply there are times when these three conflict. I have met many people who claim to be biblical fundamentalists, that is people who claim to believe that every world of the Bible is the inspired word of God; that all parts are therefore to be taken as having equal authority, to be morally binding on believers and to be historically accurate. As I say I have met people who claim to take this position but so far I have never met one who actually does. We are rightly selective in the weight we give to different parts of the Bible. Certainly the Gospel of John is of far greater significance to us and our understanding of our faith than say, the Book of Numbers or the Letter of Jude. We all rightly reject some of the teaching in the Bible. We do not accept Jewish food laws, we do not circumcise our sons; we do not think it right to massacre prisoners of war, we do have bank accounts.

Cranmer the compiler of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, said that some parts of the Bible were more suitable for study than others, indeed some parts of the Bible are never used in lectionaries, the collections of readings used in services. In particular some verses from the Psalms are omitted because of their violence and unchristian tone. "Evil men go wrong all the days of their lives . . break the teeth of these fierce lions, O God . . may they be like snails that dissolve into slime . . may they be like a baby born dead that never sees the light . . the righteous will be glad when they see sinners punished; they will wade through the blood of the wicked." (Psalm 58:3-10) "O daughter of Babylon you that lay waste: happy shall he be who serves you as he has served us; happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the stones." (Psalm 137:8-9) Not all parts of the Bible are of equal value!

It is not enough to say that because the Bible says something, that is the end of the argument. It is not enough to say that homosexual behaviour is wrong because it is condemned in the religious law codes of Leviticus, any more than we think people should be put to death for adultery because that is what is decreed in Leviticus 22:10; or that we should not have tattoos or cut the hair at the side of our heads because they are forbidden in Leviticus 19:28. No doubt the law against mixing wool and flax together in cloth making was a quality control measure but it is now clearly out of date.

There are of course parts of Leviticus which should command our respect. There are individual laws like, "Be honest and just when you make decisions in legal cases; do not show favour to the poor or fear the rich." (Leviticus 19:33) People may disagree on what weight given to the laws in chapter 25 on the subject of the restoration of private property every fifty years. "During this year all property that has been sold shall be returned to its original owner or his descendants." (This must be one of the Duke of Westminster's favourite texts!) But as it included financial debts it would wreck the banking system. And there is the underling belief of the Book, passed to us from God, that we are a chosen people, to de dedicated and apart from the societies around us, to be the representatives of God and the means by which his truth should be brought to the rest of the world.

I have chosen these examples almost at random from these chapters of Leviticus because they surround the verses condemning homosexual behaviour, which are most often quoted. Clearly many of these laws reflect the cultural mores of their time and can have little or no relevance for us, the problem comes when we try to decide when a law or a piece of teaching has relevance today or when it should be rejected or disregarded. I shall return to that at the end of this chapter.

In the rest of this section, I want to examine some biblical attitudes which no longer accord with our view of what is morally acceptable. If, as I believe I shall show, we must reject some of these attitudes then we must also question the biblical attitude towards homosexuality. Just like the other laws they were culturally inspired, and are looking increasingly outdated now.

BIBLICAL MORAL ATTITUDES NO LONGER CONSIDERED ACCEPTABLE

I have chosen four attitudes found in the Bible, which reflect the attitude of the writer and his society at the time of writing but which now seem inappropriate or in some cases quite unacceptable.

THE CONDUCT OF WAR

The biblical writers took it for granted that when the Jews went to war God would be on their side. When things went badly for them it was because they had sinned and God was punishing them. In particular God had given them the promised land of Canaan and if that meant that the people who already lived there, had to be pushed out or killed or enslaved, well so be it. The Israelites often saw themselves as God's vine "You took a vine out of Egypt, to plant it you drove out the nations." (Psalm 80:8) As God promised to Jacob, "I will give you the land that I gave to Abraham and to Isaac, and I will also give it to your descendants after you." (Genesis 35:12) Again when the covenant between God and his people was renewed as recorded in Exodus. "I will drive out the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as you advance. Do not make any treaties with the people of the country into which you are going because that could be a fatal trap for you." (Exodus 34:11-12) Suffering inflicted on other nations was considered unimportant and God's will, if it meant that the needs of the Israelites were satisfied. There is a particularly unpleasant story in Numbers (31:1ff) which shows just what this could mean in practice. "They attacked Midian as the Lord had commanded and killed all the men (v.7) and when they returned to Moses, "He asked them why have you kept the women and children alive? . . . . so now kill all the boys and all the women who have had sexual intercourse but keep alive for yourselves all the women and girls who are virgins." (v.15-17) We are being told that God sanctions what we would call war crimes. This is a vision of God which owes everything to the political ambitions of the biblical writers and nothing to any actual revelation of divine intent.

Almost as grotesque is the story of God's rejection of Saul as King of Israel, because he had not slaughtered everyone and all the animals captured in his war with the Amalakites as the Lord had commanded. Samuel who must rank as one of the creepiest old men in literature, rectifies this omission. "`Bring King Agag here to me.' ordered Samuel. Agag came to him, trembling with fear, thinking to himself `What a bitter thing it is to die!' Samuel said, `As your sword has made many mothers childless, so now will your mother become childless.' And he cut Agag to pieces in front of the altar in Gilgal." (1 Samuel 15:32-33)

The laws in Deuteronomy 20:10-18, deal with the conquest of towns. If a town stands on the land assigned by God to Israel, it is to be totally destroyed and no living thing must be left in it. When a town outside Israel is attacked it must be given the chance to surrender. If it agrees the whole population is condemned to slavery. If it refuses, and is captured, all the men are to be put to death and the women and children are to be taken as spoils of war. We can read of this in 2 Samuel "After the capture of Rabbah, David set the population handling the saw, picks and iron axes and employed on making bricks, and so he did for all the towns of the Ammonites (2 Samuel 12:31). Fortunately, the world, in the teachings of Jesus, has been given a very different vision of God from the blood thirsty tyrant of much of the Old Testament.

I have already quoted Psalm 58 and Psalm 137 which suggest that God approves of murderous revenge. Such ideas are not reserved just for foreign foes however. When Jehu took the throne of Ahab (on God's orders) he travelled to Samaria, casually murdering forty two relatives of the King of Judah on the way (2 Kings 10:12-14) Seeing a friend, Jonadab, he helped him into his chariot and said "`Come with me and see for yourself how devoted I am for the Lord.' And they rode on together for Samaria. When they arrived there, Jehu killed all of Ahab's relatives, not sparing even one. This was what the Lord had told Elijah would happen." (ibid v.15-17) Not content with this barbarity he then proceeded by a trick to massacre all the worshippers of pagan gods. He proclaimed a feast of Baal "All who worshipped Baal came . . . . He had stationed eighty men outside the temple and had instructed them; `You are to kill all these people, anyone who lets one of them escape will pay for it with his life." (ibid. v.21ff) And this was duly done. The temple was turned into a latrine. The biblical writer makes it clear that this is God's will as they understood it. "The Lord said to Jehu, `You have done to Ahab's descendants everything I wanted you to do, so I promise that your descendants down to the forth generation will be Kings of Israel." (ibid.v.30)

Such behaviour still goes on even in our own time. One only has to think of the behaviour of the warring sides in Yugoslavia, now at least we call it a crime. I wonder however if the people involved there in the killings and the forced expulsions believe that because they are Catholics attacking Serbs, or Orthodox Serbs attacking Moslems, that God will approve? Certainly Jewish fundamentalists are heavily influenced by such thinking . Ask any of the `black hats' or settlers on the West Bank what they think of their Arab neighbours and their xenophobia is straight out of the second millennium B.C. Many Jews in Israel believe that they have an absolute right to take over the Land of Israel, the `Promised Land' because it has been given them by God. The right of the other occupants are necessarily therefore of secondary importance, no doubt Ariel Sharon believes this. This is a logical extension of the biblical attitudes.

USURY

There are seven quotations in the Old Testament forbidding the taking of interest on a loan. Usury is condemned quite as fiercely as sodomy and yet today almost everybody has a bank account without feeling that they breaking some fundamental moral law. Charities and churches hold bank accounts, buy and sell shares and rely on the income from these sources to pay for their activities. Indeed some of the organizations mentioned in the chapter on health later in this book which are dedicated to `healing' homosexuals in the name of Jesus, accept investment income from such charities as the Sainsbury funded Jerusalem Trust. The Church of England relies on the income from the investments of the Church Commissioners for its very survival.

Until the fifteenth century biblical injunctions against usury such as Psalm 15 which asks who shall enter God's Temple, "He who putteth not his money to usury nor taketh reward from the innocent," or Ezekiel 18:10-13, where the man who charges interest is likened to a robber, a murderer, a worshipper at a pagan shrine and an adulterer (almost exact parallels to the things homosexuals were accused of) "Will he live no he will not! He has done all these disgusting things and he will die," were taken sufficiently seriously by the church that Christians were forbidden from becoming bankers. Most bankers therefore were Jewish who interpreted the anti usury texts rather more loosely, you were not allowed to charge interest on loans to fellow members of your own family or community but there were no problems about taking money from Christians. With the growth of capitalist mercantile economies, with their huge demand for venture capital, in the Europe of the Renaissance, pressure was put on the church also to relax the rules. The church found it convenient to go along with this and the rule was dropped. Biblical writers would be appalled but we take banking entirely for granted.

This is not allowed however for orthodox Muslims or Jews for whom taking interest on a loan is still forbidden. No doubt in the world of high finance the rules are broken more often than not but the principle that those with money should not exploit their advantage at the expense of those who are less well off is still adhered to. "If a fellow Israelite living near you becomes poor and cannot support himself you must provide for him . . . . Do not charge him interest on the money you lend him and do not take profit on the food you sell him. This is the command of the Lord your God." (Leviticus 25:35ff)

In ancient Israel the disapproval of usury went hand in hand with the system, associated with the year of jubilee variously fixed at seven or fifty years when all debts were to be remitted. There was a strong feeling among biblical writers that it was against the intention of God for there to be wide disparities of wealth within the community. Modest wealth was the gift and intention of God. A situation of extreme wealth amidst general poverty however was an affront to God.

In many respects Jewish social law affecting its own population was very humane, certainly by the standards of the time. "It is the most humanitarian of all known bodies of law before recent times." (Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan W.F. Albright p.157). It is based on the idea of a moral God who demands similarly moral and humane behaviour from those who follow him. These laws prohibiting the taking of interest are a remarkable example of the desire of the people who wrote them to protect the poor and the vulnerable.

The fact remains however that while we may recognise the moral force of these laws and even applaud the moral impetus which formulated them, we do not accept that these laws are binding on us today.

THE STATUS OF WOMEN

Most of us would feel that the overall position of women in the Bible is quite unacceptable. The inferior status of women both legally and in the church has been rejected by all but the most fringe christian groups.

The inferior status of women, unquestioned by all biblical writers, has led some radical feminists to reject the Bible and the religious traditions it represents. They claim that the patriarchal bias and the way this has disfigured the true image of God, prevents it from being authoritative or indeed even relevant to a modern woman's search for spiritual understanding or self understanding. As Daphne Hampson says, "I believe it to be the case that specifically feminist values and paradigms do not find expression in the basic structuring of christian religion." (Theology and Feminism 1990 p.154) Some, even christian, feminists have gone a lot further. "This cold deity is the legitimising construct of the patriarchal desire to dominate and control the world. He is the eternal King, the Chairman of the board, the President of the institution, the Guru of the youth, the Husband of the wife, the General of the army, the Judge of the court, the Master of the universe, the Father of the church, He resides above us all. He is our superior never our friend. He is a rapist, never a lover, of women and of anyone else beneath Him." (The Redemption of God: A Theology of Mutual Relation. Carter Heyward. 1982 p.156) For most Christian or Jewish women however this wholesale rejection of biblical attitudes is not really an option, the Bible is too significant for our faith. They must therefore wrestle with the central paradox: the Bible and its related religious traditions has taught the values of personhood, equality and social justice but at the same time has presupposed a world where male domination and the superiority of male values were taken for granted. Women are thus liberated and subordinated by the same book.

Other feminist writers have tried to find synthesis out of this conflict. "Jesus as the Christ . . . . manifests the kenosis of patriarchy, the announcement of a new humanity through a life style that discards hierarchical caste privilege and speaks on behalf of the lowly . . . . Jesus the homeless Jewish prophet, and the marginalised women and men who respond to him represent the overthrow of the present world system and the dawn of a new age in which God's will is done on earth." (`Sexism and God Talk.' Rosemary Reuther. 1983 p.137-8) Sister Francis Maloney SDB finds this paradox too. In the Gospels there emerges a picture of women as the first in faith. It is through the faithfulness of Mary that God's plan of salvation comes to pass. Women are the ones with John, who have the courage to go to the crucifixion, they ". . . are the first to go to the empty tomb, the first to come to the Easter faith, the first to proclaim the Easter message." (`Woman: First among the Faithful'. Francis Maloney p.93) They are the pattern of the journey of faith "This means that, in the order of faith, women assume the role of leaders." (ibid. p.94)

In some practical ways it is true that the status of women was certainly enhanced by Christianity. Jesus clearly disapproved of divorce which was very easy for a man. "Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8) The ease of divorce was a constant source of insecurity for women and Jesus' disapproval had a significant effect. Jesus certainly recognized the spiritual strength of women and his attitude to them was clearly at odds with the general attitude of the culture of his day. It meant that the status of women within the new Christian communities was much greater and more secure than in the community around them. Marital fidelity was demanded of all Christians.

Yet the whole thrust of the rest of the Bible, Old and New Testaments, both asserts the masculinity of God and the superiority of masculine characteristics, and the inferiority of women and the secondary importance of feminine virtues. And it starts right at the beginning of the Bible, with the creation. "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man." (Genesis 2:23) Men are clearly first, women, in a curious reversal of reality, are made out of him and clearly second. The woman is made to be his helpmate and companion.

Frequently women were seen as a temptation and corrupters of men, as with Adam and Eve, "She took of the fruit thereof and did eat, and gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat." (Genesis 3:6) "It is better to dwell in the wilderness than with a contentious and angry woman." (Proverbs 21:19) "Keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman." (Proverbs 6:24) There is never an attempt in Proverbs to admit that this would be true of men too. Even praise has a barb. "A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband." (ibid. 12:4) Why to her husband? Because no woman had an existence or status apart from being a wife. The most famous description of what it is to be a virtuous woman also in Proverbs, is entirely in terms of being a hard working wife "She riseth also while it is still night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens." (ibid. 31:15) The greatest shame was to be barren, it meant not only rejection from your husband, but ridicule from your contemporaries. This is most poignantly described in the story of Hanah, Samuel's mother, in 1 Samuel 1:2ff.

The basic inferiority of women was not questioned by the church that Jesus' followers founded. St Paul forbad women even to speak during worship or appear for services with their heads uncovered. "Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak." (1 Corinthians 14:34) Paul was very clear about the status of women. "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man." (ibid. 11:9) "Giving honour unto the wife as to the weaker vessel." (1 Peter 3:7) "The husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church." (Ephesians 5:23)

The most significant social change in our generation is the change (I would say improvement) in the status of women. This has meant an implicit rejection of some of the biblical attitudes in this matter, and a radical reassessment of other biblical teaching, found particularly in the Gospels, about the centrality and importance of the role of women . Perhaps the lesson to learn from this by all people concerned for women's rights and for everybody concerned with biblical moral incongruity is that the Bible itself points to its own inconsistency. Every characterisation of a passive, venal, weak irresponsible male, (and there are plenty of these) ridicules `maleness' as an ultimate value. The Gospel picture of the courageous faith of woman points to the spiritual strength of women. Every message of liberation passes judgement on those biblical passages which celebrate domination such as those we looked at in the section on the conduct of war.

SLAVERY

The biblical attitude to slavery is frankly rather shocking to a modern observer. It is simply accepted as the natural order of things and the morality of the system was never questioned or considered contrary to the will of God.

Slavery in the Old Testament

The favour God showed to such figures as Abraham, David and Solomon was shown in part by their wealth which included their slaves. Certainly slaves could rise high in their service. As Abraham remarked bitterly, "My only heir is Eliezer of Damascus. You have given me no children, and one of my slaves will inherit my property." (Genesis 15:2-3) However slaves remained slaves, and could be used for whatever purposes their masters liked. Sarah said to Abraham, "The Lord has kept me from having children . Why don't you sleep with my slave girl. Perhaps she can have children for me." (Genesis 16:2) Later when Sarah produced a son of her own Abraham casually threw the slave and his son out into the desert to die! Abraham was quite willing to accept slaves as payment for services rendered. "Then Abimalech gave Sarah back to Abraham and at the same time gave him sheep, cattle and slaves." (Genesis 20:14)

If an Israelite was so poor that he sold himself or was sold into slavery it could only be until the next year of jubilee or for a maximum of six years. "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve you for six years. In the seventh year he is to be set free without having to pay anything." (Exodus 21:2) There were severe problems however if the slave became married and had children while he was a slave. "If he was unmarried when he became a slave he is not to take a wife when he leaves . . . . If his master gave him a wife and she bore him sons and daughters the woman and the children belong to the master and the man shall leave by himself." (ibid. 21:4) If the slave was reluctant to leave his family he had to swear to be a slave for life. This was done at the local place of worship emphasising the fact that these laws were as it were the will of God. "But if the slave declares that he loves his master, his wife, and his children and does not want to be set free, then his master shall take him to the place of worship. There he is to make him stand against the door or the door post and pierce his ear. Then he shall be his slave for life." (ibid.21:5-6) As usual girls came off worse than their brothers. "If a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to be set free, as male slaves are." (ibid. 21:7) "If she is sold to a man who intends to make her his wife, but he doesn't like her, then she is to be sold back to her father. Her master cannot sell her to foreigners because he has treated her unfairly." (ibid. 21:8) "If a man buys a female slave to give to his son, he is to treat her as a daughter." (ibid. 21:9). Later laws in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 15:12-18) somewhat mitigate these laws and urge the masters to treat slaves well and not send them away empty handed. The Israelite masters were reminded that once the Israelites were themselves slaves in Egypt. "Do not be resentful when you set a slave free; after all he has served you for six years at half the cost of a hired servant." (Deuteronomy 15:18)

Slavery was sometimes a punishment for thieves who were thus expected to compensate their victims for the theft. (Exodus 22:2) War however, was the chief source of supply for the slave market and all captured prisoners were generally sold as slaves. (Army commanders made huge fortunes in this way). There are several examples of this in the Bible; for instance, Sisera's army if it had been successful would have shared out the girls captured, ". . . . a girl, two girls for each warrior." (Judges 5.30). Of course God would punish the nations who treated Israel in this way. He will judge the nations who ". . . have drawn lots for my people, they have traded boys against harlots, for wine they have sold the girls." (Joshua 4:3). It was however frowned on for a Jew to own Jewish slaves taken in battle. Pecah, King of Israel, (the north part of what had been Solomon's empire) took Judean slaves in his war with Judah (the southern part of Solomon's empire). But he was condemned for it, and let them go (2 Chronicles 28:8-15). Foreign slaves always fared worse than their Israelite counterparts. "If you need slaves you may buy them from the nations around you. You may also buy the children of the foreigner who is living amongst you. Such children born in your land may become your property, and you may leave them as an inheritance for your sons, whom they must serve as long as they live." (Leviticus 25:44-46).

I have quoted these verses because they show how integrated into Israelite society the institution of slavery was, how accepted it was and how it was believed to be sanctioned by God. This is evidenced by the fact that slavery was associated directly with the life of the Temple in Jerusalem. Most state slaves in Israel were foreign and these were divided into two classes, the King's slaves, sometimes called the slaves of Solomon, and the Temple slaves. Indeed there is evidence that Temple slaves go back to the time of the Exodus. "Moses took one out of every fifty prisoners and animals, and as the Lord had commanded, gave them to the Levites who were in charge of the Lord's tent." (Numbers 31:47) Knowing how Moses treated prisoners of war these probably thought of themselves as fortunate. When Ezra and Nehemiah established a new ecclesiastical order to replace the old royal and state systems destroyed at the Exile, people descended from temple slaves `nethinim' were listed as a distinct class and re-employed in the new temple which had been hastily built. It is interesting that slaves were included in religious practices including the Sabbath day laws. "Your slaves must rest just as you do." (Deuteronomy 5:15). I don't think the position of domestic slaves in Israel was ever quite as low as that of slaves in Republican Rome, where Varo could define a slave as "instrumenti genus vocale" (a sort of talking tool.)

According to Exodus 21:32, a slave in Israel cost thirty shekels of silver, which was the sum paid to Judas to betray Jesus. (Matthew 26;15)

Slavery in the New Testament

Nowhere, even in the New Testament, is slavery condemned, even though it begins with a proclamation of the Kingdom of God which throws judgement upon human institutions. God's Kingdom is a blessing upon the poor, it means that the meek shall inherit the earth. Jesus brings the news of the release for captives and liberty for the oppressed (Luke 4:18). Thus he made a fundamental theological criticism of slavery and the whole social order in which people are alienated from each other. But Jesus was heralding the Kingdom of God and did not prescribe new social institutions for an age which he believed was passing.

Paul, upon whose teaching and interpretation of the message of Jesus Christ the church as we know it, was founded, also did not see the implications of Jesus' message of liberation for this age. In the matter of slavery the most stark example of this is in the letters of Paul to the church at Colossai and to the leading Colossian christian Philemon. Tychicus who delivered the letters was accompanied by the runaway slave Onesimus who Paul was returning to his owner Philemon. We don't know for sure how Onesimus came to be with Paul but it seems that he was already known to Paul, presumably from his visits to Philemon. Onesimus had a rather troubled time in Philemon's service and had run away. Somehow he had met up with Paul and they had become very close. "I make a request to you for Onesimus, who is my own son in Christ. . . . at one time he was no use to you but now he is of use to you and to me." (Philemon 10-11) Many slaves became Christians in the early days of the church, just as many in the harijen community in India are becoming Christians today. The implications of the Christian faith in this area are clear. Christ died for all people and so everyone who calls Jesus Lord is a brother or sister in the faith, and of equal value to God. "Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female - you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28). Clearly however Paul supported the status quo. "Slaves, obey your human masters in all things, not only when they are watching you when you want to gain their approval; but do it with a sincere heart because of your reverence for the Lord." Masters were urged too to treat their slaves fairly. "Masters, be fair and just in the way you treat your slaves. Remember that you too have a master in heaven." (Colossians 3:22-23 and Colossians 4:1). Paul begs Philemon to take Onesimus back not just as a runaway slave but as a christian brother. However, he is still a slave.

It should be said that there is no strict parallel between slavery in the New World and that in the Roman Empire. Slaves in the Roman empire could often not be distinguished by race clothing, degree of education, or profession. Some slaves even owned property and other slaves. When freed most slaves stayed in their previous work. Slaves were fairly frequently set free, `manumitted', by the age of thirty. (In fact the position of slaves in the empire was in some ways better than that in ancient Israel.) This was certainly less inhumane than the situation for slaves in the Caribbean or the southern states of the United States.

Without doubt the worst example of slavery was the system of gladiators trained for the arena. It was the gladiatorial revolts lead by Spartacus which caused so much fear in Rome in 140BC. It is difficult to overstate the barbarity of the spectacles in such venues as the Coliseum in Rome and some of the worst were the gladiatorial combats. All these men were slaves. Despite what many Christians had suffered in the arena, these terrible shows did not end even when the Emperors themselves were christian. Indeed christian emperors continued to sponsor gladiators and gladiatorial displays. Even one Pope employed gladiators as his personal bodyguards. In the end it was economic decline not moral outrage which ended these games. The last show to be held in the Coliseum was in 549AD and it is incredible that christian emperors and officials and church authorities did not do anything to end these appalling spectacles in the arenas. At the end of the day following the blood letting in the arena thousands of prostitutes waited outside to take advantage of the violent sexual emotions aroused by the bloody spectacles.

It would have been quite unrealistic for Christians to try to end the institution of slavery. They were criticized enough for undermining the institutions of the empire without bringing down the wrath of the authorities that would certainly have come from a criticism of this fundamental part of the imperial structure. It would have been possible however for Christians to have ended slavery amongst themselves, but they did not. "Those who are slaves must consider their masters worthy of all respect, so that no one will speak evil of the name of God and of our teaching. (1 Timothy 6:1) We know that there was fear in the empire of slave rebellions such as those already referred to in 170BC and 140BC. Could it be that some christian slaves were already questioning the morality of slavery in the light of their christian understanding of the brotherhood of all people. Christianity included the responsibility for all Christians to seek the best for everyone around them particularly fellow Christians. This responsibility must surely include making sure people had such a basic advantage as freedom. Paul left such slaves in no doubt where he stood. "Slaves belonging to christian masters must not despise them, for they are their brothers. Instead they are to serve them even better, for those who benefit from their work are believers whom they love. (ibid. 6:2)

Paul was middle class, free born and a Roman citizen; it was easy for him to speak. To a great extent it was because of Paul's inability to rise above the assumptions and prejudices of his time, in this, that the misery of slavery continued in Christian countries right up to the middle of the last century. Supposedly Christian traders and governments co-operated with despotic pagan African leaders to perpetrate the most barbaric and corrupt trade in history. When the British government in 1807 signalled its intention of ending the trade, shock waves went up and down the African coast. Most telling of all was the comment of the ruler of Bonny, now part of Nigeria, to Hugh Crow, a Liverpool slave trader, "This trade must go on, that is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself." Perhaps the ruler had been reading the Bible?

The most important force for moral teaching and standards, the church, was completely silent and impotent because its moral guide the Bible supported the trade. The earliest opponents of the trade and one particularly thinks of William Willberforce, were inspired by their Christian faith, that is, their understanding of the life and teaching of Jesus. In doing so they specifically rejected the teaching in the Bible on the subject. Many an English gentlemen and even Anglican bishops grew rich from this appalling traffic. If only Paul had given a lead in this the history of the world might have been very different. Shame on Paul. Shame on the church.

THE CONCEPT OF HELL

There is a story of an undergraduate at Oxford invited to breakfast by the chaplain of his college. This used to be quite common way for chaplains to get to know new students. On the face of it the young man was a good prospect. He was friendly open and apparently came from a christian background. But here was the rub, the young man knew enough about Christianity to know that he wasn't very keen, and the problem was the immorality of the concept of hell as it appeared in the Bible and traditional church teaching. How could he possibly be expected to believe in God whose moral behaviour seemed so much worse than his own. How could he love a monster who would consign his children to everlasting hell? This was the deification of Auschwitz, the sanctifying of Dachau with no possibility of release even by death.

The young man was right in this matter the biblical narrative is quite clear. "

BIBLICAL AUTHORITY TODAY

I think I have shown in the preceding chapter that in both specific laws as well as in general attitudes we no longer accept many of the teachings of the Bible. Whether Christians are prepared to admit this or not, it is in fact the case. This is a serious matter which divides the church and raises an important question. Can we find criteria for deciding when it is acceptable or indeed necessary and desirable, to behave in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the Bible? Or to hold views which are contrary to those of the biblical writers?

There are I believe some guidelines, though in the end scholars and ordinary folk alike cannot avoid the great personal responsibility; that after careful study of all available knowledge, after prayer and careful examination of conscience, we each have to come to our own conclusions. This isn't quite so difficult as it may first appear or such a new position. As I said at the beginning of this chapter our faith has always rested on three pillars of which the Bible is only one. The tradition of the church and our own conscience are equally important. And infact the Bible itself offers us clear guidance in this matter.

First Jesus himself rejected much of the tradition he was brought up in. For Christians the old order of the old covenant `The Old Testament' must always take second place to the new covenant `The New Testament'. There are several groups of laws in the Old Testament which are specifically rejected by Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. They include the Jewish food laws, about clean and unclean food; "Don't you understand? Nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean, because it goes not into his heart but into his stomach and so out into the drain (in this way he declared all foods are fit to be eaten." (Mark 7:18-19). Mixing or eating with people who were not part of the Jewish community of faith; "In Samaria he came to Sychar and sat down at a well. A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, 'Give me some water' (his disciples had gone into the town to buy food) `You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan - so how can you ask me for a drink? (Jews will not use the same cups and bowls that Samaritans use." (John 4:5-9) Sabbath observance; he was constantly breaking Sabbath day laws by healing the sick or gathering food, and when challenged said, "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27) Crime and punishment; "You have heard it said by them of old, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I now tell you do not take revenge." (Matthew 5:38) Circumcision ; the first Christians, lead by St Paul, rejected that greatest of all marks of what it is to be part of the community of faith. Despite considerable misgivings by the Jewish Christian part of the church, this was decided at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Divorce; he rejected the traditions of Jewish divorce law, "Moses gave you permission to divorce your wives because you are so hard to teach . . . . but I say to you then, that any man who divorces his wife for any other cause than her unfaithfulness commits adultery if he marries again." (Matthew 19:8-9) It is clear from all these examples that Jesus was always concerned with the love behind the law rather than the letter of the law itself. Many of the leading members of the Jewish authorities of his day were so concerned with a literal interpretation of the law that not working on the Sabbath became more important than healing a cripple as Jesus did in the story recorded in Mark 3:1-6. These people were so concerned with what they thought was correct that they could not see what was good.

So then we have the authority of Jesus himself for rejecting some of the demands of the law when they are in conflict with his own teaching. Individual ideas and teaching in the Bible has to be tested against the teaching of Jesus which for Christians is the most important thing in the Bible. He focused on the Law's concern for inner righteousness and for proper relations between people and God. His was an ethic of principle rather than an ethic of rules. If the laws of the Old Testament disagree with the teaching of Jesus then they must be rejected or be counted as of secondary importance - secondary themes. The problem of course comes because it is the reader who must decide what accords with the teaching of Jesus - the primary theme - and what conflicts with it. I shall argue in a moment that the only primary theme in the Bible is the Law of Love

Secondly it is not only in our awareness and understanding of God that our knowledge has grown. Our knowledge and understanding of the world he has made has grown and changed too. All too often the church has flown in the face of all knowledge and logic and fact to oppose new ideas if they appeared to conflict with a traditional interpretation of the Bible. As Bishop Spong of Newark put it, "In my priestly career I have watched the literal Bible be quoted to justify racial segregation, to ensure the continued sexist oppression of women by the christian church, and to perpetuate a killing homophobia in our corporate life." He went on to say, "Had I lived in an earlier part of history, I would have seen the Bible quoted to condemn Copernicus, who asserted that the earth did not occupy the centre of the universe, and Galileo, who said that the sun did not rotate around the earth. I would have seen the insights of Isaac Newton challenged by a biblical view of God that could only be described as supernatural magic. I would have witnessed the church's attack on Charles Darwin in the name of a brand of creationism that today is totally dismissed." (Foreword to `What the Bible really says about Homosexuality' Dr Helminiac) The church like all institutions has to learn from all new insights and discoveries and modify its understanding and teaching accordingly. In this context the disciplines of science, particularly psychiatry, psychology and genetics are leading us to a very different understanding of ourselves than even our parents had. When the church has not followed this process of re-education and learning it has ended up looking out of touch and ridiculous. The Church has repeatedly failed to come to terms with the new discoveries of science and a result it has consistently lost credibility. Congregations have declined because most people no longer accept the teaching and beliefs of an organisation which appears to propose things which increasing scientific knowledge has shown to be false.

Third we must accept that the way we think and the philosophy that underpins the whole idea of what is called Natural Law, a concept accepted by the writers of the New Testament, no longer looks so firm. At best the idea of Natural Law now seems more complicated and confused than before while many people suggest that it should be abandoned altogether. Paul and Philo could say with conviction that something was `para phusin', against nature, people today are more hesitant. The English terms `Natural Law' and `The Law of Nature' come from the latin `ex nature' or naturals and `us natural', which were used by Cecil and Seneca and all Roman jurists, and were derived ultimately from the `phusicon dikaion' of Aristotle. "A rule of justice," he said is natural that has the same validity everywhere, and does not depend upon our accepting it." ( Aristotle, The Nicomachaen Ethics. V,vii.)

Cicero makes the same point. "True law, is right reason in agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . . It is a sin to try to altar this law . . . . one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times . . . . God is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge . . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature." (Cicero, De Rep. III xxii). This classical idea of a universal standard of conduct, morally binding on everyone and obvious by the light of reason, was accepted by Christianity. It was incorporated into the scheme of Christian doctrine. One of the clearest formulations is by Thomas Aquinas, ". . . man participates in eternal reason, through which he possesses a natural inclination to a fitting act and end. Such participation on the part of a rational creature in the eternal is called natural law." (Summa Theologica Part 11,.1 q.91, art.2. )The Creator of this was no longer the `anima mundi' of the Stoics but the God who had revealed himself in the Scriptures. Because our capacity for understanding this law had been damaged in `The Fall', our rebellion against God (described in picture language in the story of Adam and Eve in the garden), it was necessary that it should be written down. "As by disobedience the authority of the Law of Nature was corrupted and blotted out, the written law was found necessary; in order that man having lost all, might retain a part." (St Ambrose, Letters Ixxiii 5). The central problem of course, is one of definition. What exactly constitutes `Natural Law'. Is it, as Ambrose thought, the Law of Moses brought to perfection in the teaching of Jesus? Is it to be found in any written code, or is it a concept such as `Justice' that all people strive for, but can never be encapsulated?

Natural Law, the perfect law of God, can be strived after but never fully found by his imperfect and rebellious subjects. (For a fuller discussion of the concept of natural law see `Natural: A Christian Reconsideration.' Edited A. Vidler and W. Whitehouse 1946).

In modern jurisprudence the concept of natural law plays very little part. The Logical Positivist approach would say there is a tendency in all human societies to formulate rules and guidance for members. This probably comes from the sense that all people have that things are `fair' or `unfair'. However there is in fact little agreement about the specifics of these laws between different societies in different times. "The only thing that all groups accept is that it is wrong to murder people." (Philip Katz Q.C.) Aquinas never attempted to give a list of precepts of natural law, each person must work them out for themselves, and he accepted that individual rules may be subject to change. He did insist however there were things which were naturally right "no harm should be done voluntarily to another person."

There is always pressure on the Church to take a firm stand on any given moral or social issue and say what is right or wrong in every situation. This is particularly true of people who are apt to talk of `family values', and usually they complain that the church is failing in this duty. I have never understood what `family values' are supposed to be. I can understand `human values' - kindness, tolerance, love, loyalty, justice, friendship, support - but what are these `family values'? Are they as I suspect, a way for conservative minded people to condemn everyone who does not share their exact values or lifestyle? The actual duty of the church is to give people the mental and moral tools to come to a considered position on each moral question or problem as it arises.

Jesus believed that `love' and `justice' were the inspiration behind the laws of the Old Testament. For him and for us these two principles are what we must use to judge the teachings and laws and attitudes found in the Bible and to decide our own attitudes and behaviour.

We have our God given intelligence to look at, and to think about our world, to help us decide what we should do and believe. Sometimes we may make mistakes but we cannot avoid this responsibility. We know too much now about our world and about the cultural and other influences which created and influenced the composition of the Bible to believe that there is no intellectual conflict to address, or choices to be made about the authority we should give to different parts of the Bible. It seems to me extraordinary that this even needs to be said in 2001! This battle was fought out in the controversy over the publication of the book `Essays and Reviews' in 1860. In response to this book which said, in a variety of articles on different topics, that the Bible reflected the thoughts, understanding and beliefs, of the many people who had contributed to it, there was a furious outcry. A declaration was written and a petition signed, "the Church of England . . . . with the whole Catholic Church, maintains without reserve or qualification, the Inspiration and Divine Authority of the whole canonical scriptures, as not only containing but being the Word of God." (`The Record Newspaper' -Declaration signed by eleven thousand clergy and one hundred and thirty-seven thousand lay people.) This fundamentalist stance, a reaction to the supposed threat to scripture, was hardly credible then, it is totally preposterous now.

THE LAW OF LOVE

It is in the New Testament that we find the real key to what in the Bible has authority for us today and the guiding principle of natural law. When the Doctor of the Law asked Jesus what was the most important commandment Jesus summarised the Law with the love commands. The essence of the law is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind." and "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." (Matthew 22:37,39) Everything else is commentary "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (ibid. 22:40) This is why Jesus could criticize the Pharisees because they had neglected the really important aspects of the Law, justice, mercy and faith. (Matthew 23:23) This was not strictly a new insight, when challenged to recite the whole of the Law while standing on one leg a Rabbi had said more or less the same thing as Jesus himself.

Jesus in line with the best rabbinical teaching was saying that there is only one law the Law of Love. He said this explicitly at the Last Supper "A new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 13:34) Based on this St Augustine could say "Love and do as you will." ("Dilige et quod vis fac." In Joann. vii. 8) He was secure in the belief that whatever is done in the true spirit of Christian love cannot but be good. I believe that it is because our understanding of this all important Law of Love that we say that all people no matter what sex, no matter what sexual orientation, no matter what race, are all to be treated with equal love and respect. All biblical attitudes and laws and all human behaviour has to be measured against this truth.

Time and again this is emphasised in the New Testament. And this love comes directly from God. "I have made yourself known to them and I will continue to do so that the love that you have had for me may be in their hearts." (John 17:26) Paul asks not on his own authority but in the name of love that Philemon should forgive and take back the runaway slave Onesimus "I am appealing in love, a simple personal appeal from Paul." (Philemon 9) Love is the foundation of the christian life. "And I pray that you, rooted and founded in love yourselves, may be able to grasp - with all christians- how wide and long and deep and high is the love of Christ - and to know for yourselves that love which is so far above our understanding. So will you be filled through all your being with God himself." (Ephesians 3:17-19) This love comes from God because God himself is love, "God is love, and the man whose life is lived in love does, in fact live in God, and God does, in fact, live in him." (Ephesians 4:16)

Of course the situation is not entirely clear cut. Jesus was not just throwing out the old laws and replacing them with his own version, he saw himself as the fulfilment rather than the replacement of the law. "Do you think I have come to do away with the law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets? I have not come to do away with them but to make their teachings come true. Remember that not the least point nor the smallest detail will be done away with." (Matthew 5:17-18) This is a little difficult to square with the actions of a man who rode roughshod over much of this law and founded a church which rejected the structure of Jewish law almost in its entirety as a proper basis for faith.

His teaching about the law was based on two assumptions, that God's people should take their character from God; and that the law is encompassed in the love commands. Jesus "focused on the law's concern for inner righteousness and for proper relations between people and with God. His was an ethic of principle rather than an ethic of rules." (Law in the New Testament, article in The Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible. Klyner Snodgrass p.502) And the dominating principle always for Jesus, was love. St Paul accepted the basic truth of the Law of Love, "Meanwhile these three remain, faith hope and love; and the greatest of these is love (1 Corinthians 13:13) and he realized that in fact the Jewish understanding of law did not bring people closer to God. On the contrary the law only served to show up our constant failure to live up to the demands of God. "For no-one is put right in God's sight by doing what the law requires; what the law does is to make man know that he has sinned." (Romans 3:20) But he also shared much of Jesus' own ambivalence and accepted much of the thinking behind the laws. That Paul was influenced in his thinking by the culture and history of the Jewish community of which he was a part, seems obvious to most people now though this may be difficult for some conservative Christians to accept. They might say that the only influence on Paul was God. However, as the sections on slavery and the status of women in this chapter shows, Paul was affected by the presumptions of his time and this must affect the way we approach his writing.

As I said at the beginning of this chapter there is no straightforward set of criteria to judge when it is right to behave in a way that is contrary to the teaching of the Bible. In fact of course no Christians today live their lives in accordance with the life style of the first century AD Christian community as described in the New Testament, let alone according to the social and cultural beliefs of the Israelite community in the Palestine of the tenth century BC. It would be a complete nonsense to do so. What we have to do is judge every piece of teaching in the Old and New Testaments and each decision that we make today against the words of St John. "Let us all love one-another. This is no new command I am writing to you; it is the command we have had from the beginning. This love I speak of means that we must live in obedience to God's commands. The command, as you have all heard from the beginning is that you must all live in love." (2 John 5-6).

This law of love applies in particular to human relationships. The moral worth of the relationship as judged by the law of love, depends not on the gender of the people involved but on the actual quality and depth of their relationship.