Reasonable and Holy

A Response to Some Criticisms

2010-05-16T18:02:00.000-04:00

Recently, Reasonable and Holy has been critiqued on three grounds:

First, that it is, as Ephraim Radner suggests, "a tissue of maybe," and hence not sufficient to make a case for change.
Second, that while it may effectively weaken the prevailing arguments against the licitness of life-long monogamous same-sex relationships, and indeed to some extent undermine the traditional limitation of marriage to mixed-sex couples, still, it does not provide an alternative positive theology for this innovation.
Finally, it is also suggested that the burden of proof lies on my side of the debate.

I see these grounds of complaint as related and I will try to address them in a single response. Part of this is because of the ethical understanding with which I come to the discussion. Not wishing to launch into a long essay on the various schools of ethics, let me just say that I would here espouse the ethical stand in the neighborhood of what are known as Probiliorism and Probabalism — as opposed to the more rigorous and inflexible Tutiorism. I am not alone in this, and in fact my position is the dominant model in contemporary ethics.

Tutiorism is a hard master, and requires that in any doubtful case, one must always follow the more secure or established rule unless the alternative can be shown to be so likely as to be virtually certain. In a legal context we might call that a standard of "clear and convincing" or perhaps even "beyond reasonable doubt." (Much depends on whether one is the plaintiff or the defense; bear with me!)

Probabalism and Probiliorism, respectively, require only that the alternative to following the standard rule be shown to be probable (or in the latter system, more probable) than the standard to allow for liberty. These would be something more like the legal standards of "showing reasonable doubt" or having the "preponderance of the evidence" on one's side.

I realize I'm mixing legal and ethical systems here, but I hope this helps make the distinctions clearer without bringing in too much subtle confusion. But I also do this in part because there is a forensic side to this discussion.

In short, from my perspective, some of my critics are calling for my side to provide clear and convincing evidence of innocence (or licitness) when all I believe we are required to introduce is reasonable doubt as to guilt (or illicitness). We are talking, after all, about the rightness of performing a certain action (or entering a certain estate), which the traditional side sees as a sin if not a crime. As I am on the defense side of the equation, and the burden of the "traditional" side is to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that the tradition is correct, I think I have done my job. Even Dr. Radner admits I present effective counter-arguments to much of the traditional case. In short, "maybe" is enough to cast reasonable doubt upon the air-tightness of the traditional case, and acquit those accused of improper action.

Now, when we get to the question of the church's blessing, a positive act on the church's part, the question of theology comes up. First, I must note once again that the church's teaching is that marriage exists prior to and apart from any "blessing" the church may offer. (The ministers of marriage are the couple.)

But when it comes to providing an alternative positive theology for same-sex marriage, I think my critics misunderstand me. I am not arguing for a separate theology of marriage different from the theology we already have for marriage — such as it is. (I add that proviso because any careful examination of the tradition reveals a number of variant theologies from the patristic era and up through the high middle ages and on through the Reformation. Anglicans tended in general to be closer to Luther's "a matter of the town hall" than to the Roman Catholic "sacrament," when they referred to marriage as "an estate allowed.")

However, I deliberately took the exhortation of the marriage rite in the Book of Common Prayer as my model in examining a theology for same-sex marriage. I believe I have convincingly demonstrated that procreation cannot be held to be an essential element in marriage precisely because, according to the church's teaching, marriage is not forbidden to those who cannot procreate. That would seem to me to be a simple bit of logic (i.e., something not required cannot be essential), and incontestable as it stands. I believe I have also shown that all of the other characteristic "goods" or "ends" of marriage can be shared and realized by a same-sex couple. So whatever "theology" you wish to apply to marriage — apart from one that requires the capacity to procreate as essential, in contravention of the church's tradition and law — can be applied to a same-sex as well as a mixed-sex couple.

I hope that goes a bit towards addressing these critics. And I really do wish some of them would read the book instead of relying on Dr. Radner's review.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Review from The Anglican Theological Review

2010-02-25T18:00:00.002-05:00

Anglican Christianity has long had a tradition of scholarly parsons. At the head of this line stands Hooker, of course, and it is Hooker who presides over Reasonable and Holy, the learned work of another learned parish priest. It is one thing to quote Hooker’s words, as Tobias Haller frequently does, and something more difficult, more admirable, and more worthwhile to emulate his approach and his temperament. Haller does that too.

Hooker’s was in the first instance controversial theology, aimed at answering and controverting a stated position, strongly held, on matters of practical import for the church as a whole. Likewise, Haller seeks to meet opponents on their own ground, assessing their arguments carefully and refuting them courteously, rather than simply dismissing them and insisting on his own alternative. The ground, in this case, is primarily biblical. However important the natural-law tradition has been or may still be in addressing the questions at issue, that is not where Anglicans who disapprove of same-sexual relations commonly take their stand. Accordingly, neither does Haller. On the one hand, he does not take the standard line of appealing to the moral virtue of justice, which would be a form of natural-law argument; on the other, he need not and does not deal with consequentialist arguments to the effect that any change in longstanding prohibitions with regard to same-sexuality will have evil effects. The arguments that are relevant here are arguments from authority, and the relevant authority is that of canonical texts.

Nevertheless, for Haller as for Hooker, it remains that not even scriptural texts are self-interpreting. They have to be understood, and understanding them calls for rationality. The relevant passages—all the usual ones—need to be examined reasonably, which is quite a different thing from submitting them to a priori judgment. In other words, there is exegetical homework to be done. It is true that Haller does not dive into the maelstrom of “higher,” historical-critical interpretation. He takes the Bible, deliberately, as it stands, and takes it as holy Scripture, in the way that the church has taken it and that Paul and Jesus took it. In that regard, as in others, Reasonable and Holy is quite a conservative book. Yet by no means does it follow that scholarly investigation is superfluous. Quite the contrary. Haller does not parade his erudition; he does exercise it. Where the nuances of Greek and Hebrew are relevant, he refers to them. He also brings into the conversation a good deal of rabbinic exegesis, with which his own has perhaps a certain affinity.

There are no sweeping judgments here. To use his own phrase, Haller does not offer a Grand Unified Theory of Sexuality, in which everything the Bible has to say finds a clear-cut, logical place. In fact much of his book is aimed, explicitly or otherwise, at those who have put forward such artificial, totalizing schemes as the answer to current disputes. That is not what he means by being reasonable. He means—to judge by what he does—drawing careful distinctions, gauging the merits of possibly relevant interpretations, and mounting a case that depends on the cumulative weight of all its components. “Judicious” might be the right word.

That being so, even if it were possible to summarize the argument, a summary would be out of place. The value of Reasonable and Holy lies not in its conclusions alone but chiefly in the way Haller reaches them. What should, however, be emphasized is the user-friendliness of his book, its learnedness notwithstanding. The sidebars and callouts will help readers keep their place. Headings are memorably phrased, and just occasionally over the top (“Don’t be so shellfish”). There are no footnotes and, more seriously, there is no index—not, that is, in the book itself. But an index of names and another of textual references can be consulted online. Now that the General Convention of the Episcopal Church has committed itself to “an open process for the consideration of theological and liturgical resources for the blessing of same gender relationships,” whoever is charged with compiling those resources will want to add this book to the list.

CHARLES HEFLING
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

From The Anglican Theological Review Winter 2010, Volume 92 Number 1, 225-226.

Response to Radner (3)

2010-02-19T12:18:00.001-05:00

I would like to conclude my response to Ephraim Radner’s review of Reasonable and Holy with a few comments on his views of my biblical hermeneutic. Perhaps the strangest thing in this strange review is that Radner appears not to recognize what I am doing as entirely within the range of the classical Biblical interpretation. I suspect his assumption must be something like, “If your result disagrees with the doctrinal tradition, then your technique or method must diverge from the exegetical tradition.” I may be putting words into his mouth, but this is the only premise that can make sense of his further comments. Taken on its own, as a premise, it is clearly false, as many people using identical exegetical methods, at various stages in the history of engagement with Scripture, have come to very different conclusions as to its meaning and application.

However, the least accurate characterization Radner makes of my biblical approach is to call it “Liberal Protestantism.” Liberal, perhaps, but only in the sense that Richard Hooker was liberal in comparison with Walter Travers. Protestant, but only in the sense of the classical Anglicanism of the Elizabethan Settlement, or the Evangelicalism of Luther, and certainly not in the mid-19th to mid-20th century meaning of the word. If seeking a cohesive message from Scripture — such as my own that its sufficient purpose is salvation through grace by faith in Christ (an aim Radner seems to find less than fruitful, as he puts save in scare-quotes!) — then he is equally guilty of such an appeal, when he criticizes me for not developing a “larger scriptural vision” along the lines of John Paul II. If anything, Radner’s approach, and what he appears to be asking me to do, is more along the lines of the liberal protestant academy of the late 19th century.

To take one example, which I referred to in the earlier post: Radner accuses me (I think) of misrepresenting Rob Gagnon on the question of Jesus’ use of porneiai. Here is Radner:

...On the issue of whether Jesus actually says anything about homosexuality, [Haller] attacks Gagnon on his reading of porneiai in Mark 7:21ff. as possibly implying homosexual practice.

Haller provides some straightforward initial questions, ones that are worth noting, and then pursues his general theme of same-sex references in the Bible as being primarily aimed at cultic prostitution. One might think that Gagnon is a rather silly man on this basis. But the reader is never told that Gagnon himself doesn’t put much weight on the very argument Haller attacks (half a paragraph, on a verse he questions as “authentically” Jesus’ in any case), while Haller, on the other hand, deals with the question at length (four pages).

First of all, to the accuracy of Radner’s characterization of Gagnon. From his reference to my book, one would think this was Gagnon’s only statement on what Jesus thought about homosexuality. In fact, it is the only text Gagnon can attempt to twist so as to put an actual condemnation of homosexuality (in his mind) into Jesus’ mouth. Gagnon, after all, is capable of such astounding statements as, “Jesus, both in what he says, and what he fails to say, remains squarely on the side of those who reject homosexual practice.” (B&HP, 228, emphasis mine) So much for actual fidelity to the text! However, I was addressing Gagnon’s earlier statement:

...No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses. (ibid. 191-2)

Contrary to Radner’s assertion, Gagnon expresses no doubt whatsoever that porneiai “undoubtedly” includes “homosexual behavior.” In addition, Gagnon holds very lightly indeed any doubt he may have that this verse is an actual statement by Jesus (“If Jesus made this remark...”) — for Gagnon, Jesus damns if he does say it, and damns if he doesn’t. This is a bizarre combination of Jesus Seminar color-coding and pure eisegesis — hardly what I would call sound scholarship. And yet this passage from Gagnon is quoted widely as a definitive summary of Jesus’ position on the subject, including in the Church of England’s House of Bishops’ position paper, Some Issues in Human Sexuality. Do I think Gagnon a “rather silly man.” No, but perhaps a dangerous one, whose agenda is at all costs to spin either what the Scripture says or what it doesn’t into an overarching message of disapprobation.

+ + +

I, too, of course, do have a “larger Scriptural vision,” though it may be that Radner cannot grasp it because he doesn’t share it. He dismisses my hermeneutic based on the “Summary of the Law” as if it were not in fact “a consistent moral ‘principle’ (discerned somehow as divine)” by which we are to understand the Scripture. I think that is exactly what it is, and from the mouth of Jesus himself.

This view is not some modern concoction out of Liberal Protestantism, as Radner thinks, nor is it a means simply to dispose of difficult passages, but the means to place them in their proper perspective in the over-all plan of salvation. This principle of biblical interpretation is the basis of Jesus’ and Paul’s own engagement with Scripture — and it is the font that waters the best reflections of the early church. As Saint Augustine put it,

Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up the twofold love of God and neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. If, on the other hand, a man draws a meaning from them that may be used for the building up of love, even though he does not happen upon the precise meaning which the author whom he reads intended to express in that place, his error is not pernicious, and he is wholly clear from the charge of deception. (On Christian Doctrine 1.36[40])

As Augustine later says, it is better to be accurate than not, and error should be corrected. But let the correction itself by clear and sound and specific — and not like the dense circularity of Gagnon, or the flippant dismissal of Radner.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Response to Radner (2)

2010-02-16T17:50:00.005-05:00

In his review of Reasonable and Holy, Ephraim Radner, apparently less than willing to engage with my conclusions, instead spends much of his energy on dismissing my scholarship. He notes the book is physically thin but finds it logically thin as well. As to the former, the book is only 192 pages, but the print is rather small, and it amounts to just under 82,000 words. In any case, arguments should not be weighed in pounds. Content is more important than form, after all.
As to the logic and the scholarship, I think a problem for Radner is that the book is not what he was expecting, and he appears not to have been able to free himself from those expectations. He appears to have wanted the book to be a consideration of what various scholars have said on the subject, carefully annotated with all of their opinions. In short, the kind of argument Hooker found pointless and tedious.
In fact, this book is a return to primary sources, and the logic is based on addressing the premises and conclusions of the “reasserters” — which in their case is often the same thing. While I make passing reference to a number of contemporary authors, my main interest is in Scripture itself, the writings of the early church and the reflections of the rabbis, and a look at the literature contemporary with them — including the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha — and all of this is properly cited. As to modern thinkers — few of their assertions on either side bear much mark of originality, and I do not think it my task to present the full arguments of those with whom I disagree, but rather to test their conclusions — I am aiming to provide answers to assertions, as Radner appears to recognize, even as he regards this approach as “lacking any scholarly context.”
Unfortunately, this assertion itself is short on detail — would that Radner had devoted more space to examples than to mere repetition of his theme. He gives only two explicit examples of my failings, in relation to my treatment of an assertion by Rob Gagnon, and my failure to cite Bruce Malina on the same subject. I want to address both of these specifics, as I think they provide a very good example both of the danger of citing contemporary authors, and the uneven quality of Radner’s own scholarship — which gives the impression of refutation when the texts cited do not support his assertion quite so forcibly as he suggests. I will take up the statement about Malina in this post, and address the matter concerning Gagnon at a later time.
+ + +
Radner says, “Haller references no other detailed discussions of the meaning of porneia, like Bruce Malina’s 1972 article, that would actually provide significant counter-evidence to Haller’s thesis.” Lest Radner accuse me of not providing the citation, I take him to be referring to Bruce Malina’s, “Does Porneia Mean Fornication?” in Novum Testamentum 1972, 10-17.
So, does this article actually “provide significant counter-evidence to Haller’s thesis.” Radner fails to state what my thesis is, so for the benefit of discussion, let me state it: That porneia (and zenut in Hebrew) and their related words do not, in the contemporary literature under examination, refer to same-sex relationships (apart from male prostitutes). So does Malina provide significant counter-evidence to my thesis?
First of all, it has to be noted that Malina’s own thesis, argument, and conclusion are not concerned with same-sexuality at all. His goal is to show that porneia in its biblical use is not intended to proscribe fornication in its modern sense as sex before marriage. As he poses the question, “Does the N.T. usage of the porneia word group in fact cover all the meanings generally given the word group by the lexica and commentaries, or do the meanings ascribed to the word group rather derive from later usage and later moral judgment deriving from a historically and culturally conditioned version of N.T. morality?”
Does this sound familiar? If you’ve read my book it should, as Malina’s goal is actually similar to mine: to limit the range of application of the porneia/zenut word group in its original frame, rather than the expanded reading of “just about anything one regards as sexual immorality.” (I wonder if Radner actually agrees with Malina, that sex before marriage is not forbidden by Scripture?)
In addition to the similarity in our aims, Malina investigates virtually the same ancient materials as I, by much the same means, and with much the same conclusions, with two exceptions. He does, it is true, as a matter of style offer a significant array of references to modern sources — but largely to reject their findings! When it comes to rabbinic texts (which Radner says I treat so poorly) Malina treats the passages citing R. Eliezer (15-17) exactly as I do, but (in my opinion) subverts his own argument. How?
Eliezer, as I point out (128) held that if a man had intercourse with a woman without the intent of marrying her he rendered her a harlot. But by failing to note the stress on lack of intentionality to marry her, Malina weakens his own argument: this is not about pre-marital sex, but what we would call “casual sex” or perhaps sexual exploitation. Malina’s aim is only to exclude “pre-betrothal, pre-marital, heterosexual intercourse of a non-cultic or non-commercial nature, i.e., what we call ‘fornication’ today” from the range of the word group. (17) With its focus on the intent not to marry, Eliezer’s ruling is actually consonant with Malina’s conclusion: that pre-marital sex is not porneia. (If the couple don't marry, the sex wasn't pre-marital, was it?)
Malina also cites Rashi’s reading of Eliezer to refer to sex between persons where legal marriage was forbidden. (16) This opens the question of the “forbidden relations” and Leviticus 18. In this context, Malina makes passing reference to male same-sexuality as included among forbidden relations, and then suggests that porneia — in addition to the figurative application to idolatry which I also elucidate — applies to any sexual immorality condemned in Torah, with specific reference to Leviticus 18. (13)
In this Malina and I actually are at odds. But does he “provide counter-evidence” to my argument? Although he makes this assertion about Leviticus two or three times in this short essay, he provides no reference from the primary sources to support it, and the secondary citations are of a very general nature. To the contrary, I have assembled primary citations against this conclusion. (126-132).
Most importantly the “forbidden relations” (arayot) include categories not found in Leviticus, as Malina notes(13). But not all of the arayot, in Leviticus or not, are referred to as porneia/zenut in the contemporary or later Jewish literature. (Leviticus 18 itself does not use the term at all.) As a matter of fact, as I note, porneia appears only to be applied on a very occasional basis in Jewish literature (e.g., Sirach 23:16-17) to the incest prohibitions of Leviticus 18, a section of Leviticus with its own internal unity based on the category of “likeness of flesh.” (see R&H 129) Moreover, two of the arayot appearing in Leviticus 18 (sex with a menstruant or a beast) are explicitly excluded from porneia/zenut in the Rabbinic tradition (bTerumah 29b, 30b). (ibid. 131)
So, on this point, far from providing counter-evidence to my thesis, Malina shows the same sort of over-broadening of the range of meaning of which he accuses the traditional lexica in regard to pre-marital sex.
I will also note that Malina is careful to point out that the Pseudepigrapha, such as Jubilees, only “perhaps” refer to homosexuality. (14) This is one of those “maybes” that Radner finds so troublesome, but which real scholars live by. In this case, my findings show that the Pseudepigrapha (Jubilees, Enoch, the Testaments), like our canonical Jude, link the story of Sodom with that of the Watchers (or Nephilim) from Genesis 6, and that the concern, as Jude 7 shows, is not homosexuality, but explicitly heterocarnality — “going after different (heteras) flesh. (167-168)
So, does this amount to refutation? Or even persuasive “counter-evidence?” And is this the best that Radner could find? You be the judge; or rather, the jury. I have no need to convince the prosecutor.
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
The response continues here.

Response to Radner (1)

2010-02-12T10:42:00.003-05:00

Ephraim Radner has published a typically wordy review of Reasonable and Holy in The Living Church. I have to say I am disappointed, not because the review is dismissive, but because I had hoped for more engagement with the issues and conclusions I present. Instead, Radner spends much of his time dealing with form rather than content. (It is a poor critic who blames another workman’s tools.) Plainly Radner does not like my conclusions, but he addresses only two or three of them with any precision. I will be making a longer response as time permits (I am in the midst of completing several major projects, and will be traveling on Anglican Communion business next week). However, I want here to examine just one of the assertions Radner makes. It is revelatory of the extent to which the heterosexualist mind-set, dazzled and misled by an eisegetical “larger scriptural vision” is prevented from engagement with alternative ideas.
Radner states,

The central element of procreation in marriage, for instance, is bound up with the character of Israel’s calling in fallen (and the Fall has no place in Haller’s scheme) human history — genealogy — and ought not simply to be examined in terms of this or that individual person or couple (a rather modern obsession).

I will leave to one side the fact that I examine at some length the traditional imagery of both marriage and harlotry in the role of Israel in salvation history (pp. 53-56). Mindful as well of the apostolic injunction “not to occupy [myself] with ... endless genealogies that promote speculations rather than the divine training that is known by faith,” (1 Tim 1:4), I nonetheless feel it necessary to challenge Radner’s assertion here — or what I can make of it.
For while it is obviously true that procreation and genealogy are linked, the crucial observation from the New Testament, in the two places where genealogies figure, is that procreation — at least heterosexual procreation — is not at issue. Both Matthew (1:1-16) and Luke (3:23-38) reach their climax in an essential subversion of heterosexual procreation: Matthew sweeps aside all of his carefully constructed line of fatherhood to turn his attention to Mary, and then to describe the virginal conception. Luke, emerging from the revelation of Jesus Christ as Son of God at his baptism, presents a reverse genealogy that culminates in the affirmation that the first Adam was also Son of God. (As I note in Reasonable and Holy, the three most important persons in salvation history — Adam, Eve, and Jesus — are not the result of heterosexual sex; and, again contrary to Radner’s careless reading, I cite the traditional patristic and medieval reading of Mary’s role in the reversal of the Fall, as the “new Eve” as a crucial factor in a sound understanding of the place of procreation in the work of God. See pp. 30-38) Taken, as I do, in the context of John’s warning about those who are born “from above” (John 3:3 )and not “of the will of man,” (John 1:13) I think I have expounded a sound biblical picture, consonant with the actual text — even if it must dissipate the Radnerian mirage, typified by his dismissive and anti-incarnational conclusion. Ultimately it is about individual persons — and this is no “modern obsession” but at the heart of the Christian faith.
Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
the response continues here

Review from The Living Church

2010-02-12T10:03:00.005-05:00

Building on a Tissue of ‘Maybe’

Posted on: February 9, 2010

Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality

By Tobias Stanislas Haller. Church Publishing. Pp. 192. $18. ISBN-13: 978-1-59627-110-4

Reviewed by Ephraim Radner

Tobias Haller has gained a reputation over the past few years of a temperate and thoughtful apologist for progressive Episcopalians, especially on matters relating to sexuality. Through his blogging and engagement in various church discussions, Haller has provided a consistent witness of gentle but persistent argument in usually winning prose. Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality is, in fact, drawn from several articles he originally posted on his blog. It is now laid out in expanded form in 12 brief chapters, dotted with sidebars and “callout” paragraphs, often with a summary, and followed by discussion questions (of only vague relevance to the actual topic).

Taken on its own terms, the book is useful for understanding the arguments some gay-inclusion advocates deploy to address traditional prohibitions of same-sex relations within the Church. Haller writes in his generally lucid way, spices his discussions with some wit (and just a bit too much sarcasm at times), and covers a good bit of ground, from biblical hermeneutics, key scriptural texts, the character of the Law, Hooker on the use of “reason,” “natural” vs. “unnatural,” common claims regarding the place of procreation and sexual difference in marriage, and so on.

It’s a bit of a mishmash in terms of sequence, but the arguments themselves are clear enough (if sometimes over-intricate on linguistic matters). They are not particularly novel to those familiar with the debate: Haller points out inconsistencies of practice in the tradition, fastens on the logical conundra over the use of categories like “nature,” limits the meaning of biblical texts to realities that purportedly have nothing to do with modern homosexual partnerships and understandings (e.g. to cultic prostitution and idolatry), points out how Christian understandings and practice with respect to the law have changed in various ways (eating blood, slavery, etc.), and argues for a central gospel message that should control all Christian scriptural interpretation (the Golden Rule).

The book is a disappointment, however, on the level of a studied consideration of the topic in terms of Scripture and tradition. There are a number of reasons for this, some simply related to the genre of blogging from which these essays derive, others related to the form of argument Haller uses, and others related to the presuppositions applied to the arguments themselves. I will address each of these in turn.

In the first place, the book is thin on the logical side of things (it is thin in terms of size too). Haller has no interest in presenting a scholarly grappling with the issues he discusses: the bibliography is limited and spotty, there are no footnotes, and hence no means to track whose arguments are actually being addressed and where to find them (this is not uniform, to be sure; but just why one argument is located with a specific scholar and most are not is unclear), and there is no attempt to engage alternate and conflicting viewpoints in any thorough way.

This is standard blog essay writing, and in itself is not objectionable. And Haller makes his intentions clear in his introduction. But admitting to something in advance doesn’t necessarily resolve the problem in play. For the stakes are high in this discussion, as we all know, and the claims that Haller pursues are ones that are often quite intricate and detailed (often numbingly so), involving linguistic arguments in the Greek and Hebrew, Talmudic commentary, classical philosophy, and more.

Most readers who are not specialists will skim these long passages, perhaps assuming that the arguments must make sense because they are detailed and intricate. But they are not actually responsible arguments on these terms. And, unfortunately, the careful reader will have little help in placing Haller’s claims within any sort of scholarly context, will be offered no aid in pursuing alternative viewpoints or in making use of provided tools to evaluate his claims, and will simply read a series of assertions about technical matters without historical or literary touchstones. The less careful reader, furthermore, may believe that the argument has scholarly foundation, when in fact it does not.

There are many examples one might point to, from the loose citation of Rabbinic writings whose useful application to biblical texts and their meaning demands sophisticated (and highly contested) hermeneutical and historical methods, to discussions of Hellenistic texts in a scholarly vacuum. Let me take a couple of simple instances. Haller refers to Robert Gagnon’s relatively exhaustive The Bible and Homosexual Practice only now and again. In one place, on the issue of whether Jesus actually says anything about homosexuality, he attacks Gagnon on his reading of porneiai in Mark 7:21ff. as possibly implying homosexual practice.

Haller provides some straightforward initial questions, ones that are worth noting, and then pursues his general theme of same-sex references in the Bible as being primarily aimed at cultic prostitution. One might think that Gagnon is a rather silly man on this basis. But the reader is never told that Gagnon himself doesn’t put much weight on the very argument Haller attacks (half a paragraph, on a verse he questions as “authentically” Jesus’ in any case), while Haller, on the other hand, deals with the question at length (four pages).

More relevantly, Haller references no other detailed discussions of the meaning of porneia, like Bruce Malina’s 1972 article, that would actually provide significant counter-evidence to Haller’s thesis. And such counter-evidence in fact exists in spades, and not only on this topic, though one would not know it from Haller’s curt dismissals. In contrast, when Haller treats the story of David and Jonathan as a prima facie depiction of a homosexual relationship, he does not mention Gagnon’s own lengthy treatment of the text, which provides significant arguments that might directly refute Haller’s position.

I mention Gagnon here because he is among the more prominent objects of negative reflection by Haller, even though he makes only a few appearances; many scholars of note on the topic, from Richard Hays on, are absent altogether. In short, this is not a book designed to argue, let alone be capable of arguing a position seriously; it is instead a series of scattershot opinions, some of them sophisticated and often interestingly presented, but in generally quite unsubstantiated ways. Caveat lector.

But one must not criticize an author for not fulfilling a scheme he never set out to pursue in the first place. So it is important to grasp what Haller’s purpose is, and to evaluate the work on these terms at least. On this score, I think it fair to say that the book is generally aimed at providing apologetic responses to common traditional Christian objections to homosexual behavior and partnerships (including “marriage”). The final chapter is in fact a summary review of the book in just these terms, laid out as a list of “objections” and “responses.”

In this sense, the volume acts as a kind of handbook for pro-gay advocates in the church, ready to have an answer for every discrete argument traditionalists might make in the course of a conversation or debate, as, say, on your typical blog or parish forum. S ex (and marriage) is “for” procreation? Haller provides arguments why this is not so. I sn’t sexuality founded on male-female difference? Here’s something you can respond with. What about Sodom? What about Leviticus? etc.

In light of such a purpose, the book does its job well. Haller, as I said, writes engagingly and fluidly. He provides smatterings of facts and references — a Patristic writer here, a rabbi there, an anthropological observation somewhere else — that give some vital profile to a point, and then moves on. Because the arguments are not actually founded on comparative research, however, they will never convince those who are not already persuaded.

Based mainly on a string of vague possibilities (the Bible doesn’t say that David and Jonathan were not homosexual lovers, does it?), the final argument taken as a whole is a tissue of “maybe” rather than carefully constructed logic. The value of Haller’s individual points, however individually uncertain, lies in their status as ammunition in the ongoing sex debates of the church. Let me be clear: I believe most of Haller’s arguments can in fact be refuted (and have been); but that would require the kind of point-by-point scholarly tenacity, like a dog with a bone, that only someone like Gagnon has thus far exhibited (much to people’s discomfort). This approach to the topic, as we all know, is exhausting.

But that is, in part, due to the genre of this kind of apologetic. For what the book does not provide, precisely because of its debate-manual format, is an overarching vision of Christian marriage and sexuality itself. The book is premised on undercutting objections, not constructing a synthetic perspective. Having excluded procreation as an end, or the engagements of physical difference, Haller sees marriage as a matter of “love and fidelity” between two persons, period (pp. 55-56). This is not, in itself, a problematic claim as far as it goes (though it does not, in fact, go very far). But Haller reaches this point mainly through subtraction — subtracting this and that text from the Bible as historically or linguistically or morally irrelevant, this and that thematic inter-textual network as confused, this and that interwoven set of strands in the tradition as misled, figurally and practically — all to the end of dismissing the list of traditional “objections.”

The result is a “remainder theology” where the Scriptures have little to say comprehensively, and where the traditions of the Church exist as interesting but generally superfluous distractions from the main point of love and fidelity. No doubt, if Haller were to set about writing a more positive sexual theology, he would have something positive to say about husbands and wives, about children, about the agony of barrenness, about the character of suffering difference — even though he believes that none of this is essential to marriage itself (and the book, as a whole, is about “same-sexuality,” not about “mixed-sex” marriage). But there is nothing in this volume to point to such positive interests or even theological trajectories. Marriage ends up as a rather vague container, not terribly interesting frankly, for homosexuals or heterosexuals.

Even though the purpose of Haller’s volume, then, is limited, it nonetheless makes use of more fundamental theological presuppositions that are worth noting. Most centrally is his understanding of Scripture. By and large, and despite the scattered nature of his treatments on the nature of scriptural interpretation throughout the book, Haller’s approach is squarely in line with the paradigm of liberal Protestantism: the Bible records the historically evolving interplay of God and human response, and this record has authority for the present only to the degree that a consistent moral “principle” (discerned somehow as divine) can be extracted from it.

For Haller, this principle is Jesus’ Summary of the Law, which subsists as authoritative through varying cultural changes embodied in the scriptural text. Thus, in his penultimate chapter, he explicitly argues that Paul’s words in the New Testament do not have the same authority as Jesus’, and indeed, have no authority unless shown to be “congruent” with explicit words of Jesus (p. 125), interpreted according to the Golden Rule (p. 138; c. p. 94). And given the ideal Gospel of love that transcends the historical contingencies of the biblical record, Haller can therefore approach that record selectively according to the kinds of historicist arguments he marshals in his apologetic handbook: this and that text is “really” about cult prostitution and idolatry, not homosexual sex; this or that text is “really” about male-female anal intercourse, not lesbianism; this or that text is “really” about the primitive biological views of an ignorant ancient society, not about a divinely wrought anthropology.

Although he claims that he wants to take the text “as the Church has received it,” he does not mean this in terms of the coherent meaning and authority of the text; only that he is not interested in “source” criticism. Haller is sensitive to “contradictions” in the Scripture and uses this fact as a fundamental justification for seeking a central interpretive cue that can relativize texts according to its application, through the analytical use of “reason” that can thereby cull and trim, determine cultural “desuetude,” judge relevance to the moment and need. The Laws of Scripture are useful insofar as they “save”; once they cease saving, according to some cultural calculus reason performs, they lose their usefulness, and have only a historical value.

I admit to finding the liberal Protestant paradigm of biblical interpretation inadequate, for many reasons but especially for its ultimate loss of Scriptural joy and life: what historical reason has left behind must inevitably wither. Reading Haller on Leviticus, for instance, a book for which I have had a special concern, is like reading a chemistry problem. Ironically, given his frequent (if anachronistic and decontextualized) citation of rabbinic material, Jewish tradition has always seen Leviticus as a cohesive and living word, bound to the fullness of both Torah and the prophets and writings.

It is just here that, to my mind, Haller misses so much in trying to minimize the book’s broad theological reach that itself acts as an authoritative interpreter of Genesis 1-3, and not merely as an outlying problematic. And it is just this cohesion of scriptural word that goes utterly missing in Haller’s approach. In Berkeley’s phrase, Haller reads Scripture like a “minute philosopher,” picking it apart to throw away the useless bits and to get at its “essence,” but in the process losing the form and the shape that has in fact ordered the Christian tradition most especially in its development of a relatively stable understanding of marriage.

Ultimately, the kinds of “objections” to same-sex marriage that Haller is trying to refute emerge from such a larger scriptural vision, and not from their status as discrete arguments. The central element of procreation in marriage, for instance, is bound up with the character of Israel’s calling in fallen (and the Fall has no place in Haller’s scheme) human history — genealogy — and ought not simply to be examined in terms of this or that individual person or couple (a rather modern obsession). But this cannot be grasped outside of a coherently engaged Scriptural text. I t certainly makes no sense through the lenses of a truncated and dissected Scriptural witness, translated into abstracted principles of individual relations. The same is true of the traditional understanding of sexual differentiation and so on.

One sorry side effect that has come from the migration of theological argument to the debates of the blogosphere — swift and rhetorically pointed, but also inevitably constricted in time and length — is just the loss of context for the extended kinds of scriptural reflection that Pope John Paul II in fact offered in the addresses collected in his Theology of the Body. The arguments over same-sexuality and marriage deserve such continued reflection. Haller’s book will have its uses, but not in that context.

The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner is professor of historical theology at Wycliffe College, Toronto.

For my responses to this review see

more to come as time permits

Review from the Episcopal New Yorker

2009-10-02T13:54:00.001-04:00

ENGAGING SAME-SEXUALITY
BY TOBIAS STANISLAS HALLER, BSG

SEABURY BOOKS, 180 PAGES
Reviewed by the Rev. Gawain de Leeuw
Episcopal New Yorker Vol 85 No 3 September/October 2009
(pdf version of issue)

In Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality, the Rev. Tobias Haller has written a theologically grounded, scriptural defense of same-sex marriage.

Initially a series of blog posts, this book addresses the principles that undergird the most quoted credible objections. Haller charitably assumes that objectors do so because there are important conceptual issues at stake.

The defense of same-sex marriage has generally been located in the vocabulary of justice. The argument is, briefly, as follows. As both straight and LGBT people become baptized, it is implicitly wrong to withhold other sacraments from any who are faithful Christians. The rejoinder is that marriage is not a right, but a representation of what matters to the church and God: fidelity to scripture, families, law, holiness.

Few scholars are strong in both theology and scripture. Yet armed with powerful philosophical skills and rigorous biblical scholarship, Haller offers a convincing defense for opening Christian marriage to same-sex couples. He investigates the consequences of prioritizing complementarity (the idea that fit between men and women is intrinsic to God’s favor of marriage) and the importance of procreation to the traditional description of marriage. He also clarifies how the words “to’evah” (abomination) and “porneia” (sexual immorality) are used, examining the confusing taxonomical issues around their definitions. He explains the conditions by which laws and customs change throughout church history, and how the presenting issue is similar.

Haller explains, for example, that the Genesis story of sexual differentiation is a story about beginnings, not about purposes. We do not return to the Garden but are marching to the heavenly city. He successfully argues that mutual joy, companionship, and other fruits of the spirit are prior to procreation. He shatters the “prongs and holes” theory explaining that men and women are each individually— and not together as a unit—made in the image of God. It is not, then, our sex that makes us in the image of God, but our agency, our ability to choose.

The book has many useful sidebars that illuminate its arguments, and each chapter ends with questions for discussion. The chapter “WWJD” discusses how Jesus read scripture, while the last chapter comprises an excellent question and answer section. It is suitable for church study groups.

Reasonable and Holy may not convince those who intuitively find the varieties of sexual attraction sinful. It may, however, help individuals who are willing to examine their own conceptual presuppositions. Haller has written a book that honors the Word of God, the faith once delivered, and moves it into our cultural context. He shows how the church can continue to maintain a high standard for faithful relationships. This is no small feat.

Haller does not discuss the relationship between property, sex and imperialism. Homosexuality is sometimes portrayed as a sign of American greed and empire. It becomes linked, for example, to violating third world countries, rather than being bourgeois, Victorian idyll of a pair gardening in the twilight. More work revealing how media and capital have framed the current debate might illuminate how we got here, and how we might move forward.

Furthermore, that the discussion reached a feverish pitch in cyberspace is, I believe, a relevant element of the issue. Perhaps the problem itself is that we do not always discuss this in person, with real faces and real lives before us, but as disembodied entities, without commitment, in the non-existent location of cyberspace, where actions have few consequences.

de Leeuw is the rector of St. Bartholomew’s, White Plains.

A Review

2009-08-12T11:11:00.003-04:00

Reasonable and Holy was a series of blog posts by the author. In an age where biblical scholars are not logicians, and theologians find the bible incoherent, Fr. Haller brings theology and scripture together. This is applied Willi Marxen.

Fr. Haller notes that liberals and conservatives seem to talk past each other. For this reason he carefully builds a coherent conservative position. He examines the concept of complementarity; the purpose versus the ends of marriage. He demonstrates the fragility of the view that procreation is necessarily primary to the bonds of joy.

Fr. Haller interrogates the concept of "abomination" and what constitutes "porneia." He also convincingly shows that liberals do not "cherry pick" but that the foundational law is the one by which all other laws are judged.

Haller reminds us that the purpose of scripture is to save; not to close people from the Gospel.

His strongest chapter is his chapter on Jesus: WWJD. Here he is completely convincing. On page 139 he offers a powerful paraphrase of Jesus' commands. His last chapter would be useful enough to offer those who still can't understand the progressive position.

This is the most important contribution to the subject since Countryman's Dirt, Greed and Sex.

G. F. de Leeuw (at Amazon.com)

Review

2009-06-14T14:31:00.001-04:00

Another review at Amazon: Amos Lassen writes

Continuing the Discusson
Tobias Haller looks at the conflict over homosexuality in the Anglican Church and shows that the church is "able to provide for and support faithful and loving relationships between persons of the same sex". He looks at scripture as well as the traditions of the Jewish and Christian religions and uses reason in looking at and dealing with fellow-Christians. Taking into account marriage, procreation, union, and society as well as Christ and the church, he gives an argument for the inclusion of the GLBT community.

Everything Haller writes is sound and reasonable. He maintains that inclusion is consistent with the Anglican tradition and this is seen if we examine scripture closely.

One does not have to agree with Haller but no one can deny that he brings a fresh and thoughtful approach to the subject. Nor does Haller avoid the sensitive as he writes about sexuality, sexual acts and the reality of same-sex couples. He is sensitive and honest but this is not an easy read. It says a lot and it is quite thorough. The book is slim but it is packed full of information. It is a scholarly and spiritual discussion that brings together theology, scripture, anthropology and law and above all else, reason.

Reviews

2009-06-12T16:06:00.002-04:00

Some new reviews have appeared at Amazon.

John P. Plummer writes:

Tobias Haller's regular readers know they can reliably expect careful argument and beautiful prose. In this book, Father Haller does not disappoint, and provides a crucial contribution to the debates over same-sex relationships(and the full sacramental inclusion of those in such relationships) in the Anglican Communion, and in Christianity more broadly. Father Haller argues persuasively that an inclusive position is consistent with the church's tradition, and can be the result of taking our engagement with scripture seriously. All Christians, whether members of communities that have already taken steps toward inclusion or those still struggling, will benefit from this fine volume. With questions for discussion and other aids, it is appropriate for Sunday School classes and the like.

and Karekin M Yarian had this to say:

Reasonable and Holy could not be more aptly titled. Father Haller has created a monumental work with cogent argument, pastoral sensitivity, and a clear and logical framework. In the ongoing discussion of same-sexuality and the Church, too much is written from the same old biases using Scripture out of context and the reassertion of the same ill-formed arguments. Haller succeeds in bringing new energy and insight into dismantling these old arguments. Whether or not you agree with Haller's conclusions, there is no denying that he has contributed a fresh, sensitive and thorough approach. Bringing a concise and unflinching eye to Scriptural witness, he has illuminated details and nuances often overlooked in the ongoing debates.

This book is no easy read. It is dense and says much in it's few chapters. But a careful reading will prove extraordinarily rewarding. It is a work that I am certain to return to over and again. If you think you know what the Scripture has to say about same-sexuality, especially in the context of faithful long-term relationships between same-gendered partners, prepare the rethink your assumptions.

Father Haller's discussion of the subject of same-sexuality does not shy away from difficult topics nor from specifics about sexuality, sexual acts, or the realities of same-sex couples. It is uncompromising in its honesty and generous in its sensitivity. Yet if we in the Church are to develop a coherent theology in response to the issues of same-gender oriented individuals and/or couples, we cannot fail in such close examination. The author has surely succeeded in moving this discussion into a new and healthier place.

Reasonable and Holy will change hearts and minds. Of this, I have little doubt. But equally, it will quicken the hearts of those who already support the conclusions reached by Haller. This book will convince many that there is little substance left in the arguments against the inclusion and celebration of same-sex couples in the full life of the Church.

Finally, Ginny in DC/NVa said:

Is it "reasonable" to think that Christians can accept same-sexual relationships as "holy"? Tobias Haller says yes - and he tells you why without resorting to shallow, angry or emotional dialog. This is exactly what I expected from Fr. Haller, for all the reasons provided by earlier reviewers.

Tobias Haller presents this book as a resource for the Anglican "listening process" on same-sexuality, and quite a gift it is. If your parish church is divided about these issues, or living in a tenuous don't-ask-don't-tell truce, this little book is organized for meaningful, adult spiritual education and discussion. If you don't think your parish is ready for a full series of classes, consider a seminar based on chapter 12, "Heirs of the Promise," with a couple of copies of this book available in the church lending library. Fr. Haller's scholarly approach to the usual questions and oft-quoted scripture won't fail to inform even the most radical on both sides of the same-sexuality debate.

As other reviewers have noted, this book isn't an easy read, even if you are familiar with the arguments and and modern biblical scholarship. The text is thoroughly readable - and the humor quite lovely - but you will stop to ponder many, many issues. And best of all, you will probably stop and think about the LGBT people in your life, and how they can be blessed and loved by God and the Christian community.

Now that you have the thoughtful comments, I'll add this pithy aside: if you support the LGBT community, Fr. Haller has provided you with a lot of well-researched information to combat biblical literalism and pull-quoting. You can even support one argument by citing the venerable Augustine of Hippo!

Reviews

2009-05-28T16:19:00.004-04:00

I will post links to reviews, excerpts from longer ones and shorter reviews in toto under this heading.

A Feather Adrift: Reasonable and Holy — Sherry

...The book itself is less than 200 pages, but it is literally bursting with excellent exegetical scholarship. It is most clear that Tobias Haller is an excellent mind, and has thoroughly, carefully, and with great insight examined the biblical field as it relates to this subject.

I suspect that it will go down as one of the “classics” in the field, and will be used by countless colleges and universities as a primary text for discussion. I know that it has served me well in deeply enlightening me on the nuances of argument to be made. I have always felt slightly unsatisfied by the arguments so far, and Tobias has given me a real sense of feeling grounded in truth here.

It can serve as well for a text in our various churches when and if we choose to address the issue. And I submit, that we must address it. We are faced with a deep unfairness here. Our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers are enormous assets to our ecclesial life, and we squander their gifts and talents at our peril. It is what Jesus would do I submit. This book helps us get where we need to be, and does so with gentle tenderness.

Father Gregory writes:

This appears to be a slim paperback that should make easy reading. Except that it doesn’t. Fr Tobias has written one of those increasingly rare (and annoying!) books that inspires questioning and demands reflection. Every time I begin to read more of it I find myself stalled at a word, a phrase, a question which requires thoughtful consideration, even some research in other works or, worse, some serious critical thinking. It’s not at all the standard theologically and historically quasi- or semi- or totally illiterate case for the prosecution or the defence which the subject usually seems to inspire. Nor, like the standard works, is it mind-numbingly dull. Its approach is not only scholarly but spiritual, almost meditative. It blends theology and Scripture and history and anthropology and law with deep pastoral concern, and is pleasantly spiced with gentle wit. It applies gentle reason to a subject that more than many requires it.

General Index

2009-04-24T18:22:00.003-04:00

I've added a link to a pdf of the General Index to the sidebar supplemental resources. I decided not to run it here, as it will be more useful printed out. I chose a trim size which will fit into the book.

Errata

2009-04-24T15:48:00.009-04:00

It is the stuff of life to find that things one missed in proofs will survive to print. Herewith errata found. Please post any other typos to this post, and I will amend as time permits.

page 6 line 31: for principle read principal
page 94 line 30: for conclusion read inclusion
page 112 box line 3: add closing quotation mark after transgression of the law
page 115 line 1: for Galatians 3:25 read Galatians 3:28
page 116 line 16: for Turllo read Trullo
page 128 line 26 for later read latter
page 130 box text line 4: delete the first a at the end of the line
page 130 box text line 5: add a comma after man
page 149 line 13: for it read is

General Comments

2009-04-19T15:43:00.003-04:00

Please post comments or questions on the book as a whole here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 1: Where the Division Lies

2009-04-19T15:43:00.002-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 1 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 2: Pro-Creation

2009-04-19T15:42:00.002-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 2 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 3: True Unioni

2009-04-19T15:42:00.001-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 3 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 4: Double Vision

2009-04-19T15:41:00.002-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 4 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 5: Pairs and Mates

2009-04-19T15:41:00.001-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 5 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 6: Clash of Symbols

2009-04-19T15:40:00.002-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 6 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 7: Remedial Reading

2009-04-19T15:40:00.001-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 7 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 8: Scripture and Its Witness

2009-04-19T15:39:00.002-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 8 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 9: Perplexity and Guidance

2009-04-19T15:38:00.001-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 9 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 10: Entrusted with the Oracles of God

2009-04-19T15:37:00.001-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 1o here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 11: WWJD

2009-04-19T15:36:00.000-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 11 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Comments on Chapter 12: Heirs of the Promise

2009-04-19T15:35:00.003-04:00

Please post comments or questions on Chapter 12 here. I will then be able to start a new thread, coded with the appropriate label, to continue the discussion

Index of Scriptural and Other References

2009-03-11T10:43:00.007-04:00

(as I await news from the press and bindery, here to whet your appetite, the index of biblical and other sources and references cited)

Biblical

Genesis

1 (9, 12-14, 29, 43, 46, 47)

1:27 (15, 25, 33, 34, 107)

1:29 (105, 115)

2 (9, 26, 29, 37, 38, 42, 46, 47, 75, 104)

2-4 (13)

2:15 (114)

2:16–17 (105, 115)

2:18 (36)

2:23 (75)

2:24 (15, 25, 36, 107, 146)

3 (65)

4 (29)

4:1 (12)

4:1012 (100)

6:1–4 (29)

6:4 (168)

9 (116)

9:1–6 (105)

9:2–4 (115)

9:3–4 (105)

9:24–26 (112)

9:4 (100)

9:6 (33, 100)

18:11 (44)

18:20 (91)

19 (91, 167)

19:7,9 (92)

19:14 (92)

34:3,8 (146)

34:4 (146)

38:8 (76)

43:32 (87)

46:34 (87, 88)

Exodus

8:22 (87)

20:1 (97)

20:4 (99)

20:4–5a (87)

31:14 (86)

Leviticus

3:17 (115)

6 (104)

7:25,27 (85)

11 (103, 109)

11:10–12 (90)

12 (104)

13 (104)

17:7 (128)

17:10–14 (115)

17:15 (90)

18 (74, 88, 126, 127, 130, 131, 173)

18/20 (63, 91, 98, 102, 126)

18:1 (169)

18:2 (102)

18:3 (99)

18:6–18 (129, 172)

18:8 (74, 131)

18:14–16 (74)

18:16 (76, 79, 82, 160)

18:18 (79)

18:19 (169)

18:22 (63, 64, 76, 77, 87, 89, 94, 128, 168)

18:24–28 (169)

18:24–29 (99)

18:25 (103)

18:26f (87, 103)

18:29f (87)

19 (104)

19:18 (75, 94, 104, 146)

19:19 (75)

19:26 (104)

19:29 (128)

19:36 (87)

20:3–6 (85)

20:5–6 (128)

20:10 (109)

20:13 (77, 87, 169)

20:14 (63)

20:17,18 (85)

20:17–18 (99)

20:21 (82)

20:22 (94)

20:22–26 (99)

20:25 (99)

21:7,14 (28, 128)

21:9 (128)

21:9–10 (84)

25 (102)

25:18 (94)

25:44–46 (112, 113)

26:34–35 (102)

Numbers

26 (106)

27 (106)

27:5–11 (106)

31:17,18,35 (77)

31:17–18 (63)

36 (106)

36:10 (106)

36:59 (106)

Deuteronomy

5.22 (93)

5.27 (93)

7:25 (89)

7:25f (87)

7:26 (90)

7:3–4 (163, 175)

12:1 (94)

12:31 (87)

13:13–15 (87)

14:21 (90)

14:3 (86)

14:3f (87)

14:3ff (89, 90)

17:1,4 (87)

17:7 (139)

18:9–12 (87, 89)

20:18 (87)

21:10–14 (23)

21:15–17 (159)

22:22–27 (109)

22:28–29 (23, 128)

22:5 (87, 89)

22:9 (75)

23:1 (19)

23:1–2 (133)

23:14 (107)

23:18 (127)

23:18f (87)

23:18–19 (88)

23:19 (89)

24:1 (93)

24:1–3 (107)

24:1–4 (76)

24:4 (86, 87)

25:5 (76, 79, 82, 160, 163)

25:5–6 (15)

25:14-16 (87)

27:1 (94)

27:15 (87, 89)

32:16 (87)

Joshua

9:22–26 (112)

Judges

20:5 (168)

21:11 (77)

1 Samuel

1:8 (16)

17:38–39 (174)

18:1–3 (144)

18:1–6 (144)

18:2 (146)

18:4 (174)

18:10 (144)

19:10 (144)

19:13 (144)

20:11 (145)

20:30 (144)

20:33). (144)

20:41 (145)

21:5 (137)

2 Samuel

1:26 (143, 144)

13:15 (144)

1 Kings

14:24 (87, 88, 145, 168)

15:12 (88, 168)

22:46 (88, 145)

2 Kings

9:22 (127)

16:3 (87)

21:2,11 (87)

23:13 (87)

23:7 (88)

2 Chronicles

28:3 (87)

33:2 (87)

34:33 (87)

36:8,14 (87)

Ezra

9:1,11,14 (87)

Esther (175)

Job

19:22 (167)

24 (134)

24:16 (134)

Psalms

19:5–6 (152)

59:6 (134)

62:3 (134)

88:8–9 (87)

100:3 (12)

Proverbs

3:32 (87)

6:16 (87)

8:7 (87)

11:1,20 (87)

12:22 (87)

13:19 (87)

15:8,9,26 (87)

16:5,12 (87)

17:15 (87)

20:10,23 (87)

21:27 (87)

24:9 (87)

26:25 (87)

28:9 (87)

29:27 (87)

30:18–19 (43)

Ecclesiastes

4:9–11 (41)

Song of Solomon

2:16 (v, 146)

6:6 (146)

7:12 (145)

Isaiah

1:13 (87)

14:1–2 (114)

41:24 (87)

44:19 (87)

56:3b–5 (18)

56:4–6 (147)

Jeremiah

2:7 (87)

3 (54)

6:15 (87)

7:10 (87)

8:12 (87)

16:18 (87)

32:35 (87)

44:4, (87)

Ezekiel

5:9,11 (87)

6:9,11 (87)

7:3f,8f,20 (87)

8:6,9,13,15,17 (87)

9:4 (87)

11:18,21 (87)

12:16 (87)

14:6 (87)

16:2,22,36,43,47,50f,58 (87)

16:49 (91)

16:50 (133)

18:10-13 (111)

18:12 (133)

18:12f (87)

18:13 (152)

18:24 (87)

20:4 (87)

22:2,11 (87)

23 (54)

23:36 (87)

33:26,29 (87)

36:31 (87)

43:8 (87)

44:6f,13 (87)

Daniel

3:8 (167)

6:2425 (167)

Hosea

2:16 (114)

2:18 (54)

3 (54)

Amos

2:7 (131)

Micah

4:5 (97)

Malachi

2:11 (87)

Tobit

8:6 (29, 47)

Wisdom of Solomon

7:2 (16, 43)

12–16 (172)

13:1–10 (66)

14:12 (126)

14:8–14,22–30 (66)

15:6–8 (66)

15:7 (67)

16:1 (66)

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)

13:15–16 (46)

23:16–17 (130)

3 Maccabees

2:1–5 (132)

Matthew

1:19–20 (126)

5:20–48 (108)

5:21–22 (109)

5:28 (109)

5:29–30 (109)

5:31 (101)

5:31–32 (107)

7:1 (124)

8:5–13 (136)

13:13 (119)

15:17 (27)

15:19 (127, 172)

15:22 (123)

15:22–28 (146)

16:19 (94)

18:8–9 (109)

18:18 (94)

19:3–9 (107)

19:4–5 (15, 25)

19:7 (101)

19:12 (17)

19:16–22 (125)

19:19 (94)

22:30 (53)

22:37-40 (11)

23:4 (142)

23:27–28 (137)

26:6–13 (140)

26:54 (10)

Mark

6:36 (147)

7:19 (109)

7:21–22 (127)

8:16 (43)

9:38 (147)

9:43–48 (109)

10:6–9 (15, 25)

10:13 (147)

10:19 (94)

12:25 (53)

12:33–34 (94)

14:3–9 (140)

Luke

4:21 (10)

6:37 (124)

7:1–10 (136)

7:36–50 (140)

10:27–28 (94)

11:11–12 (147)

11:27–28 (38)

13:31 (124)

14:26 (108)

17:1–2 (119)

18:10–11 (108)

18:20 (94)

20:34–35 (53)

20:35 (53)

20:35–36 (15)

22:25–26 (115)

24:25,27 (122)

24:25–29,41–49 (93)

24:27 (10, 81)

24:41-49 (11)

24:44–45 (122)

John

3:12 (42)

3:4 (43)

4:18 (143)

4:46–54 (136)

5:39 (10, 122)

7:24 (137)

8:1–11 (139)

8:41 (129)

12:1–8 (140)

12:25 (108)

13 (115)

13:5–17 (55)

13:34 (11)

15:13 (143, 173)

16:12–13 (13)

20:9,20 (93)

20:23 (94)

Acts

1:20 (126)

5:34–39 (124)

8:30–39 (93)

8:32ff (19)

8:35 (10)

10 (90, 93, 108)

10:26 (125)

11:1–18 (10, 93)

13:46–48 (10, 93)

13:46–49 (93)

15 (100, 115)

15:5 (124)

15:20 (100)

15:28 (118)

17:6 (55)

17:22f (97)

18:28 (10)

21:17–29 (124)

Romans

1 (60, 62, 67, 170, 172)

1:10 (66)

1:19–20 (171)

1:20 (98)

1:23 (171)

1:24–25 (171)

1:25 (66)

1:26 (63, 66, 73, 171)

1:27 (171)

1:32 (98)

2 (67, 172)

5:13 (100)

8:6 (29)

8:11 (29)

8:15,21 (11)

9:21 (67)

11:24 (171)

13:9 (47)

1 Corinthians

3:7 (12)

5 (173)

5:1–2 (130)

6:2–3 (124)

6:6 (131)

6:9 (63, 70, 89, 126-128, 170)

6:9–20 (131)

6:13–18 (25)

6:16 (28)

7 (68)

7:1–6 (66)

7:1–9 (58)

7:7–8 (17)

7:8–9 (18)

7:9 (62)

7:10 (123)

7:12 (123)

7:14–15 (74)

7:19 (142)

7:25 (123)

7:28 (68)

7:28–31 (17)

7:39 (74, 163)

7:39–40 (123)

8:4 (88)

10:19 (88)

10:25–33 (124)

11:12 (30)

11:7 (33)

13:11 (46)

15:39 (28)

15:8 (122)

2 Corinthians

3:3–11 (104)

6:14 (74)

6:14–16 (163)

Galatians

2:14f (140)

3:24 (14)

3:28 (14, 56, 115)

5:22–23 (69, 142)

5:23 (175)

6:8 (29)

Ephesians

1:9–10 (25)

1:22–23 (25)

2:14–16 (25)

2:20–22 (25)

3:6 (26)

4:11–16 (26)

4:17–5:20 (26)

5:21–33 (26)

5:25–33 (25, 28, 114)

5:28 (28, 56)

5:28–29 (146)

5:29 (54)

5:32–33 (27)

5:33 (47)

6:1–4 (26)

6:5–9 (26, 28, 114)

Philippians

2:13 (142)

Colossians

1:15 (35)

2:21–23 (90, 138)

1 Thessalonians

4:4 (171)

4:6 (131)

1 Timothy

1:10 (63, 126, 127, 129, 170)

2:15 (65)

4:3 (68)

4:3–5 (138)

2 Timothy

3:14-17 (80)

3:16 (80, 81)

Hebrews

1:1 (14)

1:1–2 (121)

7:9–10 (43)

12:2 (125)

James

1:27 (19, 57)

1 Peter

3:7 (67)

4:8 (142)

2 Peter

2 (167)

2:5 (132)

3:16 (123)

1 John

4:16 (142, 176)

4:7 (142)

Jude

5 (132)

7 (28, 64, 74, 132, 133, 167)

11 (132)

Revelation

2:14,20 (123)

Pseudepigrapha

Enoch

12:4 (29)

Jubilees

7:21 (29)

Test Benjamin

9:1 (132, 168)

Test Levi

14:6 (168)

Test Naphtali

3:4-5 (168)

3:5 (64)

Test Reuben

1:6 (129)

Qumran

1qPHab

5:7 (131)

4QNahumPesher

4.ii.7 (131)

Damascus Document

2:16 (130)

2:18 (130)

4:16 (130)

4:20-21 (130)

5 (130)

7:1-2 (130)

8 (131)

19:17 (131)

Rabbinic

mBikkurim

4.2 (26)

mHagigah

1:7 (129)

1:8 (129, 130)

mPirke Aboth

5.10 (91, 133)

5:19 (143)

mSanhedrin

10 (132)

4:5 (37)

mYebamoth

4:13 (129)

6.5 (128)

6.6 (15, 16)

bBaba Batra

12b (91)

bBerakoth

19b (102)

bGittin

38b (113)

bHullin

92a (101)

bKiddushin

41a (146)

82a (13, 67)

bNedarim

20b (65)

bSanhedrin

15a (78)

51a (128)

54a (64)

54b (88)

55a (78)

56 (100)

56a (99, 101)

56b (99)

58a (28)

109a (91)

109a–b (134, 135)

bTemurah

29b (131)

30a-b (88)

30b (131)

bYebamoth

56b (64)

61b (128)

76a (64, 132)

Mekilta on Exodus

19:3 (99)

Sifra Aharei Mot

8:9 (99)

Sifre, Deuteronomy

40 (99)

Tosefta

13 (132)

13:8 (91)

Maimonides

Mishneh Torah (Issurei Bi’ah 21:8) (64, 99)

The Eight Chapters, VI (98)

Classical

Aristotle

De Gener Anim, II.3 (41)

Philo

De Abrahamo 135–137 (133)

Spec Leg 1:325-326 (133)

Spec Leg 3:37–49 (63)

Plato

Laws I.636 (63, 65, 170)

Symposium (13, 37, 60, 62)

Patristic / Scholastic

Augustine

Contra Faustum 32 (117)

Contra Faustum 32.13 (116)

De Trinitate XII (34)

Gen ad lit. iii, 22 (34)

Letter 211.14 (68)

On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.20 (66, 67)

On the Good of Marriage 11–12 (67)

Clement of Alexandria

Paedogogus II.10 (150)

Paedogogus II.87.1 (66)

Stromata II.23.139 (150)

Eusebius

Ecclesiastical History 5.1 (116)

John of Damascus

Of the Orthodox Faith, III.2 (16)

Lactantius

Divine Institutes 6.23 (151)

Tertullian

To His Wife II.2 (29, 74)

Thomas Aquinas

Summa I.Q92.1 (41, 42)

Summa I.Q93.4 repl obj 1 (34)

Summa I.Q93.6. repl obj 2 (34)

Summa I.Q93.6d (54)

Summa II.2.Q152.2 (38)

Summa III.Q31 .5 (16)

Canonical

Apostolic Canons

63 (116)

Laodicea

29 (85, 97)

Trullo (Quinisext)

67 (116)

Trent

SessionXXIV Canon X (35)

Code of Canon Law (RC, 1983)

1084.3 (6)

1096 (6)

1101 (6)

Anglican

Articles of Religion

VI (10)

VII (10, 11)

XIX (10, 11, 116)

XX (10, 11, 174)

XXV (58)

XXXIII (58)

Hooker, Laws

I.15.3 (109, 110)

II.7.6 (xi)

II.7.8 (9)

II.8 (83)

III.5 (91)

III.8.10f (83)

III.9.6 (84)

III.10.1 (118)

III.10.2 (118, 119)

III.10.7 (104)

III.11.6 (93)

V.70.9 (84, 85)

BCP 1662 (57)

363 (18, 19)

BCP 1789 (18, 57)

BCP 1928

303 (18)

BCP 1979 (57)

336 (iv)

370 (11)

423 (18, 19, 24)

424 (166)

845 (34)

853 (10)

864 (30)

868 (10)

Almost in Production

2009-02-28T16:59:00.001-05:00

An Update: after a few last minute typographical corrections, R&H is set to go to press next week (the first week of March). This should keep it on schedule for release.

In the meantime, I am working on the Index of Scriptural and Other References which I will post here soon. I will also generate a pdf version suitable for printing out and tucking in the back of the published volume. A regular subject/name index is also in the works. I was happy to discover that I have the font in which the book was set on my system, so I can generate indices and "add-ons" that resemble the printed publication.

Then too there will be the undoubtedly necessary Errata sheet, which I hope will be minimal!

—TSH

The Purpose of this Blog

2009-02-20T12:15:00.000-05:00

This blog is dedicated to continuing the conversation begun in Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-Sexuality, due off press from Seabury Books within a month or so. Pre-publication orders can be placed at the CPI website. The volume itself is intended in part as a fulfillment of the “Listening Process” mandated by Lambeth 1998.1.10, and as a response and rebuttal to the familiar arguments raised against the morality of faithful, life-long, monogamous same-sex relationships.

I welcome comments or questions here, in particular to further the discussion. I also hope to offer an index and source index for the volume, and additional resources.

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG