This is the fourth and final part of a series on the inclusion debate. You could read this as a standalone, but it will make more sense if you read the other three first.
I start this article by suggesting how the early Church approached their scripture reading and what that can mean for us today. Then, I rehearse some of the standard arguments around inclusion, whether for or against, shaping them around the key verses that tend to be used. I then suggest a few parts of the New Testament that might indicate a different approach to inclusion. I finish by making my final arguments about how we should approach inclusion.
Ultimately, this article’s burden is to determine what is actually considered sinful and how we should approach that question.
How to Read the Bible According to Peter, Paul and Phillip
This is perhaps one of the main stumbling blocks for any debate which requires textual interpretation. How do we read the Bible?
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
The starting point is that scripture includes the Old and New Testaments.
It exists because of God’s inspiration—by which I mean God inspired the authors to write their texts, God inspired the editors when compiling those texts, God inspired the theologians and councils who decided on the accepted canon of scripture, and we are inspired when we read scripture.
It is the only source of divine authority for Christian faith and practice. While many other things, like books, sermons, podcasts, and our conscience, can help teach us how to be Christian, only the Bible has authority. This means that it is our final arbiter in understanding what we believe and what we experience.
The Bible’s authority does not come from its own existence. Its authority comes from being inspired by God, from revealing who Christ is, and from the long traditions of Christianity, which have found it important to their faith.
Divinely Inspired but Critically Read
This does not mean that we should not engage with the Bible with a critical eye. We can trust the Bible to reveal Christ to us. But we understand the Bible by asking questions about it. We should ask about what happened in historical events, who wrote the texts, what other sources might have influenced them, and what they meant for the people they were written for.
We should also acknowledge that our experiences, our reason, and the teaching of others all influence how we read and understand the Bible. No one reads the Bible without bringing their own conscious and unconscious assumptions to the text.
Our personal experience is particularly key as we ask ourselves how our reading aligns with our thoughts, feelings, and experiences. The early Church’s example is constructive here.
Reading the Bible in the Light of Jesus
When the Ethiopian Eunuch asked Phillip what would prevent him from being baptised, the answer was the Law. But Phillip believed that Jesus had completed the prophecies of Isaiah, so the time had come when the Law about eunuchs had ended. Phillip interpreted one part of the Bible by another part because of his personal experiences with Jesus.
When Peter had a vision of the food, which was now clean for him to eat, he could have said that his vision went against scripture, so he would have to go with scripture rather than his direct revelation.
Except that isn’t what he does. In fact, the experience of his vision goes further.
It changes a fundamental assumption of Peter’s life and faith – that Gentiles are separate from Jews. But because of his vision, he is open to Gentiles. Then, when he sees the Holy Spirit baptise Cornelius and his household, he accepts the experience as authoritative.
Scripture is interpreted or rejected because of what God has done.
The Church makes a decision against the accepted grain of scripture
At the Council of Jerusalem, the leaders recognised God’s actions. Because of the evidence of God working in the Gentiles, they agreed not to make the Gentiles submit to circumcision before baptism.
Instead, depending on which account you take, they either asked the Gentiles to keep the covenant made with Noah on behalf of all humanity or to remember the poor.
In each of these three cases, the early church approached scripture from the perspective of their direct experience of God. The Holy Spirit blessed people directly, so they obviously didn’t need circumcision.
A person whose anatomy means they shouldn’t be allowed into the assembly is given baptism because of their faith. The early church interpreted the scriptures through personal experiences and what they knew of Jesus.
Their hermeneutic was Christ-shaped, mediated by their experience of what God has done.
Such a way of engaging with scripture doesn’t diminish its authority. It does mean that we perhaps need to realign our perspective so that our interpretation of scripture is grounded in where we see God working today rather than interpreting where we see God working through scripture. This seems to be what the early church, who actually wrote the New Testament, was doing.
Treading Old Ground
When discussing the question of inclusion, a few standard texts are normally mentioned. There are very well-rehearsed arguments on both sides of the aisle regarding these texts, which are readily available through a simple Google search. I will provide a fairly brief overview of these arguments, but this is not where I will spend my time.
I am not suggesting anything new with these texts, although I would encourage reading them through the lens of the methods used by the early church. I’m including them for wholeness.
Did People In Bible Times Know About Homosexuality?
A common argument made by people supporting inclusion is that people during the time of the Bible did not know about loving homosexual relationships but only understood same-sex relations as part of a power imbalance between adults and children or between masters and slaves. However, there are clear examples of the existence of homosexual relationships in the ancient world.
Lesbian relationships appear positively in Sparta, in fragments from the poetry of Alcman (7th century BC), and Lesbos, in the poetry of Sappho (c. 610 – c. 570 BC). There is also mention in Phaedrus’ Fables 4.16 and Plutarch’s Lycurgus 18. In Latin literature, lesbian relationships are referenced in Ovid’s Metamorphoses 9.720-97; Lucian Dialogues of the Courtesans 5 and Amores 28; Seneca the Elder’s Controversies 1.2.23; Seneca’s Moral Epistle 95.21; and Martial 1.90, 7.67, and 7.70.
Examples of adult male relationships include Achilles and Patroklos, who are sometimes considered as having a man-boy relationship (as in Homer) but are described as being adult lovers in Aeschylus’ Myrmidons (Frr 135-7), in Plato’s Symposium (179E-80B) and Aeschines (1.141-50). Xenophon describes the Thessalian commander Meno as intimate with the ‘bearded’ (i.e. adult) Ariaeus (Anabasis 2.6.28).
Whilst it is true that there is evidence for same-sex relationships between consenting adults in the ancient world, there is also significant evidence that these relationships were not viewed positively by many layers of Greco-Roman culture. It also does not mean that these were the majority of same-sex relationships.
We cannot confidently speak about the degree to which same-sex relationships as loving and faithful partnerships were common, known about, accepted, or understood. The acceptance of a gay relationship in literature does not equate to acceptance of a gay relationship in the Subura of Rome or in the courtyards of Jerusalem.
Common ‘Clobber’ texts
Romans 1: 18-32
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practise such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practise them.
This is the general starting point for questions of inclusion. Partially because it is the only place where women are included in the text. But also because this is a key ‘vice list’ in the New Testament. The Pauline texts, in particular, need to be addressed to wrestle with the question of whether same-sex sex is sinful or not.
Richard Hays writes: Romans 1:18-32 is the most crucial text for Christian ethics concerning homosexuality remains Romans 1, because this is the only passage in the New Testament that explains the condemnation of homosexual behaviour in an explicitly theological context . . . (Rom 1:24-27). (This is, incidentally, the only passage in the Bible that refers to lesbian sexual relations.) Because the passage is often cited and frequently misunderstood, a careful examination of its place in Paul’s argument is necessary.
In his commentary on Romans, the church father John Chrysostom wrote: You see that the whole of desire comes from an excess which cannot contain itself within its proper limits. For Chrysostom, the sinfulness of desire comes from an excess which cannot be contained within its proper limits.
One perspective is taken by Yale University professor John Boswell, who speculated that the text does not condemn homosexual acts by homosexuals but rather homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons, such as particular sexual acts undertaken by a married couple.
Given the wider context of the culture and the language used within the text, I don’t find this argument convincing.
On the other hand, Campbell writes: it must be pointed out, first, that arsenokoitēs is a broad term that cannot be confined to specific instances of homosexual activity such as male prostitution or pederasty. This is in keeping with the term’s Old Testament background where lying with a ‘male’ (a very general term) is proscribed, relating to every kind of male-male intercourse.
‘Arsenokoites’ is the Greek word which is sometimes translated as homosexual, other times as sodomites, or sometimes as laying with men. We will return to this later.
Hilborn writes: the most authentic reading of [Romans] 1:26–27 is that which sees it prohibiting homosexual activity in the most general of terms, rather than in respect of more culturally and historically specific forms of such activity. Hillborn argues that any attempt to read the Roman text as culturally specific does not fit with what the text says.
Arguments can be made about interpreting the Greek used in this text. These are arguments that I will go into with more depth in the next section. The danger with those kinds of arguments is that it comes down to who thinks they understand the Greek best.
They are important arguments to make, but I don’t think they tend to win people across from one point of view to the other. They generally lack persuasive power.
What is Paul trying to get to with his introduction? Why is he giving a ‘vice list’ early on in his letter? Key to understanding this text is understanding the link Paul makes between ‘unnatural’ behaviour and sin.
For Paul, sin is destructive to the nature and conscience of the person. It renders them unable to be good and drives them to act in a way which is contrary to what God desires. Paul sets up what is coming later in the letter by beginning with a ‘vice list.’
Applying an inclusive argument to this text means engaging with the idea of something being natural or unnatural. There is a degree to which what was understood as natural was linked to procreation. Sex had a definitive purpose which was to create life.
Acts which could not lead to procreation were, by definition, unnatural. Similarly, there is an appeal to the created order through Genesis, with the natural being linked to man and woman being created together and for each other.
But, with the coming of Jesus, Paul would also go on to say that it was better not to marry. Procreation was no longer the highest goal. Celibacy was preferred in order to be able to commit your life to service to the Gospel. So, an argument emerges that what was natural is being transformed into the new kingdom brought in by the Messiah.
Further, when approaching the text through the lens of Christ, we might make the argument that what is unnatural is not who the person is having sex with but the way in which they are having sex.
Degrading, impure, and unnatural ways do not have to be same-sex sex but rather can be any kind of sex and behaviour which is not loving, honouring, and attentive.
It is possible for people to have sex with someone who is the same sex as they are and to still be filled with the Holy Spirit. It is also possible for someone to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, in a sinful manner because they are using them, turning them into an object.
Sometimes why and how is more important than who.
1 Corinthians 6: 9-11
9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
This is another key text and allows us to look at the arguments around two unusual words that Paul uses. Malakoi and Arsenkoites. Malakoi is translated as a male prostitute, and Arsenekoites has translated sodomites in the above text.
The term malakoi literally means “soft,” and it was widely used to describe a lack of self-control, weakness, cowardice, and laziness.
Given that those negative characteristics were unfairly attributed to women in the ancient world, the term was also translated as effeminate.
- Most uses of the term in ancient literature were not related to sexual behaviour, but men who took the passive role in same-sex relations were sometimes called malakoi.
- Malakos was most frequently used to describe men who were seen as lacking self-control in their love for women.
- Historically, more common English translations were “weaklings,” “wantons,” and “debauchers.”
Gordon Fee writes: The first word, malakoi, has the basic meaning of ‘soft’; but it also became a pejorative epithet for men who were ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate,’ most likely referring to the younger, ‘passive’ partner in a pederastic relationship—the most common form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. In many instances young men sold themselves as ‘mistresses’ for the sexual pleasure of men older than themselves. The problem is that there was a technical word for such men, and malakos is seldom, if ever, used. Since it is not the ordinary word for such homosexual behaviour, one cannot be sure what it means in a list like this, where there is no further context to help. What is certain is that it refers to behaviour of some kind, not simply to an attitude or characteristic.
The use of the term Malakoi is up for debate. The fact that there is a discussion over the word’s translation highlights the complexity of understanding an ancient language. The way a word is used across multiple texts is essential for understanding the use of the word in any one text.
In this case, there tend to be more uses of the word in a non-same-sex context than in a same-sex context, and where it is used in a same-sex context, it relates to the kind of relationships with a power imbalance or picks up the cultural perspective of male power.
The term arsenokoites (the singular form) comes from two Greek words: arsen, meaning “male,” and koites, meaning “bed.” This word did not exist before Paul’s letters.
The two separate words appear in the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, which suggests that Paul coined the term by uniting the two words ‘arsen’ and ‘koites’ to create arsenokoites to condemn same-sex behaviour.
There is no question about the meaning of the koitai part of the word; it is vulgar slang for ‘intercourse’. What is not certain is whether ‘male’ is the subject (males who have intercourse) or the object (intercourse with males).
The context for the use of the word in texts later than the bible, such as other vice lists, suggests that the word likely relates to sexual or economic exploitation. So while that may involve same-sex behavior, it would be exploitative forms of it, not loving relationships.
The main indication of the creation of the word is the link back to Leviticus and a general condemnation of same-sex practice in its Greek translation. The broader context of the word suggests exploitation as the main meaning of the word.
There were many word pairs in common use in ancient literature to describe both the active and passive partners in male same-sex relations. Words like erastes and eromenos.
Malakoi and arsenokoitai, however, were not used as a pair by other ancient writers. Paul could have used one of the other words, which would have been more well-known. It is probable that Paul is drawing from the Septuagant for his language, but it also needs to be considered that by using alternative language from that which is readily available, Paul is doing something a bit different.
The arguments made for the language used in this text can be extended to Romans 1 and the following text in 1 Timothy. The way we understand these complicated Greek words matters. But, and I think this is key, Paul is using these lists to highlight the difference between people who have been sanctified and those who haven’t been.
Again, the evidence is available for people who are sanctified and are in active same-sex relationships. Would Paul condemn those relationships if he was writing today? Or would he be more likely to have the kinds of relationships which are exploitative, harmful, and damaging?
1 Timothy 1: 8-11
8 Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9 This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10 fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
There isn’t much different to say about this text than about Romans and 1 Corinthians.
It’s important to note that this letter wasn’t written by Paul but by a later writer, writing in Paul’s style and using language that they found in Paul. However, there are slight differences in the use of Greek in the letter.
Regarding this text, Stanley Grenz writes: there is a lack of consensus as to whether the references are to specific acts or are more general in scope. Many exegetes gravitate to the possibility that Paul was only speaking against ‘youthful callboys and their customers.’ [e.g. Gerald D. Coleman; Joseph J. Kotva] For example, Robin Scroggs asserted that in 1 Timothy 1:10 pornos is juxtaposed to arsenokoites in a manner similar to malakos in 1 Corinthians [6:9]. Drawing from what he saw as the normal Greek use of pornos as ‘prostitute’—whether one who sells himself or who is a slave in the brothel house—and linking all three terms together, he offered the translation: ‘males who lie with them and slave dealers who procured them.
This argument about the words referring to male prostitutes or slaves and the masters who exploited them for sex has already been made.
Is Homosexual Sex a Sin?
Is same-sex sex sinful?
The arguments made so far in this series demonstrate clearly why people who have faith and are living according to that faith should be included in the church. The only controversial element in those articles was the inclusion of different gender identities.
However, the arguments do not answer the question of whether same-sex sex is sinful. This question is critical for the inclusion debate. If same-sex sex is a sin in every circumstance, then anyone who is homosexual must be celibate. If it is not sinful, then the complete world of sexual activity is open.
The problem with this question is that it does suggest a certain amount of rules-lawyering.
What counts as sex?
What actually counts as sex? This is a question asked by many heterosexual teenagers trying to work out what they can get away with without breaking any rules.
What kind of things can people do before they get married without technically having sex? Is everything intimately physical sex, or is it only the ‘main event’ which counts as sex and foreplay leading up to that point is fine?
The problem with rules is that people follow them rigidly or try to find ways around them.
Not all sex is sinful, not all sex is sacred
Are there some kinds of homosexual sex that are sinful? Yes. Are there some kinds of heterosexual sex which are sinful? Yes. I’m not talking about ways of having sex. I’m talking about the intentions behind having sex.
A master having sex with their slave or an adult having sex with a minor are both sinful because they are abusive, exploitative, and harmful. The slave or the minor cannot consent. Whether it is straight or gay, no matter what is done, it is harmful and destructive and a sin. This could include how people interpreted Greek in the passages presented above.
I think that scripture is pointing towards a sexual ethic, which might help transform these discussions. One where the emphasis on good sex (holy sex?) versus bad or harmful sex is how the people having sex relate to each other.
Are the people involved attentive to the needs and concerns of the other? Are they taking seriously the problems that a person might have? Are they genuinely interested in making sure the other person is okay and not being harmed in any way?
Are the people involved loving? Is the sex an expression of love for each other? Is it a natural continuation of the deep and caring emotions of being in love? If it is not loving, then the sex becomes an expression not of love but of lust.
When sex is an expression of love, then the attention and will of the person is directed towards the good of the other and not on themselves. When sex is an expression of love, then it becomes about the experience of the self and not the person of the other.
Are the people having sex using sex as a means to an end, or is it an end in itself? If it is a means to an end, the other person is treated as an object. Their body is a means to an end. Their person is reduced to a way to achieve one’s own goals.
The other, who should be a loving partner, is instead turned into an object. This is the root of sin, destroying other people’s identities by making them objects of our fulfilment.
Holy sex is not about who you are having sex with or what things you do during sex.
Holy sex is about intent. It must be attentive to the other. Considering their well-being and needs, listening to them and approaching them as partners. It must be an expression of love, a way of sharing something deep and profound, and not a way of fulfilling desire.
It must be an end in itself and not a means to an end. The person must not be turned into an object of self-fulfilment but be approached as someone with whom something special and profoundly transformative is shared in the love that is held for each other.
Robert Song writes: To touch, to hold, to feel, to need: the vulnerability of baring one’s body to another, of being fully known by another and yet of being fully accepted by that other, and of rendering that love in return, can indeed make sexual intimacy a participation in divine grace.
When this is the way in which sex is approached, then it is holy. Whether homosexual or heterosexual.
Going in a Different Direction
Over this series, I have shown that the early Church interpreted and understood scripture from a Christological hermeneutic. That is, they read the Bible in the light of what they knew about Christ. Their personal experiences of Jesus and of the Holy Spirit informed their thinking and their decision-making.
We are taught to say what scripture teaches us about our experience. However, the early Church asked what their experience taught them about scripture. They had experienced and seen the Holy Spirit at work and responded accordingly.
When Tyndale, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther, or Calvin approached scripture and found something altogether different and more radical than what was taught in the church of their day, their personal experience of God was on the line.
The individual conscience of the believer was prioritised in their understanding of scripture and their personal relationship with Jesus. There were authorised and accepted ways of reading the Bible. The reformers rejected it because it didn’t match their understanding of scripture, nor was it reflected in their personal experiences.
1 Corinthians 12: 12-20
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.
14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot were to say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many members, yet one body.
There is a clear argument for unity in difference, with each part of the body having its distinct and unique role.
There is necessary space for difference in the body of Christ. We are not meant to be the same as each other. But because we are all baptised by the Holy Spirit, we all then belong to the church and are members of Christ’s body. The mark of Christ’s presence in a person, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, is evidence of a person’s inclusion.
There are plenty of people who claim to be a member of Christ’s body but show no sign of having been baptised by the Spirit. Then there are those who are rejected but whose lives demonstrate clearly that they have been baptised by the Holy Spirit.
What is the evidence that someone has been baptised by the Holy Spirit? The fruits of the spirit:
If someone is showing the fruits of the spirit and has faith in Jesus, then they have been blessed by the Holy Spirit, and they are in Christ’s body. If the early Church can recognise a eunuch and a Roman as having been blessed with the Holy Spirit because of their faith and because of the fruits of the spirit in their lives, then we should be able to recognise people today who have also been blessed by the Spirit.
The summary of the law is to love the neighbour. Perhaps rather taking a vice list as our ethical standpoint we should go with a body, United in diversity, joined in the shared experience of the blessing of the Holy Spirit, whose evidence is proven through the fruits of the Spirit.
Galatians 3: 23-29
23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise.
This absolutely magisterial portion of the letter to the Galatians underpins all of Paul’s understanding of what Christ has done.
The great divides have been shattered. A new way of being human has begun.
Neither Jew nor Greek. The old marks of membership have been done away with. Eat whatever you like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. No more need for circumcision because it is the circumcision of the heart that matters. Now, the new community is marked out by faith in Jesus and the life of the Holy Spirit.
No more slave or free. Not because the oppressive systems and structures of empire have been destroyed, but because to be in Christ ends any such distinction. Whether master or slave, those who are in Christ are siblings and should treat each other as such.
There is no longer male or female because when a person’s identity is grounded in Christ, then their gender is less important than their identification with Christ. The power dynamics of a patriarchal culture are done away with because Mary is the most highly favoured lady and because in Christ, all are united together.
Women are not inferior to men; rather, all genders are subject to Christ and each other in mutual love and attention.
Perhaps if Paul were writing today, he might also say no black or white, no conservative or progressive, no gay or straight.
Not because the markers we use to identify ourselves aren’t important but because they are subsumed into Christ, and their power over us is subverted by our allegiance to the cross.
Paul is pushing us to completely re-evaluate how we understand belonging and markers of identity. If we follow along with his thinking then we should also understand that the most important identity is to be in Christ. Everything else flows from that point.
Christian Inclusion
Now, a suggestion.
What does Christian Inclusion look like? It starts with the inclusion of sinners.
Romans 3: 22-24
22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
The church is not a society for the perfect but a hospital for the sick. Justification is imputed to us through Jesus, a righteousness which does not belong to us but which belongs to Christ. We are all sinners, all fallen short of God’s glory, all totally depraved and utterly in need of grace.
The starting point for inclusion is the inclusion of sinners. Of you and me. None of us deserve to be part of Christ’s body, but we become so through the grace of Jesus and our faith in him. No one who is in the church ceases to be a sinner. They might no longer be sinful, thanks to the work of the Holy Spirit in their bodies, but they remain redeemed sinners.
You will never reach a stage in your life where you deserve God’s grace. That means you will never reach a stage where you can judge another person’s sins. Until you know that you are a sinner in need of grace, you will never know yourself as someone who is saved.
Inclusion begins with the inclusion of sin. If that was not the case, then none of us would be part of Christ’s body.
1 Corinthians 15: 20-22
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.
But what does it mean to be part of Christ’s body? It means to have died in order to live. We are all Adam because we are all sinners. Not only that, but we are all the cause of original sin. Our sins are the sins of humanity and not just my own sins. My sin affects you, and your son affects me. We are all Adam.
But just the same, all will be made alive in Christ. All died so that all may live in Christ. Again, no one belongs to Christ because they have earned it, but always and only because of Christ’s grace for us and our faith in response to that grace.
The promise that all will live in Christ is one for everyone. In Adam, all have died, but in Christ, all will live. This helps point towards the fact that the sins that you do are not greater than the restorative love of God.
Everyone is a great sinner, but Christ remains a great saviour. As such, no one has a right to judge the sins or potential sins of anyone else who is in Christ. So even if you think someone else is sinful, if they are showing the fruits of the spirit, who are you to judge?
If you say someone shouldn’t be part of the church because of any sins you think they have, you ultimately judge yourself by the same standard, which you cannot live up to.
1 John 4: 7-11
7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Then we come to this text, which provides one of the strongest elements of the narrative I am building around the questions of Inclusion.
Love is the heart of the Law, the Gospel, Christian ethics, discipleship, and God. Love is from God. It is God’s greatest gift to humanity. Anyone who loves another person loves God. Anyone who doesn’t love doesn’t love God. 1 Corinthians 13 tells us what love is. Patient and kind, letting go of wrongs, not being jealous, slow to anger and quick to forgive. Anyone who loves like that loves God.
Any genuinely loving, attentive, considerate, consensual, and mutual relationship is pleasing and holy to God.
This kind of relationship is what we call a Covenant Partnership. Where two people have committed themselves to each other in a covenant of love which God blesses.
As with all the examples given across this series and explored above, the evidence for God’s blessing of a relationship is the giving of the Holy Spirit, which is proven through the fruits of the Spirit.
Summary
There is an arc to scripture that prioritises inclusion. The incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus have changed the world. What was once divided is now subsumed into Christ so all may be one in Christ.
Inclusion begins with the inclusion of sin. We are members of Christ’s body not by right but by grace through faith. The evidence of this is the blessing of the Holy Spirit, which is attested to through the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
Anyone who is faithful and who is demonstrating these fruits is a person who is in Christ. God has given evidence of their inclusion.
There remains a sexual ethic. It is not a free-for-all. For sex to be holy, it must be attentive, caring, consenting, loving, and mutual.
What Comes Next?
A lot has been written on this topic. Many blogs and articles, books and podcasts, videos and sermons. There are lots of ways for you to keep exploring this topic.
There are some areas I’ll probably come back to in the future. Although, hopefully, in shorter posts! If this series has got your attention, my plan is to go back over each article, edit all four together, and make it available as a whole text.
If you want to keep up to date, sign up to My Theology Corner Newsletter for a weekly lite-bite theology hit. Get short-form reflections from topics on the main blog and or on other interesting topics from that week.
https://chrisbutton.substack.com
