Richard Hooker and Homosexuality - Introduction

Richard Hooker and Homosexuality

Introduction
Not too long ago, February, 2003, a journal in South Africa invited me to write on the subject of theology and homosexuality. The matter had emerged in their common life, and there was some debate on the matter. I then wrote the following essay, which published in the March, 2003 issue of their journal, "Contact." (1)

The Essay

In this essay I will consider the propriety of homosexual relations in the light of one of the founding fathers of Anglicanism, Richard Hooker (1554-1600). His principal work, The Lawes of Ecclesiastical Polity, describes which laws of Christian faith are eternal, what can be modified in light of new circumstances, and what can be abolished. He is directly relevant to our time.

Hooker divided laws into three basic categories. There is natural law, supernatural law, and things indifferent. Natural or moral law is known by reason, supernatural law is given in Scripture, and "things indifferent" are given by tradition or custom, common sense, and our sense of fitness. For salvation, "things indifferent" are not critical, but moral and supernatural laws must always be obeyed. As a result, reason and Scripture are the primary authorities for law that pertains to salvation. Of the two, Scripture takes priority over reason. Contrary to common opinion, tradition and experience are not equal to reason and Scripture.

Sexual ethics belongs to what Hooker calls the natural or moral law. It is the law that pertains to universal human conditions. The Ten Commandments are an example of natural law. All persons are created by God, all societies have holy days, all practice murder, all have some form of property, all have some form of justice, all are propagated sexually, and all persons have parents. These common features are covered by the Ten Commandments and belong to the universal moral law. Since the natural law belongs to universal human conditions, it is eternally valid. It can never be changed.

In laws, that which is natural bindeth universally, that which is positive not so. (I,x,7)

Laws natural do always bind; laws positive not so, but only after they have been expressly and wittingly imposed. (I,xv,1)

But there is no person whom, nor time wherein, a law natural doth not bind.(2)

Apart from sin, the moral law can be derived by reason reflecting upon nature. But reason has been corrupted by sin. As a result, God placed major portions of the moral law in the Old and New Testaments. If a moral law is given in Scripture it must be obeyed. Further, the moral law is both general and specific. The former are principles such as doing to others as we would have them do to us, or deferring immediate gratification for long-term benefits. General moral laws are easily discovered by reason. Particular moral laws are more difficult. Among specific behaviors denied by the moral law, Hooker mentions lack of hospitality, theft, and homosexuality.(3)

The first principles of the Law of Nature are easy; hard it were to find men ignorant of them. But concerning the duty which Nature's law doth require at the hands of men in a number of things particular, so far hath the natural understanding even of sundry whole nations been darkened, that they have not discerned no not gross iniquity to be sin. ... how should our festered sores be cured, but that God hath delivered a law [Scripture] as sharp as the two-edged sword, piercing the very closest and most unsearchable corners of the heart, which the Law of Nature can hardly, human laws by no means possible, reach unto? (I,xii,2)

This raises a question, Is the moral law uniformly taught throughout Scripture, or does the new revelation in Christ superseded Old Testament moral laws? Hooker is quite clear. The new revelation in Christ does not abolish the Old Testament moral law, but it does replace the ceremonial and judicial forms of Old Testament law. This claim is also made in Article VII of the Articles of Religion, articles to which Hooker swore allegiance at his ordination.

In a word, we plainly perceive by the difference of those three laws which the Jews received at the hands of God, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, that if the end for which and the matter according whereunto God maketh his laws continue always one and the same, his laws also do the like; for which cause the moral law cannot be altered: secondly, that whether the matter whereon laws are made continue or continue not, if their end have once ceased, they cease also to be of force; as in the law ceremonial it fareth ... (III,x,4)

When Hooker states that the "end for which and the matter according whereunto God maketh his laws continue always one and the same, his laws also do the like," he is referring to the fact that laws can be changed if their original purpose is fulfilled or no longer holds. For example, the purpose of Old Testament ceremonial law was atonement, but this was completed on the cross. Consequently, Jewish ceremonial no longer binds the Church. Even the moral law will admit of certain forms of change, though each law holds forever. For example, the purpose of the Sabbath commandment was to honor God. That never changed, but the day of its application changed to Sunday for those of the New Covenant. Adultery was punishable by stoning in the Old Testament, but Jesus did not allow the adulterous woman to be stoned. The moral law against adultery did not change, but its penalties did change. If an Old Testament moral law admits of modification, the change must be clearly taught in the New Testament. Apart from that, Old Testament moral law cannot be changed in any respect.

In applying biblical law to the church, Hooker did not accept the pure "Jesus ethic" of the Puritans. The Puritans claimed that Jesus did not advocate differences in rank, that he and his disciples practiced poverty, that he did not endorse worship in sumptuous buildings, and that neither he nor the early church appealed to state force to settle conflicts among believers. Puritans insisted on applying these norms and accused Anglicans of violating them. Against these claims, Hooker recognized that the visible Church was composed of sinful human beings, and as a result, he was not as restricted as were the Puritans in applying biblical law. Nevertheless, he never accepted any practice that had no warrant in Scripture and the Church Fathers. Against Puritan claims, he contended that the Old Testament Jews worshipped in the temple, that their laws provided for the welfare of the clergy, that their kings and judges used force in religious affairs, and that they and the early church recognized differences of rank. But never, at any time, would he allow anything that had no warrant in Scripture. For him, as well as his Puritan opponents, Scripture was the ultimate norm of faith and morals.

In light of the foregoing, we have the following: Sexuality belongs to the universal moral law. According to Genesis one and two, the Old Testament legal codes, Jesus' locating marriage (and therefore sexuality) in the context of male and female, the teaching of Paul and the Church Fathers, sexuality is limited to one man and one woman. This moral norm is universal, taught by the church, everywhere, at all times until the present. There is no convincing evidence to the contrary. As a result, adultery and homosexuality are never allowed. They have no warrant anywhere.

I will now briefly address four arguments that Hooker would consider ill conceived. First, he would reject the idea that Scripture provides only general ethical principles such as love and faithfulness, while allowing these principles to be interpreted according to changing circumstances. Rather, the moral law is both general and particular, and both forms are eternal.

Secondly, some have noted that we no longer kill witches and stone adulterers as commanded in the Old Testament. Similarly, its archaic laws on sexuality should no longer bind the Church. Hooker's reply: The moral law is eternal, its penalties vary.

Third, it is argued that Jesus prohibited divorce and remarriage, and since the Church no longer keeps this norm, it is free to change its norms on homosexuality. Hooker's reply: Jesus taught and lived a pure gospel, yet there is some warrant in the Old Testament and Church tradition for divorce and remarriage. There is none for homosexuality. It is quite likely that Hooker would consider contemporary divorce norms too lax. He was, however, surely aware of the Henry VIII and his annulment, and doubtless would have approved.

Finally, Hooker would consider a common argument extremely dangerous. Some have argued that since the church has changed its teaching on such things as divorce and remarriage, slavery, status of women, and usury, that the church has the right, even obligation, to be led by the Spirit to change its teaching on other matters such as homosexuality. Hooker recognized that every church had the right to make changes. The Anglican Church of his day had just broken with Rome and this entailed major changes in belief and practice. But all of these changes had to be justified by Scripture, especially as interpreted by the Church of the first few centuries. It is irrelevant as to how many changes the church has made, whether now or then. Every proposed change must be subjected to Scripture.

Further, and this is of the highest importance, Hooker was especially critical of the Puritan idea that the Spirit had led them to new truths, truths they could not substantiate according to the plain sense of Scripture. Hooker simply didn't believe that the "Spirit today" was revealing new truths, and further, that the Spirit would illumine Scripture in ways beyond its plain sense. In his view, such claims would be the death of the church, utterly destroying its foundation in Scripture. Though normally restrained, he was quite harsh in his condemnation of these errors.

When they and their Bibles were alone together, what strange fantastical opinion soever at any time entered into their heads, their use was to think the Spirit taught it them. (Preface, viii, 7)

From which they proceed to a higher point, which is the persuading of men credulous and over-capable of such pleasing errors, that it is the special illumination of the Holy Ghost, whereby they discern those things in the word, which others reading yet discern them not. ... If the Spirit by such revelation have discovered unto them the secrets of that discipline out of Scripture, they must profess themselves to be all (even men, women, and children) Prophets. (Preface, iii, 10)

I hold it for a most infallible rule in expositions of sacred Scripture, that where a literal construction will stand, the farthest from the letter is commonly the worst. There is nothing more dangerous that this licentious and deluding art, which changeth the meaning of words, as alchymy doth or would do the substance of metals, making of any thing what it listeth, and bringeth in the end all truth to nothing. (V,lix,2)

In short, the moral law is eternal. Sexuality is a part of the moral law, and if anyone wants to demonstrate the morality of homosexual relations, let them show the practice approved in Scripture.