[Call out to podcast lovers like me: there’s a great new podcast, very much relevant to this post, called “Rigour and Flow” with two women – Tamanda Walker and Aiwan Obinyan – talking same-sex love, religion and power. Highly recommended.]

I recognise the irony of writing a piece (for ViaMedia) that begins with commenting on the wordiness of the Church of England discussions on Christian marriage, which then generates more wordiness in the form of comments and responses (e.g. by Martin Davie), and now yet more wordiness from me.

I wish the full force of Church of England outrage was reserved for and channelled towards sexual abuse in its midst[1] and none towards consenting, same-sex-loving adults seeking marriage; but we are where we are. And, with ever more powerful and empowered Christian ideologies targeting and endangering LGBTQ+ persons, as well as other vulnerable members of the human family, I’m not ready to let this one go.

At the outset…

I am not Anglican and do not have a personal stake in the Church of England debate.[2] For me, equality and inclusion of LGBTQ+ persons is about human rights and justice.

As a married, cis and straight woman, I see no serious “threat” to marriages like mine – though such threat is regularly invoked. Permitting same-sex marriage is neither erasing nor denigrating man-woman marriage. (An analogy: when I had my second child, I did not come to love my first child less. Inclusion and love are not zero-sum.)

So, I am not seeking to undo or challenge marriages that conform to the current definition of the Church of England. Instead, I want to point out why I (and I am hardly alone in this)[3] see inclusion of same-sex marriage as the right way to go.

I am, by profession, a biblical scholar (with specialisation in Hebrew Bible) and I focus the bulk of my response – in the ViaMedia piece and here – on biblical texts. In doing so, I try to be open about the things that are claimed about, rather than clear in, biblical texts. The Bible is not as “plain” or “clear” as is sometimes asserted.[4] It also contains some laws and statements which, read as “plain” or “clear,” should be rejected.[5] Occasionally, I point to what is apparently clear in the biblical text – which is sometimes ignored by commentators when it does not fit their marriage ideology.[6]

Just like those biblical interpreters who disagree with me, I am coming to biblical texts with my own experiences, limitations, and ideologies (some conscious, most not conscious).[7] All of us are working with a complex, ancient collection of texts – texts in a language of which there are no native speakers; texts that have been copied and edited through the ages; texts that leave much unexplained; texts of which we don’t know the original contexts and audiences.

One ideology I consciously hold, is that I find the discriminatory treatment of LGBTQ+ persons because of their identity and/or sexuality, unjust and wrong. Yes, there are certainly LGBTQ+ persons who have acted in abusive and shocking ways – just as there are women, and Black persons, and immigrants, who have acted in abusive and shocking ways. I have no problem acknowledging that and I have no problem resisting and rejecting such abuse. Abuses of power, which include rape, are crimes, no matter the protected characteristics of either abuser or abused. It is, however, the case that persons who hold more power commit more abuses of power, while persons with less power are disproportionately vulnerable to abuse. Unsurprisingly, therefore, straight, rich men, who are well represented at the top of the power hierarchy, are far more often abusers than abused, while women, including trans women, are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of multiple kinds of abuses, including sexual violation. Tackling abuses of power and tackling discrimination against systemically and otherwise vulnerable demographics is vital – until it is eliminated.

This piece is focused primarily on same-sex-loving persons, the demographic most often in the crosshairs of ongoing discussions on Christian marriage. I address primarily Martin Davie’s response to my earlier piece. Other groups of people, notably the trans community, are also maligned by some Christian communities.[8] This, too, is reprehensible.

The Nitty-Gritty Response Bit

The first point in my ViaMedia piece is that what is there about marriage in the Bible has to be pieced together. There is limited detail; in the Hebrew Bible there is not even a word that captures English “marriage;” instead, there are many references to men “taking” or “going in to” women. There are multiple kinds of what might be called marriage – including polygyny, and rape.[9] There is nothing about any marriageable age; little about wedding ceremonies, and contradictory information about whether only endogamy is permissible.

Martin Davie counters with “the Bible contains a large amount of material about marriage and what it says about marriage is clear.” Like complementarian thinkers, Davie draws most on Genesis 2:18-25, which for him constitutes “a description of how God instituted marriage.” Moreover, “read in the context of the preceding account of God’s creation of human beings in Genesis 1: 26-28,” these verses for him show marriage to have six characteristics: 1) it is an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman; 2) it is a relationship outside the immediate family circle; 3) it is a relationship that has to be freely chosen; 4) It is a sexual relationship; 5) it is a permanent relationship; 6) it is a relationship that is ordered towards procreation. Davie then claims that “in the rest of the Bible marriage is then understood in terms of these six characteristics and forms of marital relationship that do not conform to them, such as polygamy or marriages within the immediate family circle, and all forms of sexual activity outside marriage, are seen as contrary to the will of God.”

This is a familiar argument but one that imposes a distinctive ideology.[10] The myths of Genesis 1–2 describe creation. Yes, there is in the second creation story just one man and one woman, which makes exclusiveness a no-brainer in this instance (characteristic 1). Orientation towards sex and procreation (characteristics 4 and 6) are defensible. Permanence (characteristic 6) could be extrapolated from the becoming of one flesh. I find it rather harder, however, to see free choice (characteristic 3) as self-evident, or a relationship outside of the immediate family circle (characteristic 2). Arguably, Eve is Adam’s daughter, or sister (some have argued, mother).[11] Also unclear is how “the rest of the Bible” follows through on these six characteristics. There are in the Bible many instances of polygyny, and some of close-kin marriage; there are laws pertaining to divorce, yet without any explicit negative commentary. So, how is it clear that these are “contrary to the will of God”? The six characteristics seem to have been determined as constituting the rules of marriage at some later point – they are not clearly set out in either Genesis 1–2 or elsewhere in the Bible. At best they can be pieced together from multiple places – but other marriage “models” could also be constructed.[12]

I contend that the idea that Genesis 2–3 is “about marriage” – rather than a myth about creation, or human self-awareness, or relationship with God and other humans, or about decision-making and learning about consequence – is imposed on the story, as are at least some of the six characteristics and also the notion that all other human unions are contrary to the will of God.

Some revered biblical figures are in very different unions to marriage as characterised by Davie. Abra(ha)m enters into a covenant with God (Genesis 17) and is raised up as a man of faith in the New Testament (e.g. Romans 4) – yet he is, apparently, married to his half-sister (Genesis 20:12), and procreates also with her slave, Hagar (Genesis 16:4; Galatians 4:21-31). There is no overt criticism of Abra(ha)m for these infringements of characteristics 1,2,5 and probably, 3[13] and hence, no indication of his acting contrary to the will of God.

Moses, too, seems to have found God’s favour – though he loses it for striking the rock rather than speaking to it (Numbers 20:7-12). He seems to have one wife, Zipporah, whom he then sends away together with their two sons (Exodus 18:2-3), which incurs no divine criticism. Later he appears to have another (unnamed Cushite) wife – and God sides with Moses about this wife in a conflict with Miriam and Aaron (Numbers 12). The suggestion here is that if these are marriages, they are not exclusive or permanent – yet they incur no divine disapproval.

David is a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), but “takes” Bathsheba who is married to another man (2 Samuel 11) and has multiple wives (e.g. 2 Samuel 5:13). Again, while David is rebuked for taking Bathsheba and having her husband Uriah killed, there is no overt criticism of his multiple marriages, or of his marriage to Bathsheba following punishment. David and Bathsheba’s son, Jedidiah or Solomon, goes on to become king after David – and he also has many wives, of whom the foreign ones are identified as a problem (1 Kings 11:1-4). Having multiple wives per se is not identified as “contrary to the will of God.”

The idea that marriage between Israelites and non-Israelites is undesirable, even prohibited is in evidence in several Bible passages (alongside 1 Kings 11:1-4) – most clearly so in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13. These biblical passages are clear; in certain historical settings and, up until today (in some Christian nationalist or white supremacist spaces, for instance) inter-ethnic marriage is also rejected. Thankfully, however, certainly in the Church of England, there is little or no overt condemnation of inter-ethnic marriage for all the biblical clarity on the matter. Yet same-sex marriage is widely condemned.

So, in the Bible inter-ethnic marriage is at least sometimes rejected in a far more clear and insistent way than same-sex bonding. The bond between David and Jonathan, for example, is cast in covenantal terms (1 Samuel 20:16, 23) and is praised by David as “passing the love of women” (2 Samuel 1:26). The attachment of Ruth to Naomi is also much more overt than any man-woman bond in the Bible. I am undecided if either homosocial bond has erotic dimensions – though some commentators, have made a compelling case for such.[14] In any case, it remains defensible that multiple parts of the Bible firmly reject inter-ethnic marriage while others affirm strong homosocial bonding, or friendship between same-sex individuals. If we go entirely by what the Bible clearly says, I would thus expect more Christians to make the case for rejecting inter-ethnic marriage. If they did so, however, I would be entirely comfortable calling that straight-up racist – and I am glad that the Church of England is not pushing for following the plain meaning of such biblical texts. If friendship is most central to the core of marriage – then, based on some biblical texts (e.g. those describing the attachment between Ruth and Naomi, Jonathan and David) I see no reason to insist on marriage only between members of different biological sexes.

Strikingly, I see far more willingness – in the Church of England and more widely among more conservative Christian groups – to be lenient where shortfalls concerning some of the other six characteristics are concerned than where characteristic 1 is concerned. Sure (and this is a good thing!), there is consistent insistence on not violating characteristics 2 and 3 – about not incurring incest or forced marriage. (Both also happen to violate UK law, whereas same-sex marriage does not.) Still, if a man and woman about to marry have had sex prior to marriage – with each other, or someone else, or if there is an infidelity in the course of a marriage, or if a marriage becomes sex-less, or if a marriage ends in divorce and, perhaps, re-marriage, or if a married couple chooses not to have children, or does not have children for other, non-chosen, reasons… with all of such cases there tends to be far more accommodation than I see with that first characteristic – the one man and one woman bit. I do think this is something of a fixation. And, I suspect, what is at the root of this fixation is outright homophobia – just as historical Christian justifications of apartheid and enslavement are about outright racism.

There is strong and disturbing evidence for disproportionate fixation on this one characteristic in the large and powerful lobby of Christians in the USA, who are vocal in condemning LGBTQ+ persons and/or all sexual contact between persons of the same sex, inclusive of loving and exclusive, monogamous, long-term relationships between consenting adults, while enthusiastically supporting a President who has fallen well short of at least two of the six characteristics of marriage and who has also bragged about sexual harassment, been found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a court of law (E. Jean Carroll v Donald J. Trump), and been plausibly accused of yet more charges of rape and sexual assault. I find that shocking.

My second point in the ViaMedia piece is a statement of fact: in the Hebrew Bible unions of men and women are often depicted in violent terms.[15] I have co-authored a book on this topic, providing ample examples (Afzal and Stiebert, 2024). My aim in pointing this out is not to recommend or prescribe violence but to counter the widespread idealisation of marriage that I see derived from the Bible – with the six characteristics providing a clear example of such an idealisation. I am critiquing the claim that the characterisation reflects an accurate or clear picture of marriage in the Bible.

Davie disagrees with the examples I give that link marriage and violence; these examples include Deuteronomy 21:10-14 and Numbers 5. Davie says regarding Deuteronomy 21: “Although it is often claimed that Deuteronomy 21:10-14 sanctions the rape of female prisoners of war, this is not what the text itself says. In the words of Chris Wright, what Deuteronomy says is that: ‘She is not to be raped or enslaved as a concubine, but is to be accorded the full status of a wife (vv.11, 13). The instruction in Hebrew is quite clear that only marriage is intended.”

I invite readers to look up this passage and to decide for themselves whether they are happy for this passage to furnish recommendations for marriage. Here (and I am paraphrasing and citing the NRSV translation), a scenario is described in which God has handed the people he addresses victory over their enemies. It states, if a man sees “among the captives a beautiful woman whom [he] desire[s] and want[s] to marry” then he can bring her to his house. She must shave her head, pare her nails, and discard her captive’s garb. Then she is to remain in the man’s house for one month, mourning her parents, after which the man “may go in to her and be her husband.” If he is not satisfied with her, he can send her away. There is one restriction: he cannot sell her for money because he has “dishonoured” her.

This is what Davie is happy to go along with calling a marriage where the woman has “the full status of a wife.” He sees no indication of rape, or enslavement, or secondary status here. I see violence. The context is battle. The woman has experienced war – probably, her home, family, community, have been destroyed. At any rate, she has been separated from them; she mourns her parents. I find it highly unlikely that there is anything “freely chosen” here on the part of the woman. The man does choose –based on finding the captive woman “beautiful.” It is also not clear if this sexual union is exclusive – who knows if the man or the woman is or was already married? (Possibly, the waiting period of one month is to establish whether the woman is pregnant.) There is sex – the man “may go in to her” – but procreative intent (characteristic 6) is not stated, and the union is certainly not envisaged as necessarily permanent, because the man can send the woman away if he becomes dissatisfied.

Unlike Wright and Davie, I find this horrific.[16] To me, if this can be dignified with the word “marriage” at all, then this is a rape marriage. One telling sign of this is the acknowledgement that the man has “dishonoured” the woman – which is why he cannot sell her. The word for “dishonoured” is from the Hebrew root ‘-n-h which can pertain to rape (e.g. Genesis 34:2 and 2 Samuel 13:14). I see transparent violence in this legal text. I’d call what I read here sexual enslavement. I interpret Davie to be apologising for, or sanitising this text because it is in the Bible and depicted as God’s word. I consider this a violent and horrifying text that should not furnish any recommendations. Really… does “everything go” as long as it is one man and one woman? Even rape?!

I am also shocked by other biblical passages where divine commands permit mass slaughter and rape “marriage” – such as Numbers 31.[17] I think we could do with more shock and rejection of such biblical passages – instead of claiming that marriage in the Bible is clearly about free choice and that all that is depicted as divine will is desirable. I’m all for free choice, consent and mutual fulfilment – be that between members of the same or different sexes. I am entirely against sexual enslavement and rape – and if parts of the Bible condone such, this needs to be challenged. Surely, mine is not a subversive call.

Davie also disagrees with me about Numbers 5, pointing out that “Jacob Milgrom has argued, the whole point of the legislation in Numbers 5:12-31 was not to humiliate a wife but to protect her in the case of an unjust accusation.” I have every respect for Jacob Milgrom. It is, however, the case that the text of Numbers 5 has been interpreted in a variety of ways, as I discuss much more fully elsewhere.[18] Again, Davie, so it strikes me, is determined to see marriage and the Bible in a particular way – so much so that he unsees the horror and rape of Deuteronomy 21 and also the violence of Numbers 5. Read at face value, Numbers 5 describes in great detail that a man who has no proof for suspicion of his wife’s infidelity can take her to the priest at the tabernacle and have her subjected to a complex ritual. It seems not unlikely to me that if the ritual was conducted as described, it would have been humiliating and distressing for the woman. Quite how the ritual is protective of the wife is far from explicit. It takes some contortion to read Numbers 5 in such a way. I am aware such a case has been made but it is not self-evident.

Again, I see Davie’s interpretation, and choice of commentators, to be guided by his pre-determined ideology, according to which marriage looks a particular way. He imposes an ideology of “what biblical marriage looks like” (namely, the six characteristics), and sifts out or deems oppositional to God’s will (even in the absence of the biblical text claiming such) what conflicts with this ideology. Other texts (e.g. Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 5) are read in ways that harmonise (i.e. as non-violent and protective) against the most straightforward reading.

Davie writes that I fail “to show that we actually possess new knowledge ‘about the nuances of human gender and sexuality.’” He continues, “All that we know today is what we have always known, namely that God’s creative activity has resulted in the existence of two sexes, male and female, that are designed to engage in a form of sexual activity leading to the procreation of children and that God has ordained marriage to be the social institution within which sexual activity and procreation should take place.” Ok, yes, so procreation through the generations has required fertile men to have sex with fertile women. This remains how the majority of humans came to be. But it is not difficult to find plenty of research and scientific evidence for a much more complicated reality than straightforward male/female binary.[19] Chromosomal variety is considerable; intersex is real; sexual orientation has been explored in its rich variety… (And all this is quite aside from humans being far more rich, complex and remarkable than “designed” for marriage or procreation.)

Davie is firm first, that “the Christian tradition has been clear for the entire history of the Church that marriage has been ordained by God to be between one man and one woman” and second, that same-sex sexual relationships are sinful. He maintains that given that no new evidence has emerged to call this position into question “why is the idea of same-sex marriage even being discussed in the Church of England?” He responds to this with, “The answer of course, is that we now live in a society shaped by the twin convictions that (a) human beings should be free to determine for themselves how they should live and (b) that sexual activity is necessary for human fulfilment and as is always the case Christians are being tempted to follow the world’s lead even when this is contrary to the revealed will of God. However, as Paul insists in Romans 12:2 this is a temptation which Christians must resist: ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what Is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.’”

Again, all sorts of things have in the long history of “the Christian tradition” (which has never actually been univocal)[20] allegedly been “clear.” Some of these include justification of antisemitism (or Judeophobia) and enslavement – both right from the pages of the New Testament. And yes, evidence has emerged to call “this position” (that is, insistence on marriage being only, ever and always between one man and one woman) into question, which is why there is such vigorous discussion in the Church of England and in many other communities in the first place. The reason same-sex marriage is being discussed is because there is a case to be made that rejection of same-sex marriage and condemnation of homosexuality constitute violations of human rights – just as is now acknowledged of condemning inter-ethnic marriage, and just as it is now accepted (and rightly so!) that antisemitism and enslavement, for all their long Christian heritage, are wrong and inhumane and unjust.

Davie says, “While it is right to say that Christians should speak up for vulnerable members of the human family that can only involve speaking out in favour of same-sex marriages and same-sex sexual relationships in general if these things are in accordance with the will of God. As I have previously argued, Stiebert offers no good reasons for thinking that this is the case.” I concede that I do not know “the will of God.” Davie seems very sure that he does. But actually, when it comes to same-sex affection, love, relationships, or sexual attraction, the Bible or Jesus has little (if anything) to say on the topic. Preoccupation with same-sex matters is far less in evidence on the pages of the Bible than in our own setting. Homophobia and aversion to same-sex marriage is more culturally than biblically driven.

Ultimately, the difference between Davie and me is not centred in the Bible. The main difference is that I believe there are loving, fulfilling, profound and enriching relationships between devout same-sex-loving Church of England persons and that there is no compelling case to be derived from the Bible for those among them who want to be married in church not to be married in church. Davie, I suspect, is unable or unwilling to accept any sexual unions between same-sex-loving Christians. These are in his estimation “sinful” no matter what. I also get the impression – though I concede I may be wrong – that for Davie homosexuality is more sinful than violation of some of the other characteristics of marriage he identifies. Many Christians seem much more accommodating regarding absolute exclusivism or permanence of marriage, sometimes permitting divorce, or cohabitation (albeit while considering these less-than-ideal), while being entirely rigid concerning any and all accommodations of same-sex love.

I suppose I am on the side of love here. Not so much because, as Davie suggests, there is, or I have, a tendency to believe that “human beings should be free to determine for themselves how they should live” (which gets into the territory of implying that the alternative to sticking to his brand of Christian rules is a case of “anything goes/if it feels right, it’s right”) or because I hold “that sexual activity is necessary for human fulfilment.” We can agree that fulfilment need not necessitate sex and that “anything goes” is not an option. I have been very firm throughout in my insistence on consent – possibly, more so than Davie, who seems happy to accept the scenarios of Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 5 as acceptable in the envelope of “marriage.” I suppose when Davie cites Romans 12:2 (“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what Is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect”) I see in this verse other possibilities of renewal and transformation. The passage in Romans continues with the image of one body with many members, with not all having the same function, with different gifts and roles (12:3-8). For me that could speak to acceptance of different ways of loving – by no means all of these involving sex but certainly some that do. From there the Romans passage goes on to proclaim genuine love (12:9) and harmony and peaceable living (12:16-18). This is a beautiful passage (and not all biblical passages are) and not one where I see judging and condemning others for loving differently from the way I love.

After the Long, the Short(er) of It

The Bible is a rich and diverse collection, a library of texts. It mentions a variety of relationships, some of which could be compatible with how the word “marriage” is used in the present-day UK; others should make us balk, on account of describing something akin to sexual enslavement. In the Hebrew Bible there is no word that approximates either “marriage” or “sexual enslavement.”

Nowadays, free choice and a bond of friendship are presumed to be at the heart of a good marriage, which is, ideally, a relationship between two persons where each partner feels supported and fulfilled and enriched by the other – psychologically, emotionally, socially, spiritually, practically, sexually – so both can be their best selves. Maybe strong marriages of the distant past were like this, too; but in the Bible there is little said about such marriages. There is one anomalous text, Song of Songs, which describes strong erotic attachment between two people – but we know little about them, and they seem not to be married (because they are chasing each other around, sometimes furtively, with watchmen and family members disapproving of their association, all of which would be surprising in the context of a formalised marriage). Elsewhere in the Bible, there is plenty of mention of men taking women, sometimes with force, and of sex resulting in offspring. Close bonds – rarely described – can be between members of the same sex – notably, David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi.

In current times there is a high degree of preoccupation that centres on whether marriage should be between a man and a woman only, or whether marriage can also be between two members of the same sex. Traditionalists emphasise Genesis 1–3: that when humans were created it was to procreate (Genesis 1:27-28), and that the apt companion for the first man is a woman; the first woman is created by God for the man. From these early chapters has arisen a theology of exclusive, monogamous, permanent, heterosexual union, transpiring in children. Other kinds of biblical marriage – polygyny, rape and abduction marriage – are more often ignored or explained away as later, deficient social forms. Genesis 2–3 is prioritised and idealised. The parts of the Genesis story that sit less easily with contemporary theology – such as the implication that Eve is a close relative of Adam – tend to be obscured. There is careful selection of what is read literally (“one woman for one man”) and what is not (the close kinship between Adam and Eve and the inevitability of first-degree incest if the story of Adam, Eve and their offspring is accepted literally). Moreover, clear indication of close homosocial bonding (e.g. between David and Jonathan, which even uses covenant language) is – by virtue of the ideological decision that sex can only be within marriage and marriage can only be between one man and one woman – determined to be entirely non-sexual. The theology, consequently, drives the interpretation.

Other things the Bible contains about marriage that also conflict with the dominant conservative ideology – be this mention of close-kin marriages, polygyny, or strict endogamy, for instance – are also pretty much ignored, or downplayed. The bulk of vitriol is reserved for same-sex marriage.

Scientific findings, which show that biological sex is more complicated than a straightforward binary and that gender and sexuality are spectral and nuanced, and that same-sex attraction is a widespread minority orientation, are also rejected when they conflict with this theology.

The Bible is highly diverse in content and lends itself to multiple interpretations. In many forms of Judaism this multiplicity is praised and embraced (e.g. the notion that Torah has seventy faces – that is, that it can be read in a rich variety of ways, yielding meaning through time in diverse ways). The Bible contains passages that authorise taking captives for sex (Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 21) and that prescribe the casting out of “foreign” wives (Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13). The Bible has been used to justify apartheid, enslavement and genocide. Its plain meaning, especially when read selectively (i.e. proof-texting) can be harmful. But it does not have to be, if it is read with determination to do good, to celebrate the natural world and the human diversity and capacity to love that is part of it.

If a relationship is between two who can give informed consent and if that relationship is positive for the free development and fulfilment of both, it is far more likely to yield good things – whether the two are of the same or different sexes. Any children raised in such a relationship, and any other lives touched by two people supporting, nurturing and fulfilling each other, are likely to be stronger, healthier, happier. I believe this to be true of same- and different-sex relationships. I believe I have seen this in action.

I side with love. Love is beautifully characterised in 1 Corinthians 13 – as patient, kind, enduring, and rejoicing in truth. All who have loved, know that when we love we are our best selves. Loving, we feel deepest joy and fulfilment; loving, we are at our most vulnerable. Love can glow in many dynamics, often in entirely non-sexual ones – between friends, siblings, a parent and child, a teacher and student. When it finds sexual expression, love can feel overwhelming. It is no accident or surprise that Song of Songs – describing strong erotic feeling – is held to be a metaphor for the love between God and Israel, or Jesus and the Church, or the mystic’s union with the divine.[21] Love that has sexual expression can, for devout persons, be spiritual in signification and can compel them to want to formalise this, publicly, and before God, in marriage.[22] This is true of same-sex as of opposite-sex couples. Where there is love, we can and should celebrate it – because patient, kind, enduring, truth-seeking is what we need most.

And why can this not be called “marriage”? The word already covers a wide range of social institutions – close-kin, inter-ethnic, inter-faith, arranged, egalitarian and complementarian marriages, for instance. While “marriage” seems to be something describing unions, usually of family building, that exist in most human societies, it looks different from place to place, and it has evolved and been adapted over time. Similarly, the Bible shows evidence of change and adaptation over time. (In the ViaMedia piece I give the example of a significant change from intergenerational punishment to personal responsibility. Other changes are the laws of enslavement – of which there are three, non-identical sets, with the subsequent change that enslavement is now prohibited.)

There seems little rationale for insistence on limiting a marriage to only one man and one woman. In UK law, of course, marriage is already inclusive of same-sex marriage. There are already plenty of same-sex couples, many raising children, too. And the world has not collapsed, and man-woman marriages have not ceased to exist or been threatened. It seems time for the Church of England to take the step. In doing so, it will not change marriage for those who like marriage the way Davie describes and characterises it; instead, it will give space to more couples who love and feel completed by another.

In a nutshell

Acts and impulses of resistance to same-sex love and marriage are products of homophobia, not the Bible. (And that’s the last word on the matter from me. For now at least.)

Works Cited

Afzal, Saima and Johanna Stiebert. 2024. Marriage, Bible, Violence: Intersections and Impacts. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

Bechtel, L. M. 1995. “Genesis 2.4b–3.24: A Myth about Human Maturation.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 67: 3–26.

Blyth, Caroline and Prior McRae. 2018. ‘“Death by a Thousand Paper Cuts’: Transphobia, Symbolic Violence, and Conservative Christian Discourse,” pp.111–133, in Caroline Blyth, Emily Colgan, and Katie B. Edwards (eds.), Rape Culture, Gender Violence, and Religion: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Religion and Radicalism). Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Clines, David J. A. 1995. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. (JSOTSup 205; Gender, Culture, Theory 1). Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Holben, L. R. 1999. What Christians Think about Homosexuality: Six Representative Viewpoints. BIBAL Press.

Horner, Tom. 1978. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Hunter, Alastair G. 2011. “Marriage in the Old Testament.” See here: https://shilohproject.blog/marriage-in-the-hebrew-bible/

Kahn-Harris, Deborah. 2023. Polyamory and Reading the Book of Ruth. Pennsylvania, PA: Lexington Press.

Piper, John and Wayne Grudem (eds.). 2006 [1991]. Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Crossway. Available online: https://document.desiringgod.org/recovering-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood-en.pdf?ts=1471470614.

Rey, Monica I. 2016. “Reexamination of the Foreign Female Captive: Deuteronomy 21:10–14 as a Case of Genocidal Rape,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 32/1: 37–53.DOI:10.2979/jfemistudreli.32.1.04

Stiebert, Johanna. 2002. The Social Construction of Shame: The Prophetic Contribution. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Stiebert, Johanna. 2019. “Divinely Sanctioned Violence Against Women: Biblical Marriage and the Example of the Sotah of Numbers 5.” The Bible and Critical Theory 15/2: 84–108.

Stiebert, Johanna. 2021. “Religion and Sexual Violence,” pp.339–350, in Caroline Starkey and Emma Tomalin (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Religion, Gender and Society. London: Routledge.

Stiebert, Johanna. 2023. “The Pop of Cherries and Weasels: Virgins, Violence and the Bible,” pp.34–49, in Helen Paynter and Michael Spalione (eds.), Global Perspectives on Bible and Violence. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

Stiebert, Johanna. 2024. “Eve and Psychoanalytic Approaches,” pp.411–423, in Caroline Blyth and Emily Colgan (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Eve. London and New York: Routledge.

Stiebert, Johanna (ed.). 2025. Abuse in World Religions: Articulating the Problem. Volume 1. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

Stiebert, Johanna (ed.). 2025. Abuse in World Religions: Towards Solutions. Volume 2. Abingdon, OX: Routledge.

Washington, Harold C. 1998. “‘Lest He Die in the Battle and Another Man Take Her’: Violence and the Construction of Gender in the Laws of Deuteronomy 20–22,”, pp.185–213, in Victor H. Matthews, Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky (eds.), Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

---

notes

[1] In a recent interview with Laura Kuenssberg (see the Newscast podcast episode, released on 30 March 2025), former Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby took full responsibility for not following up on reports about John Smyth’s prolonged abuse of boys and young men. In this interview Welby explained that he had become utterly overwhelmed by the sheer scale of disclosures of abuse in churches. Tackling this deluge of abuse – historical and ongoing – by seeking the conviction of abusers and facilitating justice and healing for survivors and victims is where energies ought to go. Such abuses are not confined to church settings – they take place in religious communities other than Christian ones (see my two forthcoming edited volumes Abuse in World Religions) and in non-religious settings, too. Still, the Church of England is clearly in the midst of an abuse crisis.

[2] I have at different stages of my life attended an Anglican church and a synagogue. I consider myself deeply interested in religion but unable to confess to any religious tradition. I would call myself an agnostic or a ‘none’. I feel most drawn to Progressive Judaism. This tradition’s encouragement to wrestle with the text, to consider and even seek multiple interpretations, the acceptance of doubt, and the aim of working towards making the world better, all appeal.

[3] It is no revelation that there is no single unified Christian position or stance on homosexuality, let alone LGBTQ+ matters more widely. L. R. Holben is one author who sets out a spectrum of Christian outlooks, which ranges across six stages, from condemnation to affirmation and liberation (1999). See also the outputs of the Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research on matters of sexuality.

[4] The Bible is a tapestry of texts, a collection from many times and places, reflecting a range of contexts and perspectives. This is not a controversial assessment. It is unsurprising – to me at least – that given that the Bible is a library rather than a book, it contains multiple and even contradictory expressions. To me, that goes some way to explaining why the Bible is so steadfastly popular: there is something for everyone in its pages. Certain conservative Christian thinkers are prone to claiming that the Bible is very clear and unambiguous. One example, freely available online, is by influential, evangelical authors John Piper and Wayne Grudem, in their edited volume defending complementarianism, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The editors speak of ‘the clarity of Scripture’ and the ‘plain meanings of Biblical texts’, which have become obscured by ‘hermeneutical oddities’ and ‘technical ingenuity’, which pose a ‘threat to Biblical authority’ and ‘accessibility of … meaning’ (2006: 89). Saima Afzal and I challenge this approach in our book on marriage and Bible (2024).

[5] Laws that prescribe stoning to death a disobedient son (Deuteronomy 21:20-21), or that require a rapist marry the woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) are just two examples of biblical passages that should not be obeyed. Following the ‘plain’ meaning would be cruel – not least, because of what we now know about child psychology and development and about rape and trauma.

[6] In a short book I have co-authored with Saima Afzal (2024), we point to examples of selective proof-texting where some biblical passages are deployed, and others ignored, to propel a particular kind of complementarian ideology of marriage.

[7] For a full discussion of the various meanings of ‘ideology’, including with reference to the Bible, and for a model on how I am using the term, see David J. A. Clines (1995: 9-25).

[8] Caroline Blyth and Prior McRae (2018) provide insight into how conservative Christianity harms and excludes trans humans.

[9] Polygyny refers to one man having multiple wives. Polygamy refers to one person having multiple spouses. In the Hebrew Bible only men have multiple (female) spouses. To give two examples of rape and marriage: first, the law in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 specifies that if a man ‘meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act,’ then the man has to pay a fine to the woman’s father and take her as his wife, without possibility of divorce. The text specifies that the man has ‘violated her’ (from the root ‘-n-h, discussed below). Second, before and after Tamar is raped by her brother Amnon (2 Samuel 13), she appears to plead with him for marriage (13:13, 16). (Incidentally, this might imply that some forms of close-kin marriage – e.g. half-sibling marriage, possibly only in certain elite classes – was legal, pace characteristic 2.) It is shocking and distressing to contemplate this in the light of what clinical psychology research has taught us about rape and trauma, but these passages imply that marriage gives a raped woman some degree of protection and respectability and that marriage to one’s rapist is, therefore, preferable to the alternative – presumably, social isolation and no possibility of marriage. I have read that when Jesus speaks out against divorce, citing Genesis and “one flesh,” he does so, possibly, to protect women from men casually divorcing them and thereby leaving women vulnerable and destitute.

[10] As Clines argues, theology is a form of ideology (1995: 13).

[11] Psychoanalysts have had a field day with this story (see Stiebert 2024 for a summary). It is far from the case that all read this as a story of marriage. Lyn Bechtel (1995) for instance, reads the myth as a story of human maturation from childhood, to burgeoning self-awareness and independence. The emotion of shame has been identified by psychologists and social scientists as formative for self-conscious development (Stiebert…).

[12] Theologian and Bible scholar Alastair Hunter has written an accessible and comprehensive account on marriage in the Hebrew Bible, including on the language of covenant and marriage metaphor. For a long and shorter version, see here.

[13] Abraham is not exclusively with one woman; his primary wife is also his half-sister; Hagar is given to Abra(ha)m by his primary wife and Hagar’s free choice should, consequently, be disputed. The union with Hagar is not permanent, because she is evicted, together with Ishmael, her son by Abra(ha)m (Genesis 16–21). Permanence and exclusivity are also thrown into doubt by Abra(ha)m giving Sarai/Sarah to Pharaoh. Pharaoh admits he “took her for [his] wife” (Genesis 12:19).

[14] Tom Horner is an early commentator to make this case for David and Jonathan (1978). Deborah Kahn-Harris, meanwhile, explores Ruth, Naomi and Boaz as a polyamorous triad (2023).

[15] David J. A. Clines is particularly strong on this point. Clines argues that every account of sex between men and women in the Hebrew Bible implies violence. He is not saying there weren’t loving relationships in antiquity but that the language of man-woman sexual contact in the Hebrew Bible does not suggest mutuality. Martin Davie says, of another example I give, Judges 21: “The abduction of the women of Shiloh in Judges 21 is not approved of in the Bible but is recorded as evidence of the way in which the people of Israel had turned from God to ‘doing what was right in their own eyes’ (Judges 21:25).” My reason for citing the text was to demonstrate that violence and marriage are widely linked. The story is an example of escalating chaos, but it is also cast as a “solution” to the prospect of a tribe ceasing to exist. This “solution” is, once more, violent for women.

[16] I am far from alone in this interpretation. Harold Washington (1998) is an early voice expressing horror at this text. For a more recent interrogation of the violence of this text, see Monica Rey (2016).

[17] I have written about this passage elsewhere (Stiebert 2023).

[18] See my article elsewhere (Stiebert 2019).

[19] One researcher who has published extensively in this area is Susannah Cornwall, Professor of Constructive Theologies.

[20] Even in the early years, as Christianity was emerging and forming, there existed different Christian groups and disagreements between Gnostics, Marcionites and a group now called Jewish Christian Adoptionists. There are still divisions within the Christian community – including with regard to such matters as women’s ordination, human sexuality and same-sex marriage, abortion, and divorce, among other topics. There is no univocal or homogenous Christian tradition. Again, Davie decides what is “clear” within that which he deems the Christian tradition.

[21] I don’t believe Song of Songs was created to be such a metaphor of divine-human love but I find the fact that it has been applied in such a way understandable. David Clines has written magnificently and persuasively on this text (1995: 94–121).

[22] Marriage itself is no guarantee of anything. Where data exists, indications are that Christian marriages are as likely to break down and breed violence as marriages in the general population. See Helen Paynter’s chapter in my edited volume on abuse in world religions where she explores domestic abuse in (heterosexual) Christian marriages (Stiebert, 2025).