Nina, at Dancing Through Doorways has this post on the debate taking place at Fr. Jake's between Dan (ToujoursDan) and Matt Kennedy. As I said to Nina, it's a good debate, and I learned from it.
In the comment box at Nina's blog, I ennumerated three clinchers (Can one have 3 clinchers? Perhaps not, but that's what I wrote.) which helped to turn my views about gay and lesbian sexuality completely around:
Clincher no. 1 (edited for clarity) for me in turning my views about gay and lesbian sexuality around was the near presence of gays and lesbians in partnered relationships whose lives bore much good fruit.
Clincher no. 2 was what Jesus said in the Gospels about gay and lesbian sex, which is exactly nothing.
Clincher no. 3 was that God declared his creation good. Would God create humans with sexual desires for members of their own sex and expect them never to fulfill those desires? I think not.
I'm sure that folks more knowledgeable than I could find holes in my arguments, but they worked for me, and all to the good. Thanks be to God.
Sometimes I wonder how I dare to do serious posts on such subjects, as I have no special learning in theology nor in exigesis of the Scriptures. When I speak of being a humble Episcopalian in the pew, some may see this as false humility, but I assure you that it is genuine.
I think of clichés that I could apply to my writing, such as, "For fools rush in where angels fear to tread:" or cautionary words, such as, "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring...." both from from Alexander Pope's poem, An Essay on Criticism, which, by the way, is quite long but filled with memorable quotes.
How dare I lay my thoughts out for anyone to view? Is there a place in religious discussions for those with simple knowledge of the great spiritual truths and only a layperson's knowledge of the Bible? Is there a place for me to say, "This is how I see it. This is how I've thought it through."
I find myself often apologizing for my daring. There is much that I do not know, and I am always open to correction and to learning new things.
It's very likely that these questions are merely rhetorical, for I shall probably continue my musings for now. Take heart! Maybe not forever, for I may run out of things to say.
On the other hand, if someone I respected said, "Enough!" I should probably take that advice very seriously.
Your place in theological discussions is assured, Mimi. You have an earthen way of looking at the insanity of God and pulling us closer to the divine. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMimi - This simple soul sees things and reasons them in a similar way.
ReplyDeleteSo if I can talk (and Lord knows I do!), so can you.
God works through each of us.
He's as enamored of the simple things as the complicated!
Merci beaucoup à toi, Share Cropper, et à toi, Eileen.
ReplyDeleteSee there. I can speak a little French, if I can't speak Theologese and Exigesese.
Mimi, "for I may run out of things to say."
ReplyDeleteAs another Southern woman let me say that we do not often run out of things to say....and what you say makes a lot more sense that many of us(Southern Women that is, not to mention the men).
So keep talking, girl!
Jesus didn't exactly say "nothing" about gay sex. When healing the centurion's boy-toy (Matthew's version) he praised the centurion for his faith rather than condemning him for his love of his slave-boy. Given the circumstances, silence=approbation.
ReplyDeleteSusan, LOL, a southern woman running out of words. In your dreams.
ReplyDeletePaul, I had not heard that the healing of the centurian's servant story was about man-boy sex. I thought the servant was just a servant.
It's in the Greek: "pais" means "boy" which in context ain't the faithful old family retainer.
ReplyDeletePaul, although, as I have said, I am no expert in exigesis, I would assume that whether the boy is a servant in the boy-toy sense is, at least, arguable. Of course, I could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'll leave it there, unless an expert weighs in, or should I say another expert?
Try googling "pais" and "homosexual" and "Matthew" to find several discussions. Knowing some cultural history about Roman sexual treatment of slaves, of the Roman military in a foreign posting, and the like helps understand the background here.
ReplyDeleteI sort of enjoyed seeing one conservative scholar discount the "boy-toy" sense because he couldn't believe that Jesus wouldn't have condemned the soldier.
But judge for yourself (as I know you will).
Paul, I did a little reading on links from Google, and I see that you have a point. Perhaps I could have worded Clincher 2 as "what Jesus said in the Gospels against gay and lesbian sex is exactly nothing". That would work whatever the meaning of the passage.
ReplyDelete"Given the circumstances, silence=approbation."
ReplyDeleteGiven this reasoning, I guess Jesus approved of the Roman military occupation, too.
Please don't tell Bush.
Mimi, I remember a book by the wonderful Episcopal wise woman Verna Dozier, entitled We Are All Theologians. You happen to be one of the wiser ones. If you let anyone silence you, we would all be the losers. Preach it, Grandmere!
ReplyDeleteMimi,
ReplyDeleteI'm in complete and utter agreement with you, except my theology only reaches the low levels of a sporting dog. These deep debates utilizing superhuman displays of technical daring remind me of the old Gary Larson cartoon about what the dog hears -"Ginger, blah, blah, blah, Ginger, blah...".
And I lean with Jesus in the simple statements - love God and love that which God loves. And that's more than enough theology to keep me busy, and allows me the freedom to believe with complete and utter assurance what Jesus would tell us to do.
Good morning, Mimi,
ReplyDeleteIs there a place in religious discussions for those with simple knowledge of the great spiritual truths and only a layperson's knowledge of the Bible?
Of course there is! I for one value your observations -- so well expressed and so insightful.
As to the centurion and his boy, whatever the nature of the relationship as Matthew understood it, Clincher no. 2 is still true, exactly as you first stated it.
For me, Clincher no. 3 trumps all. MP's Athanasius Smallwick worships a made up cruel god who is a reflection of his own image. IMHO, we are made in the image of the loving and gracious God, who hates nothing that God has made (to paraphrase the Ash Wednesday Collect which we should be saying every day in Lent until the end of this week -- I like the 1979 Prayer Book, but some of the rubrical changes make no sense, not to mention some of the textual changes, but I digress.) And because we are made in the image of God, we are called to homor God's creation -- all of it.
"For me, Clincher no. 3 trumps all. MP's Athanasius Smallwick worships a made up cruel god who is a reflection of his own image."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that there is really no more egregious case of projecting onto God than assuming that our desires are a reflection of the divine will.
God has created some people with a desire for sex for children. That terrible fact is no warrant for our concluding that there can be no objection to it.
Similarly, that matter of prohibiting the coveting of "thy neighbor's wife" suggests that God's putting those desires in me doesn't imply that they are to be acted upon.
The idea that my desire is holy because "God made me that way" has never made significant headway in the past because of a common Christian understanding of human fallenness. We are in such a state that avarice, pride, anger, and other sins come to us to effortlessly. But that doesn't mean that "God made us that way."
You're all very kind. I knew that someone (sorry, Paul) would bring up Greek words and then I would be at a loss for words.
ReplyDeleteAllen, I see now that my original Clincher no. 2 still stands as written.
The Two Great Commandments and The Beautitudes encapsulate the Gospel for me in a useful manner. I like to keep it simple - even simple enough for an old sporting dog.
Rick, do you believe that all same-sex sexuality is sinful, even within a faithful, committed relationship?
ReplyDeleteI know that you are a kind man, but - God help me! - when I read your comments, I often think to myself, "I'm grateful that, in the end, I am going to be judged by God and not by Rick."
“Rick, do you believe that all same-sex sexuality is sinful, even within a faithful, committed relationship?”
ReplyDeleteYes. As far as I can tell that is the consistent teaching of Christian scripture and Christian tradition.
There are now, as evidenced by the long argument at Jake’s, well-developed arguments for change, which have laid a groundwork for schism much analogous to what happened four hundred years ago with the question of divorce. I’m not particularly convinced by them. But there is plainly a clean break coming in our understanding of the significance of what used to be called “sins of the flesh” or “crimes against nature” or “sexual psychopathy.”
The divorce analogy might be a good one. Do I really think that all sexuality engaged in by divorced and re-married persons is sinful, even within faithful, committed relationships? Of course. We have Jesus’ explicit word on that. But I hope it doesn’t mean that I hate anyone, or think myself superior to them or in a position to judge them.
With you I am very pleased that God will judge and not I. I have my own sins to worry about, thank you very much. I claim no authority, and live and work very much in the world, and consider homosexuality, among the sexual sins, the least of our problems. I am probably far more concerned with the wider applications of the arguments in its favor, such as the above-noted “God made me this way.” Look how God made George Bush. Does that mean we can’t criticize him?
Rick, sometimes I get the impression that you think you are responsible for holding the entire Deposit of Faith intact by sheer force of will and argument. That's a heavy burden.
ReplyDeleteI never, ever thought or said or implied that you you hated anyone or that you set yourself up as superior. Not ever.
By the way, God didn't make George Bush the way he is. I do believe that people are responsible for their own actions.
Rick - Christianity isn't a dead religion, and tradition is relative. What is new today, becomes tradition tomorrow. So, the 2000 year tradition, blah blah blah, falls on deaf ears here. The Holy Spirit is alive and well, and there are as many proof texts for siting Christ to be inclusive as exclusive. Whatever.
ReplyDeletePeople have historically argued about what should or shouldn't be part of Christian tradition and orthodoxy throughout time, from the beginning of Christianity.
Some argue Christ didn't mean to start a church at all. Others argue that Christianity is shaped more by Paul, than by Christ, who never wrote a word down (inconvenient, really, for a man who was starting a religion that was to become so obsessed with orthodoxy and tradition.)
The EO apparently thinks IT is the one true church, and holds all the "true" doctrines, and that Rome is part of the strays, even though, they are in "full communion" - all though, not full enough to come under one "name".
No edifice of man holds God. No book. No building. No man.
God has given us the vision to see but through a glass darkly. Each of us holds a piece of his truth. To believe otherwise is negligent and arrogant (two things I personally find the RCC to be in a big way, but that's me).
Lucky for you, you can stay in the church of Rome which will "die" rather than ever admit it might have been in error in anyway. And that's the right of Rome.
"Rick, sometimes I get the impression that you think you are responsible for holding the entire Deposit of Faith intact by sheer force of will and argument. That's a heavy burden."
ReplyDeleteI's sure the Faith will do fine without me. I'm just trying to do what I think I was asked to do, say what I believe and why.
"I never, ever thought or said or implied that you you hated anyone or that you set yourself up as superior. Not ever."
I appreciate that. I think it was our friend Mr. Kramer cited above who probably made me more defensive about that than I ought to have been.
"By the way, God didn't make George Bush the way he is. I do believe that people are responsible for their own actions."
I don't think there's a contradiction between God making us a certain way and our personal responsibility for what we do. It isn't fair, but some people suffer more trials from their make-up than others. It's no one's fault that he or she is born with an addictive personality or a propensity toward a bad temper. But we are responsible for what we do with those things. One born with sexual longing for children, who goes through his whole life without touching a child, for example, may have exhibited more heroic virtue than a gaggle of saints. Doesn't it strike you that some people rather naturally are good, kind, generous, and don't you wonder whether many who are not so are fighting to some extent ingrained and unchosen tendencies, whether inherited or taught (or beaten into)them as children? That always seems to me to be one of the things that makes passing judgment on individuals so questionable.
You often charge me with being much too solicitous of the pope. Probably so. So I'll end with another epigram from the Pope (Alexander) you cited:
"Vice is a monster of such frightful mien,
that to be hated needs but to be seen;
but seen too oft, familiar with its face,
we first endure, then pity, then embrace!"
The key of course being a consenting ADULT.
ReplyDeleteNo child can consent to a sexual act in our day and age. Abuse of power is the main portion of this particular sin. An adult is asking for something for which they have no right to ask. This is the reason liking children sexually is such a grievous sin.
However, two adults CAN consent, and the only harm done is that it may make some other adults squeemish. Too bad, really. Christ didn't have anything overt to say about it, and the major proof texts in the bible come from PAUL's understanding of Christ's message - not Christ himself.
The other proofs are from books of the OT which are so picked and chosen over as to remain laughable.
This is an area where reason rightly needs to a lead position over tradition and scripture.
Also, addictive personalities cause harm to self and others.
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of any Monogamous Homosexuality causing demonstrable harm to any other persons (outside of the normal harms caused by matters of the heart - betrayal, infidelity, etc.)
Rick, speaking of Alexander Pope, my quotes taken from An Essay On Criticism inspired me to read the whole poem to my great benefit.
ReplyDeleteRick Allen wrote: "As far as I can tell... "
ReplyDeleteDo you m e a n this - or is it just Anglican "I'm so nice" speak?
Mimi, I didn't know where else to put this, but I saw your and Clumber's conversation on his blog where he talked about the fact that he didn't think Matt was a very good listener.
ReplyDeleteI read this on Susan Russel's blog 'Inch at a time.' She was talking about what the Los Angeles Bishops were saying about the HOB meeting in Texas. There was a quote from each bishop. The arresting one for me was from +Sergio Carranza.
"Like the other bishops, Bishop Carranza had high praise for the Presiding Bishop and her leadership of the House. He was gratified by the strong support for a response to the demands of the Primates that makes it clear the Episcopal Church will not be blackmailed into marginalizing its gay and lesbian members. "It is time," he said, "not to be rude but to be honest." And he felt that the statements issued by the House of Bishops were significant steps forward in that regard.
.
When asked by a questioner how we can be (in the questioner's words) "inclusive of the intolerant" +Sergio said bluntly, "You can't. When you think you have the whole truth you cannot listen. And those who insist they have that whole truth are the ones who have walked apart by choosing not to listen."
Of course, there are those who would say that this could apply to both sides of the current debate, eh?
Susan - I have been pondering that same thing for awhile now.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that there are two issues that TEC needs to make firm decisions on - to "fish or cut bait" as the saying goes.
The first, and already in place, is the ordination of women. Thirty years is a rather lengthy reception period. A firm yes or no to the ordination of women needs to be proclaimed.
The second is full inclusion of all people.
Both of these issues are going to be dividing lines for many Christians, but, TEC sadly cannot be both/or in these two instances.
You can't please all the peoplel all the time - or so my mom tells me.
The good bishop is correct in his assessment, I think, regarding "listening".
And so are you - neither side is in the "listening" process any longer. A line has been drawn. The time is drawing (or has drawn) near, and a divisive decision will be reached. Some will leave over it, and others will come in to the church because of it.
But, I think for the spiritual health of all involved, the decision has to be made, and the consequences of that decision have to be dealt with on all sides.
There will be some "traditional" Episcopalians who don't leave the church over these issues. And some of course, will.
Any hoo, thanks for bringing up that bit, as it helped bring to the fore of my brain something I've been thinking on.
Susan and Eileen, I agree that it's time for the leadership in the church to come out clearly and firmly on the ordination of women and on justice and equality for all church members.
ReplyDeleteThe bizarre "solution" that the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth have come up with makes my head spin. Thanks to MadPriest for the post.
I don't know where to put this either, because it's not worth a whole post, but my sister's good friend, the rich gay man who hosted my luxurious intervention, which began my recovery from homophobia, called me yesterday and told me that he has now changed his voter registration from Republican to Independent. Yay!
God is working in the world. Praise the Lord!
ReplyDeleteEileen, Glad to be of service to your brain!
ReplyDeleteAnd now that I think about it more,
I don't think that too many on the Reappraiser side of things think that we "have the whole truth." Else, why would we be called Reappraisers? As I like to quote the UCC, "God is still speaking," and we are, I hope still listening. Hey, and don't we read a Living Bible?
Lordy me, I'm just full of brilliance today! ;-)
Eileen and others,
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to be rude by ignoring you. I have little time lately, which you might not guess from my verboseness.
Tradition is by definition what is handed down, and of course there is change. The issue is always what can and cannot change. I have always found Cardinal Newman's account of doctrinal development helpful in distinguishing a deepening of understanding from a corruption or apostacy. But, of course, to start with Newman's approach is to already have a firm committment to a particular account of the deposit of faith.
More important than the particular arguments is the observation, on which I think you concur, that there are now two firm and incompatible positions on sexual ethics, and, unlike, say, disagreement on the double procession of the Spirit, these are differences which show up in daily life (i.e., it affects what you tell your teenager).
As with divorce, the tradition will here split, with one stream saying "yes," the other, "no," and those differences will be reflected in institutions, not simply individual opinion.
But I am neither Anglican nor Episcopalian. As someone who's white as Wonder Bread I have some ethnic affinity for the C of E, some love of Donne, Trollope and Barbara Pym, and have followed with interest the viscitudes of the troubled history of the Anglican/Catholic courtship. But I am mostly an officious interloper who got to know our friend Mimi on a common friend's blog, a friend who has mostly shut down for lent.
Mimi, there was a time when I would have considered Pope perhaps my favorite poet. I think I've wimped out a little since then--his satire is very sharp, and he can be a little inhuman, I think.
I am still astounded by his facility with the heroic couplet. I read his translations of Homer some decades back, and I still come back to them. No one puts ancient poetry into such forms anymore. And of course Pope's Homer is far from Homer in Greek. But Pope's Homer is like Homer in Greek insofar as it is (or at least contains) great poetry.
He is hard for us brought up on prose and free verse. But I've always found the sly devil worth the effort.
Rick, that Pope is a sly devil all right, downright wicked sometimes, but worth a read. Not every day, of course.
ReplyDeleteAs with divorce, the tradition will here split, with one stream saying "yes," the other, "no," and those differences will be reflected in institutions, not simply individual opinion.
I expect that you're right about this.
Speaking for myself, I like having interlopers like you visit.
Rick - I agree. Another split is inevitable on this issue. A shame really, but, what is to be, is to be.
ReplyDeleteI think other mainline Protestant churches will have a similar experience - and "full communion" lines will be drawn and redrawn again.
Such is the way of the world.