This isn't fair, to either gays or Christians

[adderslj]

I grow more and more depressed the more I watch the coverage of the great Anglican homosexuality debate, and how Christian views are being repeatedly misrepresented.

To be clear:

Gay men (and women) can become bishops and several already are so within the Anglican church

They are in exactly the same position as single straight men and women. They have to remain celibate.

Straight people currently have an option that gay people don't, which is marriage. Jesus explicitly gave marriage as the context for sex. Ergo, only married people who aspire to leading Christian communities get to shag.

The prohibition against gay Christian marriage is substantially based on a single statement of Paul's and the fact that Jesus only refers to heterosexual relationships. However in many people's minds these prohibitions aren't clear and thus bear examination with the guidance of the Spirit.

This discussion is underway in the church. Unfortunately, a rather arrogant man who left a wife and two children for another lover, enough to make him a fairly suspect candidate for a bishopric in the first place, has pushed this situation to a head.

Yes, I know that's all a lot less sensational than what we're all seeing in the news right now, but that's the mass media all over, isn't it? What really upsets me is that this sort of coverage breeds the sort of hateful hostility that oakthorne so neatly and brilliantly dissected in his recent post..

Comments

[nerd-king.livejournal.com]

What are your opinions about Homosexuality Vs Christianity Ad?

[eyebeams.livejournal.com]

Well, a similar situation in the Diocese of Toronto is one of the thingss that eventually made me leave the church.

I don't think you can really judge the collapse of relationships due to someone discovering their homosexuality with the same standards as for other situations, inasmuch that there aren't any accepted legal and traditional recourses and the personal risk involved is somewhat greater.

Trotting out the old Three Legged Stool for a second, this seems to be a case where Tradition is against it, Reason is for it, and Scripture is inconsistent, given that Paul's opinions an various things are frequently ignored or reinterpreted by the Communion and that Jesus fulfilled the Law by reducing to an essential point that is not at all incompatible with homosexuality.

I'm somewhat disappointed with the Archbishop of Canterbury's actions, and I'm concerned with the way this seems to reflect a larger crossraods in Christianity. It seems like communities are balancing between asserting the necessity of the evangelical mission and the universal moral authority of the faith, but are looking for a set of distinguishing practices -- ways to identify themselves in secular society as a people apart.

So when you say:

Straight people currently have an option that gay people don't, which is marriage. Jesus explicitly gave marriage as the context for sex. Ergo, only married people who aspire to leading Christian communities get to shag.

It feels like you're saying that "This is the sacrifice you make to be a part of the faith" and claiming that it's a Christian practice that need not be a moral obligation for others, but on the other hand, the evangelical side makes it implicit that even if you aren't in the club, you're doing something wrong for not following the code.

[oldmotherchaos.livejournal.com]

It feels like you're saying that "This is the sacrifice you make to be a part of the faith" and claiming that it's a Christian practice that need not be a moral obligation for others, but on the other hand, the evangelical side makes it implicit that even if you aren't in the club, you're doing something wrong for not following the code

First of all, a disclaimer: I distrust mortal institutions, and divorce my personal religious/spiritual opinions from them entirely, so don't claim to be Christian.

That said, surely one of the whole points of the evangelical side of Christianity is that it delineates right and wrong, and that doing any of the things on the wrong side is to place yourself in the wrong, in the club or out of it? I don't read what Adders is saying as suggesting that celibacy outside marriage is a price you have to pay, more that it's just part of of way it is.

The debate, to my mind, should be on the legitimacy of homosexual marriage. If a priest of any church that requires marriage before sex is is having sexual intercourse outside wedlock, that should be disqualificatory -- in the same way that worshipping, oh, Vishnua and Shiva would be, or being a drug-smuggler would be -- on the grounds that the person is obviously not a devout member of the faith, no more, no less.

Who or what he's actually shagging is totally irrelevant.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the quality of someone's personality than in what they find erotic, and I think it's a mistake to ban gay marriage on such a flimsy basis.

Then again, as I said above, I'm not much into having other people interpret my faith for me!

[adders.livejournal.com]

Tim's pretty much hit the mail on the head here about what I was saying. This is a debate on the legitimacy of homosexual marriage, and that point has been badly lost in the media.

On the whole, I tend towards believing that gay marriage is acceptable within the spirit of Jesus' teachings, which seem to me to be more about absolute commitment than specific sexuality. However, I do also believe that celibacy before marriage is an ideal all sexualities should aspire to.

But then, I'm the sort of person who believes that Christianity is more about a couple of dozen local people gathering together, celebrating their faith, helping each other grow in that faith and doing good things for the community around them. It seems more in the spirit of what Jesus taught that 50 men in frocks debating theology in Lambeth Palace.

It's so much easier to condemn abstract people as sinful than it is Harry and Dave, who have both given their lives to Christ, both love each other deeply and are committed to one another for the rest of their lives.

Oh, and I resent the hijacking of the term "evangelical" by the loony right of the church. All Christians are called to evangelism to some degree. The term should never be co-opted by a small group.

[eyebeams.livejournal.com]

The trouble is that as much as it irritates of have folks in frocks in Lambeth Palace, that kind of theological discourse does keep the church coherent. When we make religion an entirely personal relationship, then there's little to challenge our preconceptions. I think folks like Fred Phelps are the dark side of wanting faith to be less institutionally driven, because people like him don't have to suffer frocked debates at all. They just make it up as they go along and trust that their authority as a believer is enough. In my experience of Anglicanism, the church demands a stricter intellectual standard that safeguards against this kind of destructive narcissism.

I'm not sure it's right to condemn a homosexual for not being celibate when the church has seen fit not to grant any relationship that he may have any sort of sanctity. Certainly, it would be a greater offense to the institution of marriage to stay in a relationship built upon a lie, though I grant that such a relationship may not have been a good idea to begin with (then again, though, it takes time to come out for some people, much less be consciously aware of their sexuality).

The solution, then would be to legitimize gay marriage, and retroaactively sanctify relationships formed beforehand that could not previously benefit.

Finally, I'm not ascribing evangelism to any particular group, but recognizing that it does implicitly ascribe universal moral authority to the faith. That means that what the church requires is, in some sense, a wider social presecription.

[adders.livejournal.com]

"The trouble is that as much as it irritates of have folks in frocks in Lambeth Palace, that kind of theological discourse does keep the church coherent. When we make religion an entirely personal relationship, then there's little to challenge our preconceptions."

I don't advocate religion as a solely personal relationship. Christianity explicitly defines faith as a communal activity.

"In my experience of Anglicanism, the church demands a stricter intellectual standard that safeguards against this kind of destructive narcissism."

This is largely true, and it is very much the case that the church does not have a head as such. It works via consensus. The major problem with 50 men in frocks in Lambeth Palace is that the secular world does not understand that these are not the bosses of the church, and they do not have the authority to tell other Christians what to do.

"I'm not sure it's right to condemn a homosexual for not being celibate when the church has seen fit not to grant any relationship that he may have any sort of sanctity. "

That logic brings us to this: 'I'm not sure it's right to condemn a straight man for sleeping around just because he hasn't found a woman who'll marry him', which I cannot accept. If a person claims to follow a set of teachings, he should live by those teachings even if they inconvenience him. That applies in both cases. If those teachings do not allow him to do certain things, then he should accept that. The problem I have with so many of the pro-homosexual marriage arguments is that they treat sexuality as the single most important aspect of a person's existence, which is not and never will be the case.

"Certainly, it would be a greater offense to the institution of marriage to stay in a relationship built upon a lie"

When a Christian enters a marriage, he should be doing so for life "for better or for worse". There is no limitation on the "worse" there. Your argument only holds for a non-Christian value of marriage. The man made a commitment and promise before God and chose to abandon it. Again, you're using sex as the sole defining aspect of a person.

"The solution, then would be to legitimize gay marriage, and retroaactively sanctify relationships formed beforehand that could not previously benefit."

That would certainly be the case if the church ever decided to legitimise gay marriage, certainly.

"That means that what the church requires is, in some sense, a wider social presecription."

What do you mean by "social prescription"? If you mean that the church should be dictated to by society's current set of morals, well, I couldn't disagree with you more. If a faith has value, it is working to a set of value assigned by an external entity, God, and must always pursue those, not society's approval. What you're advocating is not a faith, but a mutable set of moral values.

[eyebeams.livejournal.com]

"I don't advocate religion as a solely personal relationship. Christianity explicitly defines faith as a communal activity."

Sure, but the catholic (small "c" here, obviously) tradition also demands that we exercise reason to determine the validity of doctrine. This is something that requires that educated people basically argue about it a lot.

"This is largely true, and it is very much the case that the church does not have a head as such. It works via consensus. The major problem with 50 men in frocks in Lambeth Palace is that the secular world does not understand that these are not the bosses of the church, and they do not have the authority to tell other Christians what to do."

That's true enough, but they are an integral part of what binds many Anglican communities into a larger body. If faith equals community, the people who are integral to the forging of a larger Anglican community are important. I do agree, though, that the media doesn't seem to understand that the A of C isn't a kind of junior Pope.

"That logic brings us to this: 'I'm not sure it's right to condemn a straight man for sleeping around just because he hasn't found a woman who'll marry him', which I cannot accept."

I don't agree that this is the inevityable logical conclusion. A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation.

"If a person claims to follow a set of teachings, he should live by those teachings even if they inconvenience him. That applies in both cases."

On the contrary, I believe that there's little sense in obeying a doctrine that appears to contradict Jesus' essential teachings or is otherwise irrational when compared to the larger corpus of Anglican doctrine. The church appears to believe this as well, given its history. There are few Christians who wholly obey Pauline scripture; this certainly indicates to me that people can apply reason to church teachings without being harmful.

"If those teachings do not allow him to do certain things, then he should accept that. The problem I have with so many of the pro-homosexual marriage arguments is that they treat sexuality as the single most important aspect of a person's existence, which is not and never will be the case."

On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. Getting back to Paul, it looks like his opinions to do with these topics are the ones that the church has been most reluctant to rethink. I think the movement twoard accepting homosexual marriage and participation in all aspects of the Chrstian community is a sign that sexuality is being deemphasized as a factor in one's relationship with God.

On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions -- and the notion that God prefers homosexuals to remain celibate while simultaneously providing this gift strikes me as inconsistent with church teachings about God's goodness.

[adders.livejournal.com]

"Sure, but the catholic (small "c" here, obviously) tradition also demands that we exercise reason to determine the validity of doctrine."

True. The ABofC has done a series on conversation pieces on Channel 4 in recent weeks, the last of which was last night. He pointed out that the development of the faith is a three cornered thing, with the tension between scripture, reason and tradition (ie, the accumulated thinking of centuries of Christians) giving theological progress. He also explained very clearly that the Anglican communion moves forward by consensus, rather than dictat, and the current issue is one element of the church trying to move everyone else forward whether they like it or not. In essence, once reason and scripture have reached an agreement, it enters tradition and the whole body of Christ moves forwards.

This is an interesting position, and one I tend to agree with. It's well known that the ABofC is privately in favour of gay marriage, but has similar concerns to me: the manner in which this cause is being pushed forwards in New Hampshire, and the nature of the man being used as the standard bearer.

"A heterosexual man is capable of sanctifying these relationships within the church. A homosexual is not. It isn't the same situation."

Ah, but I think it is. You see, no-one is guaranteed the right to express their sexuality through action. They may only do so if someone is prepared to commit their life to a joining with the other person. So, in essence, a single straight Christian and a single gay Christian can be in exactly the same position (and I know some single straight Christians for whom this is a great and difficult struggle). I agree that currently there is some hope for the straight Christian and very little for the homosexual Christian, but I also think that this should not be the case (and increasingly isn't, actually. Many Christians explicitly accept committed gay relationships, even if formal blessings are only available in a few places).

"On the contrary, I believe that there's little sense in obeying a doctrine that appears to contradict Jesus' essential teachings or is otherwise irrational when compared to the larger corpus of Anglican doctrine."

There's still significant debate on the matter though, and many Christians would feel it meet to wait until that debate is largely resolved before committing themselves to what could be considered a sinful act. Remember, to a Christian a right relationship with God through Jesus should be the most important thing in their lives, and all else should flow from it.

"On the contrary, it appears to be the church's historical position that sexuality and gender are of preeminent importance. "

Well, that's because the church is full of people and people get hung up on sex. :-)

I won't deny that for various reasons of prejudice, fear and ignorance the church's teachings on sexuality have been all out of whack for a very long time. Finally, some proportion is being placed on the issue.

"On the other hand, sexuality *is* important -- often called a "gift from God" in theological discussions"

Yes, but that's sexuality as in the ability to enjoy sex, to be a sexual beings, as opposed to sexuality as in sexual orientation. For instance, no-one would try to argue that an inborn sexual desire for children or corpses was a "gift from God". However, as you know I do agree that sex is a gift from God, but purely as a binding factor in an exclusive, life-long relationship between two adults. And I see no good reason why extending that sacrament to same sex couple, with all the same provisos as apply to heterosexual couples, shouldn't be done. However, I also accept that the wider Anglican communion does not entirely hold with my views on this. Indeed, my wife doesn't. She doesn't even believe that we should have women priests. :-)

[eyebeams.livejournal.com]

"When a Christian enters a marriage, he should be doing so for life "for better or for worse". There is no limitation on the "worse" there. Your argument only holds for a non-Christian value of marriage. The man made a commitment and promise before God and chose to abandon it."

This also happens in other cases of separation and divorce, yet I don't hear much about this when it's a heterosexual affair. Furthermore, I have to ask you whether you consider marriage to be a sacrament, because you ascribe great weight to how this affects someone's relationship with God. If it isn't (and the Anglican teaching is that it isn't), then marraige is a symbolic gesture. We can consider the failure of a marriage to be disappointing, but it's certainly possible to consider mitigating factors and apply compassion in a fashion one wouldn't extend to sacramental affairs.

"Again, you're using sex as the sole defining aspect of a person."

No, I'm just saying it's a rather important part of marriage.

"That would certainly be the case if the church ever decided to legitimise gay marriage, certainly."

I hope so.

"What do you mean by "social prescription"? If you mean that the church should be dictated to by society's current set of morals, well, I couldn't disagree with you more."

Oh no; my wording was obviously un clear. What I'm saying is that, implicitly at least, church teachings are also the community's statement on how people who aren't a part of that body ought to behave. Thus, even if you say that this is simply what you need to do to be a good Christain, it is implicit that this is what you feel a person of any religious persuasion should do.

All the same, social change allows us to examine what details are consistent with the message of the faith. For instance, a growing social consciousness about the status of women allows the church to find a context to examine whether its own positions on women are coherent parts of the religion. This sort of examination has borne positive fruit without forcing the church to obey social trends.

"If a faith has value, it is working to a set of value assigned by an external entity, God, and must always pursue those, not society's approval. What you're advocating is not a faith, but a mutable set of moral values."

I like to think I'm advocating a refinement of moral values that becomes ever more consistent with Jesus' command to love others as oneself and to respect gifts of God such as (homo)sexuality, even if some of those gifts are disliked by the wider culture.

[adders.livejournal.com]

"This also happens in other cases of separation and divorce, yet I don't hear much about this when it's a heterosexual affair."

And I think that's a terrible failing of the Anglican church. While I accept that allowing divorce is a theologically acceptable position which applies the principle of love to a fallen, imperfect world, it should never be celebrated, just regretted. I may be liberal in my views on homosexual marriage, but I'm pretty conservative when it comes to marriage itself.

"Furthermore, I have to ask you whether you consider marriage to be a sacrament, because you ascribe great weight to how this affects someone's relationship with God. If it isn't (and the Anglican teaching is that it isn't), then marraige is a symbolic gesture."

No, I consider marriage in the light of Jesus's own teachings on the matter, which are pretty straightforward on the way two married people should approach one another. he's pretty hardcore on the matter (Matthew 5:27-31). I also consider it in the light of my personal experience of being brought up by two parents from broken homes, who had some very, very strong views on the matter. Happily, Jesus's teachings and my parents views coincide rather neatly.

"We can consider the failure of a marriage to be disappointing, but it's certainly possible to consider mitigating factors and apply compassion in a fashion one wouldn't extend to sacramental affairs."

That's exactly my viewpoint. My problem with Gene Robinson is that he celebrates the end of his marriage, which makes him a far poorer poster boy for the issue of gay marriage that he might me.

"Oh no; my wording was obviously un clear. What I'm saying is that, implicitly at least, church teachings are also the community's statement on how people who aren't a part of that body ought to behave. Thus, even if you say that this is simply what you need to do to be a good Christain, it is implicit that this is what you feel a person of any religious persuasion should do."

I don't actually think that follows. I certainly don't think my Christian beliefs define how a Muslim should live his life... All Christian teaching can do is teach us how Christians should behave and give us a moral context for commenting on the lives of others.

"All the same, social change allows us to examine what details are consistent with the message of the faith. For instance, a growing social consciousness about the status of women allows the church to find a context to examine whether its own positions on women are coherent parts of the religion. This sort of examination has borne positive fruit without forcing the church to obey social trends."

That I agree with.

" and to respect gifts of God such as (homo)sexuality"

Again, speaking as somebody who is broadly pro-Homosexual marriage within the church, I think the "this is a sexuality that God gifted us" is probably the weakest argument of all, simply because it opens to the door to the argument "God gave me the desire to have sex with children/goats/97 people at the same time/people other than my wife, and this is a gift from God that should be respected". The you have to fall back on "homosexuality is good and the others are bad because...." argument, and you're essentially making a different case.

I feel it's better argued that marriage is a life-long commitment between two people to companionship, mutual aid and succour, love and the expression of love between them in a physical manner. I have yet to see a really good argument why that relationship cannot be expressed between two people of the same sex without offending God.

[doctorcaligari.livejournal.com]

Coolness. Manifest proof that reason and Christianity are not incompatible...I agree that it often looks in the media like radicals, loonies and the hopelessly dogma-bound have hijacked religion, and that this is a tragedy, but that can only be countered by examples such as you're both providing. The sane need to be far oftener heard from.

[eyebeams.livejournal.com]

I don't want to continue the discussion to the point where it gets unwieldy, but I wanted to comment on this:

"Again, speaking as somebody who is broadly pro-Homosexual marriage within the church, I think the "this is a sexuality that God gifted us" is probably the weakest argument of all, simply because it opens to the door to the argument "God gave me the desire to have sex with children/goats/97 people at the same time/people other than my wife, and this is a gift from God that should be respected"."

. . . because I anticipated it when I posted it. We certainly wouldn't call any urge that does harm to others (or, in neutral conditions, ourselves) a divine gift, and can filter out the stuff that your contervailing examples are mostly about. I think we can apply reason to determine that consensual sexual contact between emotionally prepared adults is inherently different than pederasty, and that the urge to express this gift is different from the urge to do harm. Plus, of course, when we examine the personal histories of abusers, we see that they have almost always been harmed themselves, and are not expressing the potential of their own selves properly.

"The you have to fall back on "homosexuality is good and the others are bad because...." argument, and you're essentially making a different case."

I don't think so. I think that when we talk about sexuality as a gift from God, we have to do so in a fashion that limits it to things that are consistent with God's love, so other instances that do harm don't even show up on the radar. Most of them have explainable psychological origins anyway that make them different from the nature we could presume God laid down upon us.