The Great Tradition vs The Gay tradition
The homosexual debate seems to be causing a Web 2.0 fire. From the New York Times to the National Post and now to this dude who thinks he’s smarter than the Bishop of Durham. This monstrous debate is a sign of a much deeper problem.
When Christians fail to understand that they belong and are called to submit to a tradition greater than their present context things get confusing. Now i know what your thinking. If Christians embraced the great tradition of faith we’d still have slaves etc…. But that just isn’t true. The sexual orientation issues is a very different debate. Freak’n do your homework.
The struggle within the Evangelical context stems around the authority of scripture and ones personal hermeneutical position. Like many would argue, you can make the bible say whatever you want it to say, FINE! But what does the Great Tradition of Christian history have to say?
There are a select few within the Protestant Evangelical tradition that have earned the right from their fellow ecumenical brothers and sisters in Christ to speak with such authority and N.T. Wright is one of those people.
His recent thoughts in a Times UK article speak for themselves. Read it and make a decision. Are you part of the Great Tradition or the Gay tradition.
Buddy even says that the conservative orthodox movement in the Anglican Chruch is going to set up parralel jurisdictions in England – proves that the issue is not morality but unity. It is communion, not cohabitation.
susna
Ok, I’m writing in the dark here. Cannot see what I am posyting. Hope this works. The challenge in my mind is about how the church can genuinbely love gay people, without condoning behaviour. The book Love is an Orientation does an excellent jobn of demonstrating how to straddle that divide. LI was in the United Church when the issue of gay marriage came up, and my sense was that the barn door had been left open when commonlaw marriage was recognized as marriage. And then, if gay marriage is sanctioned, why not ordination of gay people. I have said for years and years that we need as a church to ppull away from cultural norms and instead institute a covenant of marriage only, without the legal stuff, where we can adhere to bibloicical pattermn for marriage. I have a friend who is a Christian man who has recently come out as gay – among other gay friuends – so this is loaded for me too. Even polity and ecclesiology have to tempered with mecy and kindness, in a creative way that doe snot compromise the truth.
Susan
thanks for posting in the dark… Sorry…
Maybe it’s an illustration of how the church feels
as it address this issue. I think you bring up some
great points. Also I agree that we need to be more
creative on how to embrace those who are
gay.
What I feel the church has to do is rearticulate this
issue in light of leadership and authority.
Sorry, the so called “great tradition” on the reading of scripture in this way, and particularly on the translations of scripture in which the word homosexual was inserted, date only back to the 1920s. There is no legitimate “Great Tradition” on the subject of Homosexuality, because the concept and word simply did not exist at the time.
Reading the scriptures for oneself and interpreting their plain text is also a Great Tradition. The gross misinterpretation of scripture as anti-homosexual is, in fact, exactly the same error as the now discredited misinterpretation of scripture as supporting slavery. And the two issues have been discussed in EXACTLY the same terms with the same arguments on both sides.
Besides, the ONLY “Great Tradition” that is final, definitive, and binding for orthodox catholics such as TEC are the creeds and other results of the only 7 ecumenical councils that are accepted by the entire church. EVERYTHING else is the result of individual readings of scripture and/or local synods and are, therefor, subject to judicious revision.
In this case, Wright is clearly just simply wrong. He’s wrong scripturally (READ IT FOR YOURSELF); he’s badly misinformed as to what TEC has said in the two resolutions (READ THEM FOR YOURSELF); and, above all, he’s wrong about how our lord has commanded us to regard hidebound and unjust “traditions” and what our lord has commanded us to do in ministering to our fellow human beings (READ THEM FOR YOURSELF).
HI bookguy.. thanks for your post.. I’ll reply shortly..
Hey Bro, happy to see you enter into the debate. One of the “pro – blessing “arguments put forward is that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality, “argumentum ex silentio”. For these groups Jesus’ words are at the fore, Paul and the Old Testament in a distant second. This said the issue, although Scripture is used as the primary battleground, must also take into account issues that are outside of the Biblical Text, issues that are pastoral in nature. I fear to sharply come down on one side or the other is to neglect these pastoral concerns. I agree that Scripture leans toward prohibiting same sex relations (same – sex blessing included); this said Scripture, Jesus’ words in particular also say a little something with regards to “divorce” (Mark 10: 11, 12) and the Church has found a way to embrace divorcees and allow for pastoral care for those who have suffered such a break. With regards to homosexuality I feel that Scriptural Authority must be honoured and Tradition and Reason must be utilized in order to create new and innovative ways to minister to our homosexual brothers and lesbian sisters. I encourage you to read beyond N.T. Wright (a scholar I very much respect) and listen to the voices on the other side of the argument and hopefully recognize that both sides are concerned with people and the Church’s wellbeing. In dealing with this issue as an Anglican I often feel like I am riding a unicycle trying to stay on course not veering to one or the other.
sorry a correction “In dealing with this issue as an Anglican I often feel like I am riding a unicycle trying to stay on course not veering to one side or the other.”
Jon,
so nice to hear from you.
I totally agree on the pastoral front. This is a deep pastoral issue, but i think you bring up an important point. When the debate is simply rooted in the certain biblical passages a type of 21st century Marcionism takes place. The texts we like we embrace and those that don’t fit our position we relegate to some second class. The canon needs to be read in a holistic manner on this issue.
As for scholars, i am ready many others, but N.T. Wright provides a picture from inside the Anglican communion. Also, one of the issues i’ve tried to bring up is the issue of authority, leadership and submission.
Not sure I understand the “no legitimate Tradition on homosexuality” assertion.
The Didache, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Basil, Augustine, John Chrysostom all condemn homosexuality, and I am leaving out the anti-pedastry polemicists, since the discussion is presumably about single-partner lifelong homsexual relationships. Is your assertion that since such open cohabitation was not typically in the view of the Fathers, that their viceral condemnation of homsexuality does not hold water? If so, does the same logic apply to the Fathers’ other moral pronouncements and Biblical interpretations? Or do you reject anything outside the Universal Councils as authoritative? Just trying to understand your angle.
Hey Joey. I think it would be helpful to quote the examples from The Didache, Justin Martyr, etc. This said here are some I found online that are quite helpful. One should note, as you have mentioned, that single – partner lifelong homosexual relationships are not in the scope of these texts. Also, a biological view of sex is being advocated meaning that one’s sexuality is determined by the sexual organs given rather than a neurological understanding of homosexuality that is often proposed, which leads into the discussion of nature of nurture.
The Didache
“You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one that has been born” (Didache 2:2 [A.D. 70]).
Justin Martyr
[W]e have been taught that to expose newly-born children is the part of wicked men; and this we have been taught lest we should do anyone harm and lest we should sin against God, first, because we see that almost all so exposed (not only the girls, but also the males) are brought up to prostitution. And for this pollution a multitude of females and hermaphrodites, and those who commit unmentionable iniquities, are found in every nation. And you receive the hire of these, and duty and taxes from them, whom you ought to exterminate from your realm. And anyone who uses such persons, besides the godless and infamous and impure intercourse, may possibly be having intercourse with his own child, or relative, or brother. And there are some who prostitute even their own children and wives, and some are openly mutilated for the purpose of sodomy; and they refer these mysteries to the mother of the gods” (First Apology 27 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
“All honor to that king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis was, who shot with an arrow one of his subjects who imitated among the Scythians the mystery of the mother of the gods . . . condemning him as having become effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians” (Exhortation to the Greeks 2 [A.D. 190]).
“[According to Greek myth] Baubo [a female native of Eleusis] having received [the goddess] Demeter hospitably, reached to her a refreshing draught; and on her refusing it, not having any inclination to drink (for she was very sad), and Baubo having become annoyed, thinking herself slighted, uncovered her shame, and exhibited her nudity to the goddess. Demeter is delighted with the sight—pleased, I repeat, at the spectacle. These are the secret mysteries of the Athenians; these Orpheus records” (ibid.).
“It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede. Let such gods as these be worshipped by your wives, and let them pray that their husbands be such as these—so temperate; that, emulating them in the same practices, they may be like the gods. Such gods let your boys be trained to worship, that they may grow up to be men with the accursed likeness of fornication on them received from the gods” (ibid.).
…
“In accordance with these remarks, conversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like” (The Instructor 6, ca. A.D. 193).
“The fate of the Sodomites was judgment to those who had done wrong, instruction to those who hear. The Sodomites having, through much luxury, fallen into uncleanness, practicing adultery shamelessly, and burning with insane love for boys; the All-seeing Word, whose notice those who commit impieties cannot escape, cast his eye on them. Nor did the sleepless guard of humanity observe their licentiousness in silence; but dissuading us from the imitation of them, and training us up to his own temperance, and falling on some sinners, lest lust being unavenged, should break loose from all the restraints of fear, ordered Sodom to be burned,
pouring forth a little of the sagacious fire on licentiousness; lest lust, through want of punishment, should throw wide the gates to those that were rushing into voluptuousness. Accordingly, the just punishment of the Sodomites became to men an image of the salvation which is well calculated for men. For those who have not committed like sins with those who are punished, will never receive a like punishment” (ibid., 8).
Tertullian
“[A]ll other frenzies of the lusts which exceed the laws of nature, and are impious toward both [human] bodies and the sexes, we banish, not only from the threshold but also from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities” (Modesty 4 [A.D. 220]).
Novatian
“[God forbade the Jews to eat certain foods for symbolic reasons:] For that in fishes the roughness of scales is regarded as constituting their cleanness; rough, and rugged, and unpolished, and substantial, and grave manners are approved in men; while those that are without scales are unclean, because trifling, and fickle, and faithless, and effeminate manners are disapproved. Moreover, what does the law mean when it . . . forbids the swine to be taken for food? It assuredly reproves a life filthy and dirty, and delighting in the garbage of vice. . . . Or when it forbids the hare? It rebukes men deformed into women” (The Jewish Foods 3 [A.D. 250]).
Cyprian of Carthage
“[T]urn your looks to the abominations, not less to be deplored, of another kind of spectacle. . . . Men are emasculated, and all the pride and vigor of their sex is effeminated in the disgrace of their enervated body; and he is more pleasing there who has most completely broken down the man into the woman. He grows into praise by virtue of his crime; and the more he is degraded, the more skillful he is considered to be. Such a one is looked upon—oh shame!—and looked upon with pleasure. . . . Nor is there wanting authority for the enticing abomination . . . that Jupiter of theirs [is] not more supreme in dominion than in vice, inflamed with earthly love in the midst of his own thunders . . . now breaking forth by the help of birds to violate the purity of boys. And now put the question: Can he who looks upon such things be healthy-minded or modest? Men imitate the gods whom they adore, and to such miserable beings their crimes become their religion” (Letters 1:8 [A.D. 253]).
“Oh, if placed on that lofty watchtower, you could gaze into the secret places—if you could open the closed doors of sleeping chambers and recall their dark recesses to the perception of sight—you would behold things done by immodest persons which no chaste eye could look upon; you would see what even to see is a crime; you would see what people embruted with the madness of vice deny that they have done, and yet hasten to do—men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men, doing things which afford no gratification even to those who do them” (ibid., 1:9).
Arnobius
“[T]he mother of the gods loved [the boy Attis] exceedingly, because he was of most surpassing beauty; and Acdestis [the son of Jupiter] who was his companion, as he grew up fondling him, and bound to him by wicked compliance with his lust. . . . Afterwards, under the influence of wine, he [Attis] admits that he is . . . loved by Acdestis. . . . Then Midas, king of Pessinus, wishing to withdraw the youth from so disgraceful an intimacy, resolves to give him his own daughter in marriage. . . . Acdestis, bursting with rage because of the boy’s being torn from himself and brought to seek a wife, fills all the guests with frenzied madness; the Phrygians shriek, panic-stricken at the appearance of the gods. . . . [Attis] too, now filled with furious passion, raving frantically and tossed about, throws himself down at last, and under a pine tree mutilates himself, saying, ‘Take these, Acdestis, for which you have stirred up so great and terribly perilous commotions’” (Against the Pagans 5:6–7 [A.D. 305]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“[H]aving forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men, he [God] adds: ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for in all these things the nations were defiled, which I will drive out before you. And the land was polluted, and I have recompensed [their] iniquity upon it, and the land is grieved with them that dwell upon it’ [Lev. 18:24–25]” (Proof of the Gospel 4:10 [A.D. 319]).
Basil the Great
“He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers” (Letters 217:62 [A.D. 367]).
“If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [A.D. 373]).
John Chrysostom
“[The pagans] were addicted to the love of boys, and one of their wise men made a law that pederasty . . . should not be allowed to slaves, as if it was an honorable thing; and they had houses for this purpose, in which it was openly practiced. And if all that was done among them was related, it would be seen that they openly outraged nature, and there was none to restrain them. . . . As for their passion for boys, whom they called their paedica, it is not fit to be named” (Homilies on Titus 5 [A.D. 390]).
“[Certain men in church] come in gazing about at the beauty of women; others curious about the blooming youth of boys. After this, do you not marvel that [lightning] bolts are not launched [from heaven], and all these things are not plucked up from their foundations? For worthy both of thunderbolts and hell are the things that are done; but God, who is long-suffering, and of great mercy, forbears awhile his wrath, calling you to repentance and amendment” (Homilies on Matthew 3:3 [A.D. 391]).
“All of these affections [in Rom. 1:26–27] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored than the body in diseases” (Homilies on Romans 4 [A.D. 391]).
“[The men] have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more shame than men” (ibid.).
“And sundry other books of the philosophers one may see full of this disease. But we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature; but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this would be worse than any punishment” (ibid.).
Augustine
“[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished. If all nations were to do such things, they would be held guilty of the same crime by the law of God, which has not made men so that they should use one another in this way” (Confessions 3:8:15 [A.D. 400]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“[Christians] abhor all unlawful mixtures, and that which is practiced by some contrary to nature, as wicked and impious” (Apostolic Constitutions 6:11 [A.D. 400]).
correction, “…nature or nurture.” It’s hard to edit on this thing, sorry guys.
@ Joey – Yes, I believe that most catholics would agree that only the first seven ecumenical councils speak authoritatively and finally for the entire catholic faith (at least until there is another council of the entire church – which seems unlikely in the near future). Everything else is just someone’s opinion (very often highly respected, valued and even treasured opinions, I grant you); they, too, are subject to error and/or revision.
In most contemporary theological thought, the opinions on this subject are not so much “rejected,” but their limitations are and must be recognized. I could just as easily go through those sources and show you instances in which these same authorities defend slavery and/or the subjugation of women and/or absolutist monarchy or the forbidding of divorce and/or remarriage. They were wrong about that, as we mostly now all agree; in those instances in which they may have intended to condemn homosexuality, they were wrong about that too.
Similarly, I think that we are all in agreement that Wright is generally a scholar to be respected. But none of us would, I think, try to claim that his views are definitive for the catholic faith; this is especially true when he is so clearly arguing from an emotional reaction rather than from the perspective of scholarly study and objectivity. As noted in Fr Scott’s response to his op-ed, he does not seem to have even read the resolutions (B033 and D025) under discussion very carefully if at all.
Although I am not familiar with all of the citations you reference, from what I am familiar with I would go further and agree with what I take to be Jonathan Massimi’s argument that there seems to be significant doubt as to the extent to which the authorities you cite actually do condemn the kind of homosexual relationships under discussion. I am unaware of anyone in the context of TEC, or any other part of the catholic faith, who would argue with the assertion that abusive and/or unequal relationships are condemned morally and scripturally. As both you and JM have already pointed out: “one should note… that single – partner lifelong homosexual relationships are not in the scope of these texts.” In these cases, too, there seems to be substantial silence on the subject; but so too, in these cases, there seems to be substantial evidence that these authorities are in favor of taking loving pastoral care of our fellow human beings.
On the subject of “argumentum ex silentio:” it isn’t just that Jesus’ silence on the immediate subject over-rules other parts of scripture; Jesus’ silence on the subject COMPLIMENTS the silence of both the Epistles and the Old Testament on the subject. It’s not that Paul and the Old Testament just take a distant second to Jesus, but that their silence compliments Jesus’ silence.
In the absence of direct and immediate condemnation, we, as Christians, must revert to Jesus’ core message, the truly central commandments for Christians. Scripture does not even so much as “lean” toward prohibiting ALL same sex relations. No one I know of would reject the condemnation of exploitative/unequal relationships which is clearly present. Scripture is, however, abundantly clear that Jesus does command us to take pastoral care of our fellow human beings. Those commandments are abundantly clear, sharply stated, and far from silent in scripture: the exact opposite of “argumentum ex silentio.” Although it is true that our understanding of the world and human nature has evolved over time, one does not need to go to outside scriptural texts to see our duty as Christians in addressing these pastoral concerns.
bookguybaltmd thank you for your thoughtful responses. Here is a little something I found helpful, it is posted on my Diocesan Website: http://www.niagara.anglican.ca/Niagara_Rite/docs/Niagara_Rite_Theology.pdf
Thankfully, God, who is more loving and knowledgeable than all humans combined, will judge this matter, not I. Perhaps someone could clarify why we need to take a definitive stance on the issue. It isn’t like the stance that a particular church/pastor takes is going to change God’s mind about the matter. Nor is it like God is going to ask one particular church/pastor about the ethics of the situation before he decides on the eternal destiny of the group of people in question. God knows whats up, and that is the only person who needs to know. Thankfully, it is out of our hands. In our hands, it just gets muddied up.
Dwayne, great to see the site is working for you.
As most of us would agreed God will one day judge, yet it remains intricate to the pastoral vocation to teach, guide, reprove and shepherd those who are part of the Body of Christ. This was Jesus request of Peter (Peter feed my sheep) and one that all pastor continue to try to embody.
In addition to Jesus’ words, Paul exhorts a young pastor to do likewise. He writes
“On my way to the province of Macedonia, I advised you to stay in Ephesus. Well, I haven’t changed my mind. Stay right there on top of things so that the teaching stays on track. Apparently some people have been introducing fantasy stories and fanciful family trees that digress into silliness instead of pulling the people back into the center, deepening faith and obedience. 1Timothy 1:3-4
Dwayne, like other pastors, i really wish that i didn’t have this role. It would be so much easier to just do as you recommend, but i think this is the gift and the curse of the Pastor.
Hey Dom,
Thanks for the reply. I do see where you are coming from. And, I do feel the tension for those who have a theology that informs them that they have to make the decision on this issue. It is a lose/lose issue, or at least, it seems that way to many. Perhaps one way a pastor would encourage their congregation on this matter is to remind them that they will one day have to give an account before God of all they do, so they better be absolutely certain that what they are doing is right. That is a sobering exhortation, and I can think of no man-made decree that brings more fear or peace.
I can certainly agree that we must all “one day have to give an account before God of all {we} do, so {we} better be absolutely certain that what {we} are doing is right. That is a sobering exhortation, and I can think of no man-made decree that brings more fear or peace.”
@bookguy: Good point. I did not mean to exclude myself, or the issues I deal with, nor did I mean to exclude other people who have other issues they are dealing with. Thanks for correcting that.
My account before God will thankfully appeal to and draw from the merits of Jesus. In terms of living the full and blessed life that He promises me on earth, I wish to live in accordance with the revealed Faith of the Apostles.
Excellent point about Revealed Tradition residing the seven ecumenical councils more surely than in random patristic writings. I would not want to muddy that particular pool by any means.
I suppose my point was only to convey that the Tradition is not silent on the issue of homosexuality. The Magisterium is clear overall. Of course, this poses the problem of defining the Magisterium, and like almost any contentious issue argued to its logical core (as this one did surprisingly quickly), it seems that all roads lead to Rome, or at least the question of what to do with Rome. Who has the authority to settle this argument? I submit that it needs to be settled and that freedom of conscience is a conclusion inconsistent with the discussion so far.
Hi Joey,
Does your post suggest that Rome tells God who to let into heaven at the judgment day? Alright, I guess, good luck to them on that. I guess God will decide if he wants to make up his own mind or listen to a group of people on the issue. I assume that God makes up his own mind, and that he has the authority to settle the argument. But maybe I’m wrong.
On one point I certainly agree. Freedom of conscience is inconsistent with the discussion so far. By this I mean that humanity as individuals, or as a whole, does not have the freedom to decide who will go to heaven or not, only God decides that matter. That is why the conclusions reached by certain people, or groups of people, don’t sway me. The decision rests with God.
“Who has the authority to settle this argument? I submit that it needs to be settled and that freedom of conscience is a conclusion inconsistent with the discussion so far.”
The only authority to settle questions that are not clear in scripture for the entire catholic church is an ecumenical council. The bishop of rome has absolutely no authority in the catholic church outside that granted by the synod of his local church synod (sometimes called Roman Catholicism).
Fortunately, this is not an issue that is core to christian doctrine; it’s “just” a pastoral issue which is most approriately addressed one way or the other on a local level. It does not need, and in fact is especially inapropriately addressed, on the catholic level.
Fortunately also, scriptures are pretty clearly not condemning of long-term monogamous homosexuality. There has been absolutely no convincing evidence that committed same-sex relationships are in any way short of the image of God’s Love, or even objectively disordered and harmful.
There is ample evidence that preaching such a position endangers and kills people, leaves them in miserable, unfulfilling lives, drives them from God and leaves them in darkness and misery, as well as enciting weak-minded, weak-willed individuals to violently attack and kill GLBT’s.
It’s a question – quite simply – of whether we have enough faith in God’s mercy and goodness to risk erring on the side of mercy and compassion, or whether we are so fearful of a vengeful and uncomprehendingly violent God that we would risk others for a made up “law” (which seems to originate from a short-term political position) which costs anyone outside the immediate pastoral context nothing to enforce.
I grant you that making up “laws” from political opinions and then transforming those “laws” into “doctrines” is something of which the romans seem to have made a specialty, but none of that has anything to do with genuine catholicism. Certainly it would NEVER give him the authority to settle a pastoral concern in a diocese outside rome, let alone one in another denomination of catholicism. Certainly an authoritarian political structure such as that which is the ambition of a bishop in Rome has nothing to do with Anglicanism and, even less so to do with the TEC.
@ Dwayne
“Does your post suggest that Rome tells God who to let into heaven at the judgment day? Alright, I guess, good luck to them on that. I guess God will decide if he wants to make up his own mind or listen to a group of people on the issue. I assume that God makes up his own mind, and that he has the authority to settle the argument. But maybe I’m wrong.
On one point I certainly agree. Freedom of conscience is inconsistent with the discussion so far. By this I mean that humanity as individuals, or as a whole, does not have the freedom to decide who will go to heaven or not, only God decides that matter. That is why the conclusions reached by certain people, or groups of people, don’t sway me. The decision rests with God.”
In one sense, it seems that God already HAS weighed in on the subject since he made the folks in question gay in the first place. As others have pointed out, homosexuality is essentially a normal human trait: like left-handed-ness. Western medicine and science accepts homosexuality as a natural variant, not a pathology, which occurs across cultures and ethnic groups at a fairly consistent rate.
I won’t wade into the argument about the Bishop of Rome’s authority, though polity and authority are inextricably linked. But, I do wish to at least explore the position I held as a “closet Anglican” for a few years: namely, that the seven ecumenical councils constitute the entirety of orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
How do you deal with the following facts and easy assumptions:
A) There was opposition to and/or exclusion from each council by/against bodies with at least as much relative following and claim to legitimacy as the Anglican Communion has now, and yet we regard the outcomes of those councils as authoritative.
B) A council convened tomorrow by any body at all would be opposed, rejected, or ignored by vast sections of humanity under the christian banner.
C) The Councils are internally inconsistent prima facia. The Nicean creed correction (Nicea I vs. Constantinople I), the Theopaschite Formula (Chalcedon vs. Constantinople II), among others, require authoritative interpretation.
D) The exclusive claims of the catholic Church (Roman or otherwise) require someone to own and administrate them.
Has the splintering of the Church diminished God’s ability to govern? How many dissenters does it take to render a council invalid? Is another council impossible?
@bookguy
I’m not sure I would use those types of arguments to validate homosexuality. Humans have a lot of natural dispositions which God still wants us to gain mastery over. One related example, biologists argue that heterosexuals have ‘natural dispositions’ to mate with more than one member of the species, yet God calls us to do more than simply follow these natural dispositions. Thus, I’m not convinced that the argument follows from a) a person has a natural tendency towards homosexuality to b) homosexuality is acceptable. Secondly, I’m quite convinced that within twenty years or so, when the gay community is more confident, they will no longer appeal to the authority of ‘it is a natural disposition’, and will instead celebrate the choices they make. I could be wrong on this though.
@ Dwayne – that’s all well and good, but it simply does not seem to be a choice, as does the choice to be monogamous or promiscuous. Indeed, the scientific, medical, moral and all other evidence we have available to us exclusively suggests that homosexuality is no more a choice than is left handedness. I am right handed. I can (and have) learned/chosen to write with my left hand. That does not make choosing to write with my left hand anymore natural a choice than choosing a sexual orientation that is contrary to my nature. Clearly, Left handed-ness and gender orientations are not something about which there is a valid ground for choice. The complete absence of anything in scripture that can legitimately be interpreted to condemn homosexuality makes this natural orientation something that we, as Christians, must minister to in a healthy way.
To take up your suggestion that there is a “natural tendency” toward polygamy (which I would dispute), I would point out that there are PLENTY of scriptural and moral reasons why we do not approve of heterosexual promiscuity (or homosexual for that matter either). Scripture seems clear, for example, that we not engage in exploitative relationships. Jesus’ commands seem to be very clear about the importance of equality in sexual relationships between people, yet he says nothing at all about homosexuality.
But I was not simply defending TEC’s insistance that we, as Christians, must minister to the pastoral needs of all from a point of view of natural inclinations/choice. That would be foolish since there clearly is no choice. My point was and is that God did create homosexuals with that orientation, just as he created some people left handed and some people right handed. In the absence of God’s instruction otherwise, we are left with what IS clear: that we must minister to homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, each according to his needs, just as we minister to the right handed and the left handed equally, each according to his needs.
To take up your suggestion that there is a “natural tendency” toward polygamy (which I would dispute), I would point out that there are PLENTY of scriptural and moral reasons why we do not approve of heterosexual promiscuity (or homosexual for that matter either). Scripture seems clear, for example, that we not engage in exploitative relationships. Jesus’ commands seem to be very clear about the importance of equality in sexual relationships between people, yet he says nothing at all about homosexuality.
My point is that God did create homosexuals with that orientation, just as he created some people left handed and some people right handed. In the absense of instruction otherwise, we are left with what IS clear: that we must minister to homosexuals and heterosexuals equally, each according to his needs, just as we minister to the right handed and the left handed equally.
Hey Bookguy (what’s your real name )
To suggest that having a homosexual orientation is similar to being lefthanded seems to be stretch of all things biblical. The scriptures are clear that there is something crucial about how our sexuality and our relationships influence our relationship to God.
While it IS clear that we must minister to both homosexuals and heterosexuals equally..to minister does not mean to surrender to every request made by the homosexual or the heterosexual community.
@JG
Interestingly enough, I don’t think that I or anyone else needs to deal with any of your points. They all seem to me to be based on false assumptions.
A) There was opposition to and/or exclusion from each council by/against bodies with at least as much relative following and claim to legitimacy as the Anglican Communion has now, and yet we regard the outcomes of those councils as authoritative.
The fact that the councils are now regarded as authoritative, negates any opposition or exclusion that may have taken place. It would seem that sometimes the settling of an issue and the rise of a consensus takes time. Why should current issues be any different. Take the current discussion as an example; remember, TEC hasn’t taken a particular doctrinal issue and isn’t changing anything that is even remotely core to Christianity. It hasn’t even changed it’s canons on the ordination or marriage process. It has simply said that we take seriously the resolution we agreed to at Lambeth (and consistently over the past three decades in our local synod) to faithfully listen to this portion of humanity (along with all the others) and to include these people in the full body of our faith.
B) A council convened tomorrow by any body at all would be opposed, rejected, or ignored by vast sections of humanity under the Christian banner.
I am not sure you are right that a legitimate council called for a legitimate need would be rejected by such a vast section of Christianity. It is abundantly clear that , were there an issue that required the catholic church to speak as one, there would readily be a large movement toward an appropriate council and a legitimate call to council, agreed upon across all the different forms of the catholic faith without much difficulty. The fact that one has not and will not be called is prima facia evidence that no such issue exists and no such council is needed. It’s also clear that a council called only by one particular bishop (say, for example, the one in Rome) would not be a legitimate council for the entire church and would rightly be rejected as such by most.
C) The Councils are internally inconsistent prima facia. The Nicene creed correction (Nicea I vs. Constantinople I), the Theopaschite Formula (Chalcedon vs. Constantinople II), among others, require authoritative interpretation.
The fact that the output of councils changed that of previous councils is evidence that the church is able to change, but certainly does not require additional interpretation other than by the consensus of each local church. That, of course, is why we have local synods, after all.
D) The exclusive claims of the catholic Church (Roman or otherwise) require someone to own and administrate them.
There is no evidence or reason why the catholic church requires any on-going overall administration other than that currently provided by the Bishops and local synods of the church. There never has been such a need and, as far as anyone can see now, there never will be such a need. Certainly no such need was recognized by the councils nor by the apostles in the early church. There is certainly no exclusive claim on that administration that can or should be honored by any portion of the catholic faith.
E. “Has the splintering of the church diminished God’s ability to govern?”
It would be an interesting question if the church, in fact, had legitimately splintered. However, it seems clear that very few modern Christians do not accept the first seven councils, so there does not seem to have been a splinter.
There DOES seems to be some disagreements on specific solutions to specific issues amongst local churches, but that’s a local matter. The biggest issue seems to be the exclusion of some parts of God’s church by other parts of God’s church over differences regarding political or matters that can only be described as local adaptations of aids to devotion. For example, the bishop of Rome’s insistence on his claim of absolutist governance seems to be one such issue; one primacy amongst several, maybe; but supremacy is completely unfounded. So too does his insistence on adherence to local adaptations of pagan rituals to Christian devotions as if though those devotions carried the weight of catholic doctrine (such as the “immaculate conception of the virgin”). Denying people access to the body of Christ simply because they do not agree with your political opinion or your peculiar local aids to faith seems to come close to splintering the church (IMHO), and is, therefore, inherently flawed.
@ Dom.
I don’t disagree that “scriptures are clear that there is something crucial about how our sexuality and our relationships influence our relationship with God.” There is also no scriptural condemnation of long-term loving, monogamous homosexuality in scripture (though, you will note, a case has in the past been made for a condemnation of left-handed-ness along with a host of other “legalistic” misinterpretations of scripture). I would also agree with your statement that “to minister does not mean to surrender to every request made by the homosexual or the heterosexual community.” I think we are all in agreement that promiscuity and exploitative relationships are pretty clearly condemned by our faith. What does that condemnation have to do with the kind of sexual relationship of equals that we are talking about here? Are you suggesting that there is something unequal or exploitative about ALL homosexual relationships as such? That would seem more than a little far fetched and definitely not backed up by science, medicine, psychology, or scripture.
I’m Paul. Is that enough. Happy to give more, but I am distinctly worried about homophobic reactions. I don’t think that anyone would deny that this fear is legitimate. We are, after all, talking about a persecuted minority with a long history of violent repression.
@bookguy:
Thanks for your comments. It seems our discussion is leading us into bigger issues about the degree of choice and responsibility we ascribe to ourselves. To use your example, I would say we may have an innate disposition to be left-handed, but then we make a choice (and re-make that choice) every day whether we are left-handed or right handed. The choice defines us, not a pre-disposition. We are not slaves to our pre-dispositions, but we choose who we are and so are responsible for who we are. Thus, someone who has a predisposition for anger, or alcoholism is not automatically an alcoholic or an angry person. Rather, if they choose to put the beer in their mouth too often, then they are an alcoholic. If they choose to scream a lot, rather than choosing to develop patience, then they are an angry person. To me, this view is liberating. I know that to plenty of people it is not liberating, as they prefer to blame others, or their genetics, or their upbringing, for who they are.
@ Dwayne
Yes, I suppose that we can choose to accept or deny our nature. However, unless there is something clearly and unambiguously wrong about a natural tendency it is simple cruelty to try to pervert that nature to another direction. I believe that scriptures would support me in this, even (especially) some of those citations sometimes used to attack homosexuals.
To extend the example further, to FORCE a left-handed person to choose to write with their right hand is widely recognized as cruel and unchristian because inherently exploitative and unloving (not to mention counter-productive). Why is that choice to pervert our nature cruel? Isn’t part of the cruelty the very unnecessariness of such a forcible act? We now know that left-handed-ness is no sin (though some in the past have made a scriptural case that it is sinful).
The examples of anger or alcoholism are a different matter, aren’t they? After all, they can and more often than not lead to exploitative relationships which are clearly abusive/self abusive. These choices to follow a predilection do some actual harm to ourselves or other in the world. And, even when they are not directly abusive, they can also be sins of another sort – Alcoholism, for example, is a form of gluttony.
But a long-term, loving and monogamous relationship between two equal homosexuals is both anecdotally, medically, faithfully, and scriptural affirmative, building love and relationships and the exact opposite of cruel or exploitative. Such a relationship can only, for a Christian, lead to a better and closer relationship with God. Clearly, there is simply no justification for calling this relationship any more sinful than the equivalent heterosexual relationship would be called.
I think I lost sight of the argument a bit – are we arguing for and against recognizing the inclusion of homosexual persons in the Church? If that’s the matter at hand, I need to unequivocally state that anyone who would refuse the right hand of fellowship on the basis of sexual orientation is not practicing (and probably not experiencing) the love of Christ.
Brother Paul, I sincerely regret and earnestly renounce the cruel treatment that our GLBT brothers and sisters, as well as those GLBT persons outside the Church, have suffered at the hands of bigoted, xenophobic morons vainly acting in the name of Jesus. I ask forgiveness on our collective behalf.
I will respond to your argument about authority (which I think is the linchpin of this exchange), but I want the above confession and apology to stand alone. Regardless of anybody’s points about sexual morality and catholic authority, this debate must, as regards the Church, be held in an arena where human rights, respect, love, personal acceptance, and mutual learning are the axiomtic ground rules.
@JG. Thanks so much for your statement. I hadn’t taken offense in the discussion so far (except for the “apostacy” quote on the other section/discussion). I agree with your assessment. My own personal involvement is on a more abstract level since the discussion does not apply to me directly in any case. I’ve heard the citations on the supposed scriptural condemnation of homosexuality for years; like may I took that “authority” for granted. I was surprised and greatly displeased when I at last opened the scripture to read them for myself only to discover that those “authorities” had grossly mislead me and others as to what scripture actually says. I’ve been taking classes in Greek and reading the original episltes for myself with interest as well. The nature and legitimate extent of “authority” is one that is, for me, a question of some interest as a result. As an Episcopalian, the question of authority has historical and institutional interest as well. My own personal involvement in the homosexuality issue has more to do with a member of my family (an uncle) and his long-term, loving, monogamous, and highly nurturing (for me as well as for them) relationship with his partner of 54 years. If anyone says that relationship was condemned by God, they really need to show me the legitimate authority for that statement. I’ve not seen one that even remotely meets that “authority” yet. If that wasn’t a good, wholesome, and christian marriage, there is no such thing as marriage.
@Bookguy:
Thanks for your comments. We are certainly agreed that one person should not force another person to do anything they don’t want to do. I’m not catholic, so I don’t agree with the ‘authoritarianism’ implicit in the suggestion that one person can decree morality for another. Thus, as I’ve said all along, I am agnostic on the issue. Leaving it up to God, I neither condemn nor applaud the homosexual lifestyle of anyone else. Nor would I force a particular lifestyle on anyone, and this applies to much more than just homosexuality.
My point, on the contrary, is that I can force myself to certain things if I want to, and others can force themselves to do certain things if they want to. This freedom makes us morally responsible for our actions. Thus, when someone gives their account before God, and says ‘my nature caused me to do x’, God may not be satisfied, for he calls us to be more than our animal instincts, he calls us to self-mastery. A classic example of this is the neo-Darwinian suggestion that our genes are entirely selfish, bent solely on self-preservation and self-propogation. Well, just because that is our nature does not mean that we ought to live that way, trampling down the weak as we struggle to be the alpha males so we can survive a day longer.
@ Dwayne
I’m not sure we are terribly far apart. I just know that it is possible to be cruel to oneself in forcing an “unnatural” attitude, just as much as it is possible for one person to be cruel to another in forcing someone else to “tow a line.” The origin of the cruelty does not matter, either internal or external.
We are none of us completely natural beings; we live in a civilization of tools and manipulations of our selves and our enviromnent. This seems to be one of our several survival mechanisms as human beings. Certainly I agree that our God calls us to self control; but it seems clear that this call to self control is not an end in itself. Denying our gifts or having them denied for us becomes cruel and unchristian when that perversion of our nature has no moral purpose or legitimate aim in obeying our lord’s command.
When we stand before god and admit that we has done themselves a terrible cruel injury to no moral, survivalist or even legitimate scriptural purpose, I doubt that God will be any more satisfied than he would be in the case of the one who followed his nature. Neither matters in the end. Remember the tale of the “talents??” The one who burried his gift in the sands was just as unsatisfying as the one who wasted it on promiscuous frivolity.
The real question, what really will matter, is how did we love and care for one another in this world. His commandments have nothing to do with our natural inclinations and everything to do with how we treated his creation.
That creation includes ourselves. If we are purposelessly cruel to his creation, even the least of these (ourselves?), then we have not followed his commandments: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto [the same as?] it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as [and?] thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”
If an interpretation of scripture, either from the laws (Leviticus?) or from the prophets (Paul?), seems to be in dispute, I try to read it carefully in light of this commandment. I submit to you that these “two” are really just one commandment; loving god and loving our neighbor (and ourselves) is the same thing. If the result of one interpretation is purposeless, unloving cruelty, then that interpretation MUST be abandoned or changed to favor the interpretation that allows for (at least discussion of) a loving pastoral response to both ourselves and our neighbor.
My apologies to all for the rushed and typo filled reply above. As I read back over it, I’m a little embarrassed at the lack of writing skills.