But on what basis do they make their objection? On procedure? That’s a tough sell for a movement willing to violate ecclesiastical procedures in setting up their alternative province.
Luther based his Reformation on Scripture. Here, once again, the schismatics fall short. Jesus himself said nothing whatsoever about homosexuality, although he did affirm the religious laws set out in the book of Leviticus. But if that is the redoubt for the conservatives, they would be obliged to observe and enforce the other Levitical proscriptions as well ”“ beginning, I suppose, with the fabric content of the purple shirts they’re wearing! One of the Levitical proscriptions warns against wearing garments of mixed fabric.
If the conservatives truly wanted to “prooftext” their case against Gene Robinson, they should quote Titus 1:6, where St. Paul mandated that church leaders should be “the husband of one wife.” Gene Robinson, a divorced man, presumably would not qualify (nor would some other bishops). Jesus, after all, said nothing explicit about homosexuality; he did, however, have something to say about divorce — and none of it good.
Having struck out with both procedure and Scripture, the schismatics are left only with tradition.
I wonder what purpose is served by quoting and linking to this rather sad and tired criticism? Every one of its purported arguments and criticisms has been answered, over and over again and in depth. Are we supposed to work ourselves into a lather because a progressive has trotted out the shellfish argument and “Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality” one more time?
Let’s not waste our time on such trivialities.
I agree, #1, and even the use of “schismatics” is old and tired when it is plain to see that TEC has applied the tourniquet of unrepentance to its part of the body of Christ.
Yawn.
Mr. Balmier, it takes three strikes and your out. Having struck out on scripture, tradition, and reason, the revisionists continue with the march off the cliff.
Chris is absolutely correct. The mixed fibers cloth or shellfish argument will be brought up tomorrow and the next day, ad nauseum. The revisionists are simply lacking in integrity. They know these arguments are specious, but they know that some will accept them if repeated enough. This is part of the listening process.
Talk about “snarky”! He definitely earns the title “Revisionist”.
I confess that I’ve lived long enough to realize that one of my deepest pet peeves is occasions when clergy or intellectuals tell stories in which they are the heroes or wise ones or simply have the last, knowing word—that others, now enlightened, could rise to and be edified by.
Too often intellectuals and clergy think they’ve got it. Bishops too–perhaps especially. I’ve heard this (something like the episode rather moralistically recounted at the end of Mr. Balmer’s piece) so many times that now I look (listen) for it. Inside I always think “yuck.†Or: Are they insecure deep down or what? And I wonder if these speakers or writers know what impression they’re really making.
I wish that more of us, when we’re in a position of authority (like writing for or speaking to an audience), would try to tell stories in which we’ve made mistakes and learned from others, not ones in which we get the last laugh or make the killing point from on high.
And I have to say that I’ve encountered my pet peeve represented more often in Episcopal churches than in the more “downmarket” denominations–like Methodist and Brethren, whose preachers seem to have a more “I’m one of you, suffering and sinning” approach.
Our Lord didn’t have to speak out against homosexuality. There is enough condemnation in the Old Testament; (let’s not forget Sodom and Gommorah). He was more interested in the saving of people from their sins, even to His crucifixtion for our salvation at Calvary.
Just does not get it…sad.
I’m not surprised that a professor of American religious history is ignorant of the teaching of the Articles of Religion and of their place in the history of the Episcopal Church – disappointed but not surprised. The Anglican tradition of moral theology distinguishes between the moral law of the Old Testament which is binding on all and the ceremonial and civil law. Shellfish comments are insultingly ignorant and an evidence of bigotry.
[blockquote]Just does not get it…sad. [/blockquote]
I disagree. He is too smart to not realize that his arguments don’t amount to a hill ‘o beans. But he does know that repeating them, especially while strumming an instrument and burning a sweet incense in the fire (poor allusion to C.S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair), will deceive a lot of people. That is because it already has. English teacher’s friend might see through the dishonesty but many more won’t.
[blockquote] You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.[/blockquote]
I am surprised by the dismissive comments here.
I found the logic of his argument arresting. He has truly pierced through the hypocrisy of the conservative bigotry and helped us see that the conservative “emperor has not clothes” after all. Why could I not see it before?
I shall immediately return to the TEC fold and engage in enlightened Baal worship right away.
Sheepishly,
Exposed former hypocritic gay hater
episcoanglican,
pshaw. TEc does not believe in Baal worship. At least not right away. First you have to go through Druidism, then Islamo-Episcopalianism, then Buddhism. Only THEN are you introduced to Ba’al worship.
Sheesh, these newbies!
Every one of its purported arguments and criticisms has been answered, over and over again and in depth.
Where?
Perhaps to clarify my remark in #15: suggest a link which addresses why the Levitical prohibitions on homosexuality still hold, but the others (shellfish eating, clothing, purity, and interest collection) don’t.
Kendall may have posted these sort of things recently, but perhaps I just haven’t picked up on them.
#15: Quaerite et invenietis.
Hasn’t Randall Balmer made a career out of ‘correcting’ evangelicalism, as an ex-evangelical?
Sidney, start with Acts, where it is made clear that gentile Christians are not bound by the Hebrew ritual law nor by the civil law of ancient Israel, but they ARE bound by the moral law. Moral law includes sexual behavior but not diet and fabric content.
I don’t want to give Balmer too much credit, but in my opinion it is true that a renewed Anglicanism is going to have to face the problems with marriage and divorce and return to a less permissive situation, in which remarriage after divorce is infrequent even among the laity. Orthodoxy might be the pattern to look at, since even Roman Catholic laity in America have found a way around the rules, to the distress of the Vatican.
Robroy,
With respect, I do not believe this person gets it. We have moved past denial into embracing self deception…way past denial….and yes, if you keep telling a lie, even you may begin to believe it…if you want to….if it support your beliefs and worldview.
Katherine in #14 above gives the Biblical response to Sidney #16. Article VII of the Articles of Religion gives the Anglican position, “Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth, yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.” As I wrote elsewhere, “Shellfish! Bah Humbug!”
C- Professor Balmer. BOTH your students AND your parishioners deserve better than this lame effort!
Sidney,
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/15453
http://web.archive.org/web/20050518051200/titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=4350
http://web.archive.org/web/20060629065115/titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=3999
The Shellfish Argument
Dear ():
Thank you for this post, it brings up a case that is appearing over and over again in the Episcopal Church’s debate. I call it the shellfish argument: you have noted that Leviticus is against same sex practice, but Leviticus says we should not eat shellfish. So how could we possibly listen to Leviticus?
So for example Bishop Maze: “Another part of the very same code, Leviticus 11:9-11, uses the same strong language calling the eating of shellfish an abomination. Yet, most have not given up seafood delicacies, nor do we worry much about this abomination. So, another tool we have available is to ask how modern thought might affect how we read ancient codes. We know more
about shellfish (and lots of other food that is condemned in this code) than our Hebrew ancestors could have known and so we’re basically comfortable in adding that to our interpretation of scripture.”
Then in the case of ()’s post: “the Vicar asked the men in the congregation if they had ever wondered what to do when their daughters had their first period. Would they go to the bible for advice? He then paraphrased the rules found in Leviticus 15, v. 19-24. Or would they prefer the Reader’s Digest Family Medical Guide’s counsel (which he quoted verbatim), essentially to offer lots of TLC.”
So much for Leviticus, apparently. The problem is this doesn’t even pass muster for a first year college logic class, much less get at the complexities and challenges of the scriptural arguments.
Behind it is a powerful assumption, that of chronological snobbery, a favorite phrase of CS Lewis and Owen Barfield. Here is one website summary:
“Chronological snobbery is the presumption, fueled by the modern conception of progress, that all thinking, all art, and all science of an earlier time are inherently inferior, indeed childlike or even imbecilic, compared to that of the present. Under the rule of chronological snobbery,
the West has convinced itself that “intellectually, humanity languished for countless generations in the most childish errors on all sorts of crucial subjects, until it was redeemed by some simple scientific dictum of the last century”. It has become to believe that “anything more than a hundred years old is ancient” and “in the world of books, or opinions about books, the
age at which senility sets in has now been reduced to about ten.”
One would like to ask how pervasive this attitude is in the whole of mainline Christianity in the West, not just this debate, but that is a discussion for another time.
As for the case itself, it falls apart quickly once you quote the summary of the law which still is used in many rite I services in the Episcopal Church and it ends…
“you shall love your neighbor as yourself”
which is of course a quote from…
LEVITICUS!
So the trouble is that there are continuities and discontinuities between the two testaments, and simply pointing out that there is a discontinuity in the area of specfic food practice, doesn’t mean that in the area of teaching sexual morality there isn’t a continuity. Leviticus is also powerfully against lying. Indeed, much of it is an extended and important commentary on the ten commandments. So is the teaching on sexuality like shellfish or is it like lying or “loving your neighbor as yourself”?
Of course this argument is about a whole lot more than Leviticus, it is about a broad range of scriptural material, the history of how it has been understood by the church and interpreted, and wrestling through contemporary complexities and claims. But one at least hopes that specious cases like this will see less presence than they have in recent years, and one hopes that all those who are so eager to call the Bible into question realize that their ministries are based in part on the Bible calling them and their parishes into question.
No wonder Karl Barth once said: exegesis, exegesis, and more exegesis!
Dr. Kendall S. Harmon
Sidney, may I suggest “Holiness to the Lord”, by Allen Ross. Ross states: “But it must be recognized that Leviticus was and is the most important books of the OT. It not only presents the entire religious system of ancient Israel, but it also lays the theological foundation for the NT teaching about the atoning work of Jesus Christ.” (p.15).
If you believe that the OT is the inspired word of God (and that is still the formal and official position of TEC however much they may ignore it in practice) then Fr. Balmer’s comments are not only unfortunate, but in contravention of his ordination vows.
In the liturgy we don’t say “The word of the Lord (except for the following verses of Leviticus…. etc.)