On persevering:
“How do we keep this up? How do I keep this up, day after day? Because we know how it’s going to end, don’t we? Our struggle is going to end with the full inclusion of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, in the life and ministry and leadership of the church. I have no doubt whatsoever. The fight that’s going on now is not about if it’s going to happen. It’s only about when. I think even the conservatives would tell you that. They’re just trying to forestall the day it is fulfilled. Not if, but when. We know how it’s going to end. And whether we live to see it or not is irrelevant. The question is, are we going to play our part?”
Read it all and follow the audio link at the bottom if you desire to hear it all. i am going to try to leave comments open on this. Please keep your comments to the arguments made. Thank you–KSH.
RE: “I think even the conservatives would tell you that.”
Not this conservative. As I’ve predicted for some while — the Christian churches will never accede to something so overtly unbiblical and non-Christian, and the other churches won’t be seen as Christian churches anyway, ultimately losing the cultural influence they had so long lusted after. So I have no fears on that score.
Plus, Robinson is not taking the long view. He pretends as if he is . . . but he’s not.
Cultural acceptance of same-gender sexual activity has come and gone down through the ages. This will come — like a fad — and then go, simply because cultures don’t survive long-term with acceptance and *societal or legal approval* of same-gender sexual activity.
I’m serenely calm about the fad’s coming, and passing away again.
But there’s another fun bit of this too — and that’s that gay activists vacillate, as politically appropriate, between the triumphalism currently touted by Robinson and the “we’re a tiny persecuted minority by the Cruel Hordes of Evildoing Bigots” line.
Wait a few hours and Robinson will be back to the latter rhetorical option. It all depends on the mood and the moment and the motive, as to which rhetorical line they take.
Right now they need to pump up the troops after the incredible and resounding defeat in liberal California.
I see no problem with allowing him his moment . . . . and smiling.
[blockquote]Our struggle is going to end with the full inclusion of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, [/blockquote]
So what does full inclusion of bisexual and transgendered people look like? You know that there is a full range of sexual bahavior involved here.
Can’t we just let Robinson, et al, have TEC and let each parish decide if they want……them?
Oh, wait, that IS already happening, isn’t it? Parishes are deciding that they don’t want them.
Why doesn’t this man get that?
well, this is more of the same from VGR so he’ll get more of the same from me – why do people continue to flee ECUSA (particularly in areas like NH!) if this “new prophetic way” is the path to our salvation? of course, it’s not the path and their evasions about church decline are a good indicator they have nothing to back up their grand theories…
(Kendall, I am proud of you allowing comments!)
“Our struggle is going to end with the full inclusion of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people”
Yep – in their front row seats in hell!
‘You know, in 1974 the 11 women who were irregularly ordained in Philadelphia, they weren’t following the rules, they were breaking the rules. But it turned out to be the right thing, and two years later we began regularly ordaining women in this church’
Robinson is absolutely right to link these issues and the way they began with an act of willful disobedience….what I disagree with is his premise that is was the right thing. WO started the cancer, VRobinson and Genpo are furthering its harm…
let those with eyes to see, see and those with ears to hear, hear.
But please STOP pretending that it is possible to be both orthodox and pro WO
[blockquote]But I’ll tell you how this gay man reads Scripture. There are a couple of great stories about gay people in the Bible. Maybe you didn’t know that. One of them is the Exodus story, which is the greatest coming out story in the history of the world. It is, don’t laugh. Because we know what it’s like to be in slavery. We know what it’s like to be in bondage. We know what it’s like not to be free. Because we’ve had the experience of someone coming and talking about a promised land, not just of milk and honey, but of freedom, and God’s love and acceptance, and some of us actually believed it, and left. We left Egypt to come out.”
[/blockquote]
I hope he is not setting himself up as Moses. Will this new Exodus bring with it a law giver? Don’t forget those parts of the story about wandering around in the desert for forty years, or the part about the golden calf, or the part about the rebellion…
How about those commandments that were needed, and what about that adultery part?
Freedom Robinson style (leaving Egypt to come out) is the same error the worshippers of the golden calf committed.
If TEC is “the Church” then +Robinson may be right for the short term. But, he is wrong about the Angican Communion and the Church Catholic.
Now, I agree that we do need “full inclusion” of all people in the Church. I just disagree thatwe need to be blessing sinful behavior or to say that sin does not matter. Being included in Christ’s body does not mean that God approves of everything we do. So, let’s include everyone, but still show that the Christian life requires that we be changed – especially change from who we think we are and changed into the person that God knows us to be in His Son, Jesus Christ.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Phil, you can call it “sinful behavior” if you want, but many of us have a better name for it: Immoral behavior.
Unnatural.
Gene Robinson said: [blockquote]But I’ll tell you how this gay man reads Scripture. There are a couple of great stories about gay people in the Bible. Maybe you didn’t know that. One of them is the Exodus story, which is the greatest coming out story in the history of the world. It is, don’t laugh. Because we know what it’s like to be in slavery. We know what it’s like to be in bondage. We know what it’s like not to be free. Because we’ve had the experience of someone coming and talking about a promised land, not just of milk and honey, but of freedom, and God’s love and acceptance, and some of us actually believed it, and left. We left Egypt to come out.[/blockquote]
Sadly, Robinson fails to see that they are perhaps in as much if not more bondage than they were before. Before their ‘great Exodus’ there may have been some doubt about their cause. But having ‘come out’ they are convinced of the rightness of their cause. And you know how hard it is to reach a zealot. I’m all for full inclusion in the Church but people too easily forget that it is Yahweh who has set the terms of our inclusion.
Cennydd,
Isn’t sin our “natural” condition? Isn’t that the essence of the Fall?
Phil’s certainly right to say that we’re not invited to bless what is sinful, but it’s just as bad to elevate one category of sin to some higher (or should that be lower) level of depravity. The Madoff affair was surely just as immoral or unnatural, to use your terminology.
I’m puzzled as to why VGR, who seems to gung-ho on full inclusion of GLBTQs, is determined to exclude other marginalized sexual minorities. Upon what does he base this hurtful rejection?
Who is this man?
How did we get to having this man as a bishop in the Anglican Communion?
Where do we go from here?
With such a bishop as this, who needs an enemy of Christ in the church?
How long are we to continue to suffer this heartbreak and agony of trying to explain to Christians what is really going on in the Anglican Communion?
When should be the shaking-off-the-dust-from-under-our-sandals moment?
When are we going to say enough of this joke?
TEc is having a great time doing (with the theology, the canons and constitutions, the parishes and the diocese, the law suits, the finances, etc.) as she pleases.
To the north, the Canadian Anglican Church is competing with TEc on who is going to be the greater joke of a church.
Across the pond, the CoE is falling on its face in appeasement to Islamists and atheists.
Meanwhile, the really serious Christians with guts and godly convictions are labeled as troublemakers and homophobes.
There is no adult in this house. Lambeth Palace is out of touch with the realities of the Anglican Communion situation. +++Rowan lacks the conviction and the courage to act for Christ. I seriously doubt the man really accepts and believes what the church preaches and teaches.
What had started as some droplets have now turned into a flow.
Lord have mercy!
Fr. Kingsley Jon-Ubabuco
Arlington Texas
Bp Robinson, and others who seek to redefine Christianity, will find that reality, thanks to its Designer, is flexible but not breakable. They more they try to bend reality to their will, the greater (painful) force it will have when their strength is not sufficient to maintain the warping they have attempted.
Robinson is correct in strongly identifying his consecration with women’s ordination, in that the church shouldn’t have ratified women’s ordination after the manner in which it occurred. Women’s ordination should have been done by the rules. By giving illegal ordinations a pass, in the name of justice, the church both set precedent for every special interest tail to wag the dog at will, and it cast a shadow on the validity of ordination for those women who have done good work as priests. But what I find so disheartening is that every time I hear about this bishop, it’s in conjunction to his activities in the gay movement. Granted, I assume there is more to his life than concern with his sexuality, but by self-identifying as a “gay bishop” he leaves room for doubt. And since bishops are consecrated to serve the whole church, including those who reject both women’s ordination and “gay bishops” as a matter of priniciple, I wonder how he has ministered to those, apart from publicly characterizing them as dissidents, misinformed fundies, or bigoted soreheads.
You know, what I think scares VGR and his supporters more than being “rejected” is having people “move on” from the issue and I think that is EXACTLY what is happening in most of the church. Folks are weary of it.
Those who are vigorously forcing “the new thing” obviously fill him with glee but in their quiet moments, even they realize it’s unsustainable. People are voting with their feet; lawsuits are bankrupting the coffers. Those who are vigorously opposing “the new thing” to the point of leaving provide a poignant contrast that VGR can point at with contempt but that nonetheless flies in the face of the “all will be well” mantra that few believe anymore.
But the polite and passive “no, thank you” that the majority of parishes and dioceses seem to have adopted must be particularly irksome. TEC can’t quash it, really; they can’t point to it as being “intolerant;” and they can’t litigate against it.
hi all,
i am new to the blog, and i have some responses to the above comments:
#3 – if by “them” you are callously referring to LGBTQ people, then plenty of churches are deciding they do want and love them.
#5 – are you really going to condemn every LGBTQ person to hell? that would seem to me to be quite presumptuous of you, and a dangerous position, in light of Jesus’ own commandment to not judge, lest you be judged.
#6 – i am both orthodox and pro-women’s ordination. and i find it offensive that you would speak of the many righteous, godly women in ordained ministry as a “cancer”.
#13 – i am curious to hear more; to which other minorities are you referring?
#17 – i don’t think it is an accurate assessment to say that the church as a whole is simply “moving on” — general convention already has plenty of resolutions (just from dioceses alone!) looking to repeal B033, which have a very good chance of passing, in my judgment. if there is moving on at all, it is a movement toward acceptance rather than rejection.
Welcome, “youngadult.”
In regard to your remark about my post, I think my statement is very accurate, unless you believe that all of the dioceses jump to support whatever GC and 815 deem important. That’s not reality. Most folks consider their parish “the Church.”
I have no idea what B033 is as I try to stay as far away as possible from the political element of the church, but if it prohibits non-celibate gay clergy or same-sex unions, do you honestly believe that the parishes where I live in Texas are all going to be clamoring to perform same sex unions or calling partnered gay rectors if it’s reversed? The church politicians can legislate whatever they like but it doesn’t mean that the rest of the church is going to go along with it. The only way you’d get what you want is if y’all stripped the parishes of their ability to call rectors and dioceses to elect bishops and had the Presiding Bishop appoint everyone. I don’t see that happening anytime soon, do you?
You probably see the issues far differently than I do but one only has to consider how successful the issues have been in the secular, political arena, despite all of the pro-gay activism, to know that folks are getting weary and moving on. Moreover, many Episcopal churches and dioceses are struggling to survive. They’re not going to “go radical” and upset the apple cart. Despite VGR’s predictions in 2003, the “new thing” hasn’t impelled tens of thousands of people to join TEC. In fact, the reverse has happened.
After listening to the entire presentation, [which I would suggest for those with the time] what I found most revealing was the repeated assertion… ‘what you do is more important than what you believe’. This is getting down near the heart of the issues that divide the church.
All concerns of Pelagianism aside, what Gene Robinson is advocating is an expression of Christian believe that is effectively devoid of content other than ‘service’. Granted, our actions need to match our words, and that is a challenge to all of us. However, based on what I heard here, Jesus is a fine example for us, but Robinson has no obvious concern for what we believe about him or what he has done on the cross. [Aside from this role as example, Jesus was pretty much absent from this presentation. Sin and atonement didn’t seem to figure into this message anywhere.]
This attitude went beyond a recognition that we don’t all agree, to the active rejection of even trying or thinking that we should. He explicitly asserted that the Church, in its desire for control, was ‘guilty’ of trying to define the substance of the faith. His subsequent denial of anti-intellectualism rings very hollow to me. Though never clearly articulated, what I heard expressed was a predictable universalism whose highest (and only?) good is ‘inclusion’. If the faith has no agreed upon content, logically, how can anything be ruled out?
What he has espoused and affirmed here is deism, not Christianity. What I don’t believe he can see is how arbitrary is the choice of values he espouses. If there is no reliable revelation whose significance we can agree upon, what gives anyone’s values, including those of Jesus’ example, pre-eminence over others?
Wiser minds have observed that ‘the conclusions are found in the pre-suppositions’. Gene Robinson is totally consistent. He has gone precisely where his pre-suppositions were bound to take him.
[blockquote]#13 – i am curious to hear more; to which other minorities are you referring? [/blockquote]
Oh my, they’re as varied as the stars in the sky. As Wojo, the detective on the show Barney Miller once quipped, open the Sears catalog, point to something and somebody somewhere wants to sleep with it.
How about polygamists, polyandrists, the polyamourous? Of course, this may already be passe’ insofar as we’re being urged to install those of the “B” bent into the clergy. And one cant be a “B” without multiple partners of both sexes, right?
But on what grounds does one now exclude incestuous couples, coprophaliacs, zoophiles, sexual sadists and masochists, pedophiles, etc?
Is this a test to see how well we can comment? I think that there are probably some assumptions he makes that would require testing.
However, he is probably correct: theology usually comes after experience. The apostles didn’t theologize Jesus: they experienced him. Most gay people experience the “fruits of the spirit” more after they have come out than before.
#20 does address an interesting theological issue about the nature of belief. I think there has always been some acknowledgment in the tradition that intellectual assent to a series of propositions is probably not enough: that acknowledgment must have some relationship to an experience that changes something. I have Hindu acquaintences
who have no problem with, for example, Jesus being born of a virgin; or that he was resurrected. Or that he was the son of God (the only son of God, they would suppose, is a bit negative).
As far as inclusion into the church, nobody knows. It does seem that young people are by and large agnostic about the evils of homosexuals and homosexuality, and will generally (according to Barna book UnChristian), reject Christianity if most Christians can’t accept that Gay people can be full members of the Christian church.
hi again,
another response:
#19 – “The church politicians can legislate whatever they like but it doesn’t mean that the rest of the church is going to go along with it. The only way you’d get what you want is if y’all stripped the parishes of their ability to call rectors and dioceses to elect bishops”
what B033 did was to call upon bishops and standing committees to “exercise restraint” (read: do not) in electing or consecrating openly gay or lesbian clergy until a time when some wider consensus emerges. and this is exactly what the church has done, which is part of the reason why no openly gay or lesbian bishop has been elected since, and why s/he would likely not receive the necessary consents if so elected. so it seems to me that the church is indeed “going along with” what the “church politicians” legislated. also, this seems to me to be effectively stripping some power away from dioceses to elect some bishops who may be best able to lead them, so i don’t think that i would agree that stripping abilities of parishes and dioceses would “get ‘us’ what we want.”
#21 – while i must admit that i don’t know barney miller, i do know a bit about sexuality. no, the “B” in LGBTQ does not imply “multiple partners of both sexes.” a bi-affectionate/bi-sexual person can feel attraction to members of different genders without actually having sex with any of them, just as a straight/heterosexual person might be find various members of the opposite gender attractive without actually having sex with any of them. a bi-affectionate person might have had zero, one, or more than one sexual partners, just as a straight person might have. also, as to your litany of non-normative sexualities, in none of them, i would say, can two people share a legal and agapic love for one another, as two straight people or two gay or lesbian people can.
At the gym of all places, I read Matthew today where Jesus said this is the first and greatest commandment that you love the Lord thy God with all thy heart…and the second is likeunto it …love thy neighbor as thyself….so it sounds like we already have had full inclusion – even everybody on the blogs! We just didn’t know it.
[blockquote]However, he is probably correct: theology usually comes after experience. The apostles didn’t theologize Jesus: they experienced him. Most gay people experience the “fruits of the spirit†more after they have come out than before.[/blockquote]
Quite the contrary, John Wilkins. One of the more helpful insights of the post-liberal theology associated with George Lindbeck and what used to be the “Yale School” of theology is that doctrine creates experience, not the reverse. The apostles did not “experience” Jesus, a phrase which focuses on a subjectivity which might or might not have an objective external referent. Jesus lived with them for something like three years. He spoke, he taught, he healed people, he exercised demons, he forgave sinners. He appeared to those same apostles in the same body in which he had been crucified in front of them; they saw him with their physical eyes; they touched him with their physical hands. They ate with him. And that is what they witnessed to, not an “experience.” And consequently they did indeed theologize. As Peter and John said to their opponents: “We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.” Acts 4:20.
It was the message of the risen Christ that created Christian experience.
Nor are the “fruits of the Spirit” something we “experience.” They are virtues, indications of a moral transformation in those who, because they belong to Christ, have “crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Gal. 5:22-23).
And the fruits of the Spirit have consequences. Those who “walk in the Spirit” do not gratify “the desires of the flesh,” which include “sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.” (Gal. 5:16-24).
One of the crucial differences between exegesis and proof-texting is context.
21, I don’t think our new friend answered your question. But tell me, is not what we are talking about, behavior? Isn’t sexual orientation (which I don’t think really exists) expressed by some type of behavior? Otherwise how would anyone know, to include the individual. So as to my question what sort of behavior does a bisexual or transgender person want affirmed?
It is also helpful to remember that the theology of Jesus was not created in a vacuum of experience alone. Jesus constantly pointed back to the Scriptures; constantly told the disciples to ‘hold fast to all I have commanded you”; and constantly stated that He did not come to do away with the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. When Paul brought the message of the Gospel to Berea, he didn’t chastise them for checking his message against scripture, but praised them because they did so. When a dispute was brought up by the ‘Judaizers’, they didn’t go by experience, but rather went to the Apostles who prayed and searched the scriptures* and came to their conclusion.
As to people rejecting Christianity if Christianity rejects the sin of homosexuality, nonsense. Some might, just as an adulterer might reject Christianity because his pet sin is not accepted, and the Church won’t bless his relationship with his mistress. Or a liar, or a tax cheat, or whatever. People don’t like to be told they are sinners or are living in sinful relationships. Just because their feelings [i]might[/i] be hurt or they [i]might[/i] go somewhere else is no reason to compromise the God-given message of repentance and salvation in none other than Jesus.
Frankly, I think people would reject a church or denomination that did not stay true to the values it says it holds and flock to one that holds true to the faith once delivered.
Youngadult, (welcome and peace to you!)
I’d like to point out that accepting someone into the church and accepting their sinful activity are two separate things. The Church strives for the first. However, some aspects of church membership are necessarily limited to those ‘in good standing’. Thus a practicing homosexual should not be in a position of leadership any more than the adulterer mentioned above who refuses to give up his relationship with his mistress. Both are called sin by the Bible, and those who practice these (and many other things) are called to repentance (turning their lives from sin and towards God) before being fully ACTIVE members of the Church leadership.
In Him
Jim Elliott <>< *Acts 15:15-21, James speaking: "[b]The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written[/b]: 16" 'After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things' 18that have been known for ages.' 19"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21[b]For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."[/b] (NIV, emphasis added)
Youngadult,
In response to your response on my response :>)
I think your reading of what has or hasn’t happened in regard to B033 may have other explanations. As I recall, there were other partnered homosexuals who were candidates for the episcopacy not long after the VGR consecration. That they weren’t elected may or may not have been due to the “legislation” of restraint. Of course, the Communion warned said dioceses of the repercussions if they went ahead and TEC, in characteristic fashion, responded with a nice version of “go to Gehenna,” but it’s quite possible that the better candidates simply prevailed.
The point is that these nominations were permitted and there have been no real restrictions on partnered gay clergy. All I’m saying is that if your side succeeds in reversing the legislation, others will be just as able and willing to ignore the reversal as your side was in pooh-poohing (or outright denying) the call for restraint. This is precisely the vicious circle we’re in and why most people are weary of the whole mess.
#24 – i check the blog periodically, but this is the first time i’ve posted 🙂
#26 – i think i did include an answer to #21 — the listed categories do not include two people who can (legally) live out Christ’s agape love toward one another. sexual orientation describes toward whom one feels intimate emotional and/or physical desire or attraction; it may have a physical/sexual component, or it may not. and no, it need not be expressed by some (outward, visible) behavior — just as a heterosexual male might feel physically, emotionally, and spiritually attracted to certain women without ever actually being physically intimate with a woman, so might LGBTQ people toward others. and finally, one aspect of what bisexual and transgender people want is to [i] be thought of as people [/i]. they are not monsters or monstrous, though they are often demonized as such, they are people. they want to be a full part of the christian community in all its life, even if they might not conform to commonly acceptable gender and sexuality roles. the question, in my view, is not as much about affirming a “behavior” (though all Christians could certainly use the church’s blessing of their relationships and life) as it is about affirming a person, someone loved by Jesus and wanting to be loved by the church as well.
RE: “However, he is probably correct: theology usually comes after experience.”
No — theology comes from foundational truth. Only for postmodern deconstructionists like John Wilkins does “theology come after experience.” But we already knew that.
Young Adult — I see that you are one of the many who affirm the right of certain gay activists to discriminate against multiple other sexual orientations.
And that’s just demonstrative of how hypocritical and self-serving and truly bigoted gay activists are. They want society’s legal and public blessing on [i]their particular and specific sexual orientation[/i] —but they have no interest in being activists for all of the other sexual orientations to receive special legal and public blessing from society, including those with sexual attractions towards their adult siblings, multiple people, life-challenged people, and shoes, to name just a few. [i]They alone should have society’s blessing and approval expanded for their sexual activities.[/i] But not the other sexual orientations, oh no. Society’s definition of marriage should be expanded—[for reasons that they have not made clear other than that they want it and they are special]—for [i]gays[/i], but society’s definition of marriage should not be expanded for any other people who have differing sexual orientations, whether
Really disgraceful hypocrisy.
We have the spectacle of people of homosexual orientation who wish to expand the legal definition of marriage by forcing society to pretend its approval for [i]their special and particular sexual activities[/i]—but not all of the special and particular sexual activities of those minorities with other sexual orientations, who are even more disapproved of by society than those of homosexual orientation.
#22 – John, remember, the Pharisees and Scribes and the rich young ruler and Judas and the nine cured lepers also “experienced” Jesus, three of those examples experiencing Him as frequently and over as long a time as the apostles. I would suggest that they “theologized” about Him differently than the apostles and His disciples who did not fall away, hence their very different actions and outcomes.
#27 – “Both are called sin by the Bible, and those who practice these (and many other things) are called to repentance (turning their lives from sin and towards God) before being fully ACTIVE members of the Church leadership.”
instead of rehashing the old argument that the sin described in the oft-cited “anti-gay” passages are really condemning idolatry and so homosexuality need not be inherently sinful (which i think is true), i would just ask what active member of church leadership is not actively sinful and in need of forgiveness every day of his/her life? thus, who may/should be the church’s leaders?
#28 – i am not trying to suggest that B033 alone caused certain candidates to not be elected, but it seems certain to me that the voting conventions knew full well what was at stake, and the resolution surely weighed in people’s minds against any openly LGBTQ candidates. and there have been “real restrictions” — no openly gay or lesbian candidate has been elected to the episcopacy (the only office listed in the text) since 2006! what could be more real than that?
#18
” I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people– not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler–not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” 1Co 5:9-13
#32 The ONLY group in TEC that demand that their sinful BEHAVIORS (not orientations) be accepted are the GLBTQ agenda folk – all others freely confess their sin and repent of their sins.
Orthodoxy follows Orthopraxy? Funny, I am preaching from Mark 7 where Jesus gives the opposite response. The complete corpus of Pauline doctrine teaches the complete opposite. In his sermon Robbins does not deal with the text, but tells his stories of “hope”. He preaches himself and not Christ.
[i]instead of rehashing the old argument that the sin described in the oft-cited “anti-gay†passages are really condemning idolatry and so homosexuality need not be inherently sinful (which i think is true),[/i]
A point which has been refuted by many Biblical Scholars over the years, most notably and effectively by [url=http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm]Dr. Robert Gagnon[/url]. If homosexuality may be given a pass by being ‘idolatry’ in disguise, what about the list of other sins Paul also mentions in the same verses in Romans 1, or the other sins also mentioned in Leviticus (the book that is also the basis for the famous “love your neighbor as yourself” quotation from Jesus)? Are they to be also given a ‘pass’? Are you really willing to go there to dismiss beastiality, incest, murder, slander (ever been on the target end of that sin? I have — it ain’t fun!) etc?
[i] i would just ask what active member of church leadership is not actively sinful and in need of forgiveness every day of his/her life? thus, who may/should be the church’s leaders? [/i]
A red herring, if you will. The difference is between those who claim their sin [b]must[/b] be not only accepted but blessed by the church, and those who recognize that their sin is not acceptable to God and try, though His grace, to change that. Everyone falls. Everyone struggles with some ‘pet’ sin. Even St. Paul admitted that he struggles with sin. The difference, again, is that he recognizes it as sin, and confessing it, calls on God for help, recognizing his help is only found in one Source:
[blockquote] Romans 7:
18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25[b]Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord![/b]
(NIV — emphasis added)[/blockquote]
In His Peace
Jim E. <><
[i]i would just ask what active member of church leadership is not actively sinful and in need of forgiveness every day of his/her life? thus, who may/should be the church’s leaders? [/i]
Oh, I wanted to say one more thing about this:
It is NOT effective to God for us to say to Him: But EVERYONE else is doing it! I should be allowed to do it, too!
Frankly, if that argument doesn’t work on our earthly parents, why do we think it will work with our Heavenly Father? < :-) >
JE <><
My my, sexual orientation without sex. What will they think of next. Celebacy should be no problem then.
[blockquote]i think i did include an answer to #21—the listed categories do not include two people who can (legally) live out Christ’s agape love toward one another. sexual orientation describes toward whom one feels intimate emotional and/or physical desire or attraction; it may have a physical/sexual component, or it may not. [/blockquote]
So, if I get you right, a bisexual might have urges to have sex with both men and women, but you only believe it to be sinless if (s)he sleeps with one sex or the other, making him/her functionally homosexual or heterosexual…am I getting you right?
And why the narrow-minded exclusion of those other sexual minorities? Why doesn’t the baptismal covenant extend to them? Is this exclusion Scripture-based or just a political thing?
[i] This thread is going off topic. Please return to the discussion of the article posted by Canon Harmon. [/i]
Elves, with respect, the quotation under discussion is directly from what Robinson said. He calls for the “full inclusion of of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people,”. Can’t we can attempt to find out what this means and looks like?
Elves – Please don’t shut off comments offered by Young Adult and his respondents. Delineation of these issues is very important, and often does not happen on this and other sites. Thx.
Low Sunday 1993 – I was home from seminary for the weekend for a wedding, and before heading back to Nashotah House I went to the early service at an ECUSA parish near my parent’s house. Unfortunately they were having their ‘human sexuality awareness weekend’ or some such rubbish and the preacher was VGR (then Canon to the Ordinary in N.H.).
I think he used basically the same sermon at Trinity Boston 2009 as he did then – including reference to the ordination of women. On that day in 1993 he compared Doubting Thomas to those who do not accept W.O. and gay rights.
He is wrong – but consistant.
Youngadult,
Acutally, the idea that the verses which speak on the issues of homosexual conduct are “really” about idolatry or prostitution or do not apply to mutually monogamous life long relationships(MMLLR) is less than 40 years old. The longer tradition (going back around 1900 years for the NT and more than 3000 for the OT) is that they deal with homosexual conduct. I am afraid that you have been taught a lie.
However, if you might indulge me, can you show me where, in Holy Scripture or the writings of the Apostolic Fathers or the writings of the Caroline Divines, homosexual sex is spoken of favorably? Can you show me where Jesus approved it or where Paul says that homosexual conduct in a MMLLR is OK and part of what God intends?
The reappraisers are the ones who are attempting to change 3000+ years of moral teaching. Surely evidence from Scripture and Tradition should be accepted before we accept this change. Don’t you agree?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Hi William:
Doctrine creates experience? I’m not exactly sure how that works. Hearing the doctrine is experiential. And it has to make some kind of sense. Witnessing is an experience. Theologizing came after they had known him.
It has been about 14 years since I read Lindbeck. I’m quite familiar with Lindbeck – his book on the Nature of Doctrine actually is what inspired me to become a priest. I think that he had a good critique of Tracy, but I don’t think he was, finally, right about the experiential-expressivists.
I do think that there is something to the idea that if one is a Christian, the story will make sense on its own merit. I do think one has to have an experience of the story for the narrative to have any kind of transformational meaning. The story will convict because it is alive and has some analogue in one’s life. I do admit that I find Lindbeck relativistic and his theory of truth and knowledge a bit pessimistic. But its been a long time, so I could be wrong. There is plenty to critique liberalism about. But in the end I might head in the direction of David Bentley Hart.
You are right that the fruits of the spirit are virtues. However, as Paul argues – it is better to marry than to burn. After all, real self control would mean celibacy for everyone. But we fall short. So we try to find pragmatic ways to inoculate ourselves from worse actions. I would also be careful of too much of a gnostic reading, one that creates a mind-body distinction, that makes our flesh the creation of the demiurge and only the spirit an accurate experience of God. I would also add that Paul wants to crucify the flesh not for its own sake, but precisely because the flesh brings rivalry and dissension. But when the flesh does not, I wouldn’t insist on the anti-materialist reading.
I would also note that “things like these” could be a very long list, and to some extent you end up catching people in a tautological loop because, by your definition, homosexuality is probably indistinguishable from orgies and fits of anger and the rest of the litany. Mature gay people in strong relationships exemplify the virtues far more than they exemplify the vices.
Sarah:
There you go again.
Since you assert my meaning always shifts, how do you know what I’m talking about? I admit I have no clue what you mean by “post-modern deconstructionist.” I have doubts that you know – except that I’m one of them. We’ve been over this before, but your answer has usually been something like “we just think differently.” I keep hoping you’ll do a better job but I’m usually disappointed.
You mention “foundational truth” and I think we slip from mytho-poetic to philosophical arguments. Because you rarely seem able to define or articulate what you mean, except that it is not what I believe. You also seem skeptical that I have an idea of what “truth” is, but I’m relatively familiar with the different theories (a benefit of going to a research university with a good philosophy department.)
What is certainly true is that our beliefs can frame our experiences. Since I have never considered gay people peculiarly disordered, I instinctively read the texts differently than you do. In the same way that since I believe that the earth revolves around the sun, I interpret Genesis metaphorically. So I had beliefs (kind of like doctrine) that frames my experience of encountering the text.
I do think we read scripture differently: I’m satisfied that you are comforted by your own reading. Pace Phil’s continued argument that “its always been that way, so it can’t be wrong” I’m a little more skeptical that the tradition is always right. I think only time will tell. If homosexuality is wrong, then it cannot last.
[blockquote]I admit I have no clue what you mean by “post-modern deconstructionist.â€[/blockquote]
Mr. Wilkins, know thyself:
[i] Deconstruction involves the close reading of texts in order to demonstrate that, rather than being a unified whole, any given text has irreconcilably contradictory meanings. As J. Hillis Miller, an eminent American practitioner of deconstruction, has explained in an essay entitled “Stevens’ Rock and Criticism as Cure” (1976), “Deconstruction is not a dismantling of the structure of a text, but a demonstration that it has already dismantled itself. Its apparently solid ground is no rock but thin air.” Deconstruction defines text as something whose meaning is known only through difference. Language is arbitrary; truth claims and intentions of a text are undermined by its own contradictions; meaning is finally indeterminate. The purpose of deconstruction is that it allows you to see through the alleged stability of textual meaning; textual meaning is not finite; close attention to the play of language yields pleasure.[/i]
All it needs is your picture.
RE: “If homosexuality is wrong, then it cannot last.”
Lol.
If murder is wrong, then it cannot last.
If enjoyment of fornication is wrong, then it cannot last.
If lying is wrong, then it cannot last.
If stealing is wrong, then it cannot last.
If the desire to set fire to kittens is wrong, then it cannot last.
RE: “I admit I have no clue what you mean by “post-modern deconstructionist.â€
Heh. Of course. A man who prides himself on name-dropping and faux-scholarship doesn’t know what deconstructionism is.
RE: “. . . a benefit of going to a research university with a good philosophy department.. . . ”
Right on time. ; > ) Like clockwork . . .
RE: “Because you rarely seem able to define or articulate what you mean . . . ”
Oh . . . I think I’ve done okay over the years. And I can see why JW wouldn’t like what I’ve continually pointed out about him.
. . . Jeffersonian . . . thanks.
But he knows . . . he just doesn’t like [i]others[/i] knowing.
For the record, I don’t think John limits himself to mere deconstruction. I see him more as a cultural marxist who uses deconstruction as one of his weapons against traditional Western institutions.
Agreed, Jeffersonian.
But most deconstructionists secretly use the tool for another more primary agenda. It’s never “pure” deconstructionism — always a motive in the use, although it spreads far, deep, and wide.
Heh sarah – you never fail to amuse me. Yes, perhaps homosexuality is like stealing and setting fire to kittens. In this case we see things differently. I should have been a bit more precise: if gay marriage is evil in the eyes of God then in the end of time it will not last. And yes, when Jesus returns, all you have mentioned will end. Although you didn’t seem to get my central point in our little argument.
I just don’t think you know what deconstructionism is. My intuition is that you’ve never actually read a “deconstructionist” philosopher or literary critic. I could be wrong. But you do tend to throw it around a bit. Although I’m sure I’ve made errors, I’ve read the people I mention. But clearly you don’t follow my own arguments very well. Because I don’t see how you could read my interpretation as accurately deconstructionist.
Jefferson, I’m glad you have offered a definition of deconstructionism, and it is close to the one I’m familiar with. But given the definition, it’s not what I believe about language. That is another time. I do happen to think that “post-modernism” may describe a common experience or world view that people have (say, experiencing time and cultures in a way that is constantly shifting), but I don’t give it any normative value.
You are a lot closer than Sarah in defining me as a “cultural marxist” If you mean I believe that tastes and values are formed by class. And I’m guessing from your comment that you are aware of the debates in continental philosophy between the “marxists” or the Frankfurt School and the post-modernists. For you would be correct that I think the post-modernists are wrong and the “Frankfurt school” was right about language, meaning and communication (this is a very broad stroke, however). This shows some sophistication on your part, which Sarah has missed. It is why when she accuses me of being “a post-modernist” I’m always perplexed. In continental circles, there is a big difference between the marxists and the post-modernists, and it is precisely because Marxists believe in objective reality, and that it makes some sense.
I’m not an economic “marxist,” however, and fall somewhere in between welfare state capitalism and catholic social teaching on economics (distributivism or cooperativism).
However, to keep it simple: I do think that people can read a text (watch a video, listen to music) and interpret (see, hear) it differently. I don’t think this is particularly controversial. I do also think that some interpretations are better, or closer to an accurate representation of reality, than others. I am generally skeptical that human knowledge is complete and neutral or pessimistic about human nature. Such a view would make me classically conservative, I suppose.
As far as the issue at stake, the argument is when it comes to sexuality and scripture I think that the authors of scripture held sex and property tightly linked in a way that has been changed by capitalism.
This is not a particularly postmodern view. I believe in authorship, and that we can identify authors. I believe that the authors believed something (that homosexuality was a sin). I think that the authors probably believed in other things about the cosmos (that God was actually a soldier and lived on top of a mountain). These are things I think are generally falsifiable. My understanding is that in post-modernism, what is true or false is impossible. I do not hold that view for all things, although surely there are empirically some statements where falsifiability is difficult.