Begging the question, he states that Christians should welcome Gay Marriage because it is a way to promote monogamy in the homosexual community. From what I have read elsewhere, it promotes nothing of the kind. The object of Homosexual Marriage proponents is the creation of political power.
This essay will probably infuriate anyone who insists that any particular and fixed “biblical theology” should always trump the Church’s historic creeds. Yet one hopes that all who mean to follow Christ with good will for fellow travelers would keep an open mind and heart about the following: None of us, who are not God, can know everything about God; yet all of us can gain more and more insight from considering ongoing dialectic between the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as a particular people’s salvation history – the wondrousness of almighty God recounted as experienced by other flesh and blood persons over thousands of years, expressed in a variety of human literary forms , and then translated into many languages – and the Christian Church’s historic creeds as the post-resurrection Christian movement’s recognition that some ideological bounds were necessary in order to authenticate as Christian, or something other, further claimed human experience of God. The scriptures and the creeds, therefore, should be heard always as speaking to one another, mediated by the Holy Spirit in all times and places, about the matters of utmost importance to God and people as God’s beloveds. People of good faith and good will are likely to differ, therefore, about whether any same-sex unions are consistent or inconsistent with God’s will. Open minds and hearts on both sides of the issue, however, should recognize that none of the ancient creeds speak to matters of personal lifestyles, social structures, or governmental policy. Open minds and hearts might therefore also admit that sex, like politics, just isn’t so important that it should divide followers of Christ against one another.
This is a lot like the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html]argument David Brooks put forth for “conservatives”[/url] awhile ago in the [i]New York Times[/i]. Indeed, if we take note of the percentage of the homosexual population that avails themselves of the oxymoronic notion of “Gay Marriage” in locales where it’s available, it should be clear that it is hardly going to achieve anything like the ostensible social benefits claimed by such pragmatists.
Markham claims:
[blockquote]And from modern science, we learn about orientation. We learn that some people, often at considerable personal distress and pain, have an attraction to persons of the same sex.[/blockquote]
The canard that the Biblical texts don’t speak to “orientation” is just silly. In fact, they speak to our [i]sinful[/i] orientation, which is unsurprisingly absent from exercises in eisegesis like this Open Orthodoxy document. Recasting our charge to be faithful in marriage as one of being faithful in this abstraction we call [i]monogamy[/i] is a classic case of sophistry. There’s simply no support for it in Scripture or the witness of the Church through history. Instead, it relies on our belief in the goodness of monogamy to try to destroy the basis of that belief, which is its rootedness in the created order.
Then Markham throws a bone to the orthodox, saying,
[blockquote]We cannot and should not affirm every sexual relationship between consenting adults. We should challenge the movement for polyamory.[/blockquote]
Well, why? If we accept his specious argument that it’s really about monogamy on the basis of the amazing moral discoveries of Science, we can of course rest assured that Science won’t soon discover that [url=http://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Monogamy-David-Barash-Ph-D/dp/B0002OUQU8]monogamy is unnatural for some people[/url], right?
Well intentioned this may be, but we still wait in vain for someone to present an adequate theological defense of same sex imitations of marriage. The undefended and highly questionable assumptions that seem always to dog this sort of effort glare herein:
1. We are presented with absolutely no evidence whatever that “…from modern science, we learn about [sexual] orientation.” We learn nothing of the sort, either from scientists or anyone else. The fact that one’s sexual desires are involuntary a) is something we never needed science to teach us; b) is meaningless as regards ethics; and c) changes nothing about the proper understanding of Divine Revelation. In this regard, science can underscore what everyine already knows, but it adds nothing either to our sum total of ethical knowledge or our understanding of Hoy Writ.
2. The biblical evidence on offer is astonishingly shallow. The notion that Scripture treats the various sexual couplings therein described is just plain silly. Only monomagous marriage is presented as having any theological meaning. None of the others merits any attention, save as counterexamples. The discussion of Genesis 3 claims that any human being regardless of sex can fulfill the requirement of a fit helper for the man. The text clearly limits this estate to the woman, whose sex is double-underlined throughout. The author might have at least attempted an argument in support of his position; instead, he merely asserts and moves fruitlessly on. The fact that marriage ends with the resurrection changes absolutely nothing about its definition and lends absolutely no credence to the author’s point. Indeed, it demonstrates that sex is not as important as he wishes to make it: there will be no homosexuality in the resurrection either.
3. The assessment of Natural Law is simplistic at best. No effort is expended to address the rather obvious primary text, Romans 1, with its deeply rabbinic understanding of “natural” as prescinding from divine intent as shone forth in fundamental design. Man is made for and complements woman and vice versa. Mental states that urge unnatural pairings – male and male and even more female and female are obviously not intended by Divine design to come together – are clearly objectively disordered. The fact that they are involuntary (whether due to biological or psychological factors) is of no consequence to this understanding, however significant it may be for pastoral care.
4. No effort is made at all to discuss the significance of the body for the understanding of the human person – and since the incarnation, for Christ Himself. But then that might lead into an actual exploration of sacramental theology and if marriage is understood as a sacrament a whole range of new obstacles to the agenda is introduced.
One good thing: he at least doesn’t trot out the manifestly silly “inclusion of the Gentiles” example – and he keeps the shellfish argument to a minimum. Maybe someone will actually make an argument along these lines that stands up to scrutiny. We’re still waiting.
#2 Mr Greville – I appreciate and applaud your desire for comity and forbearance. It is one of the tragedies of this entire mess that distinctions that should be clear are being constantly blurred if not ignored altogether. There is a big difference between “Magisterial Christianity”, that of the great theologians, creeds councils, etc. of the Church, and “Folk Christianity”, that inhabiting the pews – and poorhouses, hospitals, lunch counters, etc. The latter has always had a rather wider band of belief and we ought not demand an over-wrought scrupulosity from those precincts. I suspect that I kneel beside multiple holders a raft of heretical beliefs at the alter on any given Sunday and while I do not celebrate error, I rejoice that its sufferers are at least joining in proper worship of the God of Israel.
Denizens of the estate of the former, however, must be held to a higher standard – not of practice, which applies to everyone and to which pretty much all fall short – but of proclamation. Teaching false beliefs is a rather different thing from holding them. And so we make sure – doubly sure – that what is proclaimed as Christianity by the avatars of its Magisterial office – particularly bishops – is in fact good, sound Christian teaching. I would certainly agree that there is no need to divide from fellow pewsitters who adhere to false beliefs – though attempts to persuade them of the truth are necessary – but I cannot sit idly by while error is propounded ex cathedra.
It is because the cause of the homosexual movement – and the seemingly concommittant sloppy theology and bad hermeneutics that enable it – is being propounded from some who should belong under the discipline that attends Magisterial Christianity that this is a matter of possible schism – with teachers of false doctrine leaving the larger Christian body.
Those who propose the innovation have a duty to the Church to demonstrate that what they propose is not contrary to the Christian faith – that it is neither attended by the afore-mentioned theological and hermeneutical deficiencies. This the subject document does not appear to these eyes to do. Hence, the matter, because its unproven claims are being preached rather than because they are being believed, promises to further divide TEC. Which would be a shame.
Having also been involved in the Righter Trial and the Court’s idea of “core doctrine,†I would also point out that while Markham wants to set up a contrast between first-order and second-order issues, he fails to describe the first-order issue in orthodox terms:
[blockquote]Orthodoxy involves two affirmations: first, recognition that the Eternal Word was present in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For Christians, we know what God is like by looking at that life. It is the life of Jesus of Nazareth which is the Christian equivalent of the Qur’an. And in understanding that mystery, the Church determined rightly that we need to understand God as a Trinity (there are three aspects within the life of God).[/blockquote]
Note how he carefully avoids naming the Word as “Son†or the Trinity as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (“three aspects within the life of Godâ€). To paraphrase Bishop Pike, “if this be orthodoxy…†Anyway, there is a connection between his openness on the undifferentiated Trinity (except for its threeness) and on undifferentiated sexuality (except for its twoness), because it is the very distinction of the sexes and distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that gives rise to the (partial) analogy between divine love and human sexual love.
This is not a difficult essay to assess. We have seen all of this before.
Is the Bible clear or unclear on this issue. It is clear. Shall we listen to what it says, or not? Your choice now.
Is the goal of ssm monogamy? The homosexual groups say it is not. Is it monogamy? Such evidence as I have seen tells me that the common homosexual pairing is polysexual. The goal is polyamory, a cant word for Abandonment of Standards. The author of this piece is simply wrong. The question is, at last, will we maintain real standards for human behavior? Again, is it possible to have a stable human society whose only standard is, to quote Rabelais, “Do what you will?”
This essay intellectual dreck – yet another attempt to gild the toadstool. That is, it is unsound, as the others above have demonstrated, at many levels. But its structure, its use of references, its tone of carefully calibrated reason, might well bring conviction to a mind that is easily persuaded by the gingerbread work of scholarship rather than its substance. Larry
Where I live, in Europe, non-discriminatory marriage is coming in in pretty much every country at the moment, and you know what? It causes NO PROBLEMS AT All.
The problem I see is that his arguments for same-sex marriage probably equally well to polygamy. As #3 points out, it is unclear, from a materialistic point of view, that science won’t someday say: “polygamy is natural for many or most people.” What then? Even his relaxed attitudes on divorce and remarriage seem to allow for a situation where a cheating spouse (or a spouse who desires to cheat) could simply cite “irreconcilable differences” and walk away from his or her current marriage only to start up a new one with the object of desire a short time later. What then? It is unclear what Markham stands on or if what he is proposing is substantive at all…
“Non-discriminatory” marriage? That sort of slanted locution abounds in this paper, too, which helps make clear its nature as a semantic game rather than serious theology or philosophy.
#9: This form of “marriage” may cause no problems of any sort as long as one does not see this form of “marriage” as the problem itself, and as a symptom of a society that has lost its moral bearings to such a degree that all moral compasses point in all directions at the same time.
This is the fundamental problem with universal tolerance. The only universally tolerant man is one who (a) has been so corrupt that he must grant to others what he wishes for himself, or (b) is without moral or intellectual standards and so is unable to distinguish between good and bad. That really cannot be denied, and a Europe that sees the above as the absence of problems has the biggest of all problems. Larry
An excellent piece of the escapist romantic mode offered as substantive. Perhaps the novel will sell well. The relation to actual homosexual life is unrecognizable. He missed WILL&GRACE;, I take it.
Monogamy is like Christianity? Tried and found difficult? This paper seems a stealth version for the adoption of homosexual views of monogamy rather than the application of monogamous views as historically understood to either heterosexuals or others.
The author uses Augustine as an example. Pardon my ignorance but didn’t Augustine conquer his passions? Markham would do well to pay better attention to the lives of the Church Fathers.
#18 – The issue here is not St. Augustine’s personal life, which he uses as a springboard for his masterful philosophical/theological reflections in his Confessions. I see little reason to bother with “Fr Mark’s” oversimplifications. No one knows what all went on between the saint and his live-in lover save the couple themselves and I think it best to leave it between the two of them. Their son died fairly young and the saint is rather close-mouthed about this rather tragic turn of events. Remember, tell-alls were not exactly all the rage until very recently and Augustine’s purpose is theological, the contemplate the greatness of the God of Israel, rather than to indulge in spiritual navel-gazing. St. Augustine doesn’t need defending here.
And indeed, this discussion is properly theological as well, exploring the level of success of Prof. Markham’s defense of his theological position. Those of us who in this space have engaged it thus have found it wanting in various ways, the most important of which is pointed out by Dr. Noll in #7: the trinitarian language is errant, reflecting a probable lack of orthodoxy at the very point that the author most strongly wishes to demonstrate it. Add to this the other errors pointed out elsewhere and we have a defense that fails of its purpose. It is, to these eyes, to be regretted. One would hope that the defenders of the pro-homosexual position would be able to make a plausible theological case. They haven’t.
And Daniel, there is a problem with accusing people of “oversimplifications”, because it’s precisely what I find the conservative lobby in the Church are doing all the time with regard to the current pressing issue. But it seems to be just fine and dandy for ecclesiastical conservatives to make everything black and white when talking about other people’s most private and deep personal relationships, as long as it’s just done from their point of view, I suppose…?
#21: Sir – If you find oversimplifications above, you are most welcome to comment on/critique them. I have said nothing about anybody’s personal relationships as they are none of my business, nor have they anything much to do with the topic we have been invited to discuss. The issue in this space is a particular argument made by a particular individual about a particular topic. I think it disappointingly weak and am prepared to defend that position. I think your comments on Augustine overly simplistic and beside the point. The fact that others are guilty of the same thing outside this discussion can hardly be germane. If you wish to defend the theological rectitude of Prof. Markham’s speech, I am all ears. Otherwise, well, I wish you all the best.
#23 Sir – I couldn’t agree with you more, though I fail to see how such a truism is germane to the matter at hand. It is worth noting, however, that Prof. Markham would seem to provide a counterexample: his misstatement re the Trinity may well be an ill-considered attempt at economy of expression rather than an indication of theological error. I rather hope so, though it makes no difference to the failure of his overall argument.
By the bye, with respect to the claim made in #20, I disagree. Augustine at no time abandoned his son Adeodatus, who was with him on his return from Rome to Africa following his conversion and died at 16 shortly after their arrival. Again, I wish you well.
Begging the question, he states that Christians should welcome Gay Marriage because it is a way to promote monogamy in the homosexual community. From what I have read elsewhere, it promotes nothing of the kind. The object of Homosexual Marriage proponents is the creation of political power.
This essay will probably infuriate anyone who insists that any particular and fixed “biblical theology” should always trump the Church’s historic creeds. Yet one hopes that all who mean to follow Christ with good will for fellow travelers would keep an open mind and heart about the following: None of us, who are not God, can know everything about God; yet all of us can gain more and more insight from considering ongoing dialectic between the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as a particular people’s salvation history – the wondrousness of almighty God recounted as experienced by other flesh and blood persons over thousands of years, expressed in a variety of human literary forms , and then translated into many languages – and the Christian Church’s historic creeds as the post-resurrection Christian movement’s recognition that some ideological bounds were necessary in order to authenticate as Christian, or something other, further claimed human experience of God. The scriptures and the creeds, therefore, should be heard always as speaking to one another, mediated by the Holy Spirit in all times and places, about the matters of utmost importance to God and people as God’s beloveds. People of good faith and good will are likely to differ, therefore, about whether any same-sex unions are consistent or inconsistent with God’s will. Open minds and hearts on both sides of the issue, however, should recognize that none of the ancient creeds speak to matters of personal lifestyles, social structures, or governmental policy. Open minds and hearts might therefore also admit that sex, like politics, just isn’t so important that it should divide followers of Christ against one another.
This is a lot like the [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html]argument David Brooks put forth for “conservatives”[/url] awhile ago in the [i]New York Times[/i]. Indeed, if we take note of the percentage of the homosexual population that avails themselves of the oxymoronic notion of “Gay Marriage” in locales where it’s available, it should be clear that it is hardly going to achieve anything like the ostensible social benefits claimed by such pragmatists.
Markham claims:
[blockquote]And from modern science, we learn about orientation. We learn that some people, often at considerable personal distress and pain, have an attraction to persons of the same sex.[/blockquote]
The canard that the Biblical texts don’t speak to “orientation” is just silly. In fact, they speak to our [i]sinful[/i] orientation, which is unsurprisingly absent from exercises in eisegesis like this Open Orthodoxy document. Recasting our charge to be faithful in marriage as one of being faithful in this abstraction we call [i]monogamy[/i] is a classic case of sophistry. There’s simply no support for it in Scripture or the witness of the Church through history. Instead, it relies on our belief in the goodness of monogamy to try to destroy the basis of that belief, which is its rootedness in the created order.
Then Markham throws a bone to the orthodox, saying,
[blockquote]We cannot and should not affirm every sexual relationship between consenting adults. We should challenge the movement for polyamory.[/blockquote]
Well, why? If we accept his specious argument that it’s really about monogamy on the basis of the amazing moral discoveries of Science, we can of course rest assured that Science won’t soon discover that [url=http://www.amazon.ca/Myth-Monogamy-David-Barash-Ph-D/dp/B0002OUQU8]monogamy is unnatural for some people[/url], right?
Well intentioned this may be, but we still wait in vain for someone to present an adequate theological defense of same sex imitations of marriage. The undefended and highly questionable assumptions that seem always to dog this sort of effort glare herein:
1. We are presented with absolutely no evidence whatever that “…from modern science, we learn about [sexual] orientation.” We learn nothing of the sort, either from scientists or anyone else. The fact that one’s sexual desires are involuntary a) is something we never needed science to teach us; b) is meaningless as regards ethics; and c) changes nothing about the proper understanding of Divine Revelation. In this regard, science can underscore what everyine already knows, but it adds nothing either to our sum total of ethical knowledge or our understanding of Hoy Writ.
2. The biblical evidence on offer is astonishingly shallow. The notion that Scripture treats the various sexual couplings therein described is just plain silly. Only monomagous marriage is presented as having any theological meaning. None of the others merits any attention, save as counterexamples. The discussion of Genesis 3 claims that any human being regardless of sex can fulfill the requirement of a fit helper for the man. The text clearly limits this estate to the woman, whose sex is double-underlined throughout. The author might have at least attempted an argument in support of his position; instead, he merely asserts and moves fruitlessly on. The fact that marriage ends with the resurrection changes absolutely nothing about its definition and lends absolutely no credence to the author’s point. Indeed, it demonstrates that sex is not as important as he wishes to make it: there will be no homosexuality in the resurrection either.
3. The assessment of Natural Law is simplistic at best. No effort is expended to address the rather obvious primary text, Romans 1, with its deeply rabbinic understanding of “natural” as prescinding from divine intent as shone forth in fundamental design. Man is made for and complements woman and vice versa. Mental states that urge unnatural pairings – male and male and even more female and female are obviously not intended by Divine design to come together – are clearly objectively disordered. The fact that they are involuntary (whether due to biological or psychological factors) is of no consequence to this understanding, however significant it may be for pastoral care.
4. No effort is made at all to discuss the significance of the body for the understanding of the human person – and since the incarnation, for Christ Himself. But then that might lead into an actual exploration of sacramental theology and if marriage is understood as a sacrament a whole range of new obstacles to the agenda is introduced.
One good thing: he at least doesn’t trot out the manifestly silly “inclusion of the Gentiles” example – and he keeps the shellfish argument to a minimum. Maybe someone will actually make an argument along these lines that stands up to scrutiny. We’re still waiting.
Isn’t an “open orthodoxy” by definition unorthodox?
#2 Mr Greville – I appreciate and applaud your desire for comity and forbearance. It is one of the tragedies of this entire mess that distinctions that should be clear are being constantly blurred if not ignored altogether. There is a big difference between “Magisterial Christianity”, that of the great theologians, creeds councils, etc. of the Church, and “Folk Christianity”, that inhabiting the pews – and poorhouses, hospitals, lunch counters, etc. The latter has always had a rather wider band of belief and we ought not demand an over-wrought scrupulosity from those precincts. I suspect that I kneel beside multiple holders a raft of heretical beliefs at the alter on any given Sunday and while I do not celebrate error, I rejoice that its sufferers are at least joining in proper worship of the God of Israel.
Denizens of the estate of the former, however, must be held to a higher standard – not of practice, which applies to everyone and to which pretty much all fall short – but of proclamation. Teaching false beliefs is a rather different thing from holding them. And so we make sure – doubly sure – that what is proclaimed as Christianity by the avatars of its Magisterial office – particularly bishops – is in fact good, sound Christian teaching. I would certainly agree that there is no need to divide from fellow pewsitters who adhere to false beliefs – though attempts to persuade them of the truth are necessary – but I cannot sit idly by while error is propounded ex cathedra.
It is because the cause of the homosexual movement – and the seemingly concommittant sloppy theology and bad hermeneutics that enable it – is being propounded from some who should belong under the discipline that attends Magisterial Christianity that this is a matter of possible schism – with teachers of false doctrine leaving the larger Christian body.
Those who propose the innovation have a duty to the Church to demonstrate that what they propose is not contrary to the Christian faith – that it is neither attended by the afore-mentioned theological and hermeneutical deficiencies. This the subject document does not appear to these eyes to do. Hence, the matter, because its unproven claims are being preached rather than because they are being believed, promises to further divide TEC. Which would be a shame.
Where to begin addressing the issue raised by Prof. Markham, except to say that I doubt he will be dialoguing with my book [url=http://www.stephenswitness.org]Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage[/url] any time soon? Enough to note that I took pains 12 years ago to argue that the issue at stake is “marriage,†not some other sort of relationship. That this is the case is now passé in the Church and culture.
Having also been involved in the Righter Trial and the Court’s idea of “core doctrine,†I would also point out that while Markham wants to set up a contrast between first-order and second-order issues, he fails to describe the first-order issue in orthodox terms:
[blockquote]Orthodoxy involves two affirmations: first, recognition that the Eternal Word was present in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For Christians, we know what God is like by looking at that life. It is the life of Jesus of Nazareth which is the Christian equivalent of the Qur’an. And in understanding that mystery, the Church determined rightly that we need to understand God as a Trinity (there are three aspects within the life of God).[/blockquote]
Note how he carefully avoids naming the Word as “Son†or the Trinity as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (“three aspects within the life of Godâ€). To paraphrase Bishop Pike, “if this be orthodoxy…†Anyway, there is a connection between his openness on the undifferentiated Trinity (except for its threeness) and on undifferentiated sexuality (except for its twoness), because it is the very distinction of the sexes and distinctions of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit that gives rise to the (partial) analogy between divine love and human sexual love.
This is not a difficult essay to assess. We have seen all of this before.
Is the Bible clear or unclear on this issue. It is clear. Shall we listen to what it says, or not? Your choice now.
Is the goal of ssm monogamy? The homosexual groups say it is not. Is it monogamy? Such evidence as I have seen tells me that the common homosexual pairing is polysexual. The goal is polyamory, a cant word for Abandonment of Standards. The author of this piece is simply wrong. The question is, at last, will we maintain real standards for human behavior? Again, is it possible to have a stable human society whose only standard is, to quote Rabelais, “Do what you will?”
This essay intellectual dreck – yet another attempt to gild the toadstool. That is, it is unsound, as the others above have demonstrated, at many levels. But its structure, its use of references, its tone of carefully calibrated reason, might well bring conviction to a mind that is easily persuaded by the gingerbread work of scholarship rather than its substance. Larry
Where I live, in Europe, non-discriminatory marriage is coming in in pretty much every country at the moment, and you know what? It causes NO PROBLEMS AT All.
[i] Slightly edited to eliminate sarcasm. [/i]
The problem I see is that his arguments for same-sex marriage probably equally well to polygamy. As #3 points out, it is unclear, from a materialistic point of view, that science won’t someday say: “polygamy is natural for many or most people.” What then? Even his relaxed attitudes on divorce and remarriage seem to allow for a situation where a cheating spouse (or a spouse who desires to cheat) could simply cite “irreconcilable differences” and walk away from his or her current marriage only to start up a new one with the object of desire a short time later. What then? It is unclear what Markham stands on or if what he is proposing is substantive at all…
“Non-discriminatory” marriage? That sort of slanted locution abounds in this paper, too, which helps make clear its nature as a semantic game rather than serious theology or philosophy.
It’s hard to imagine exposing one’s children to this moral rot. Perhaps that’s why few do anymore.
#9: This form of “marriage” may cause no problems of any sort as long as one does not see this form of “marriage” as the problem itself, and as a symptom of a society that has lost its moral bearings to such a degree that all moral compasses point in all directions at the same time.
This is the fundamental problem with universal tolerance. The only universally tolerant man is one who (a) has been so corrupt that he must grant to others what he wishes for himself, or (b) is without moral or intellectual standards and so is unable to distinguish between good and bad. That really cannot be denied, and a Europe that sees the above as the absence of problems has the biggest of all problems. Larry
An excellent piece of the escapist romantic mode offered as substantive. Perhaps the novel will sell well. The relation to actual homosexual life is unrecognizable. He missed WILL&GRACE;, I take it.
Monogamy is like Christianity? Tried and found difficult? This paper seems a stealth version for the adoption of homosexual views of monogamy rather than the application of monogamous views as historically understood to either heterosexuals or others.
The author uses Augustine as an example. Pardon my ignorance but didn’t Augustine conquer his passions? Markham would do well to pay better attention to the lives of the Church Fathers.
Kendall,
Do you have a date as to when this was written?
Br_er Rabbit: if I recall correctly, Augustine abandoned his common-law wife and child and ended up a bishop rather wound-up about sex…
Perhaps I shouldn’t have started: I’m a bit over my head here. Will no one come to the defense of Augustine?
#18 – The issue here is not St. Augustine’s personal life, which he uses as a springboard for his masterful philosophical/theological reflections in his Confessions. I see little reason to bother with “Fr Mark’s” oversimplifications. No one knows what all went on between the saint and his live-in lover save the couple themselves and I think it best to leave it between the two of them. Their son died fairly young and the saint is rather close-mouthed about this rather tragic turn of events. Remember, tell-alls were not exactly all the rage until very recently and Augustine’s purpose is theological, the contemplate the greatness of the God of Israel, rather than to indulge in spiritual navel-gazing. St. Augustine doesn’t need defending here.
And indeed, this discussion is properly theological as well, exploring the level of success of Prof. Markham’s defense of his theological position. Those of us who in this space have engaged it thus have found it wanting in various ways, the most important of which is pointed out by Dr. Noll in #7: the trinitarian language is errant, reflecting a probable lack of orthodoxy at the very point that the author most strongly wishes to demonstrate it. Add to this the other errors pointed out elsewhere and we have a defense that fails of its purpose. It is, to these eyes, to be regretted. One would hope that the defenders of the pro-homosexual position would be able to make a plausible theological case. They haven’t.
Daniel Muth: but you agree that Augustine produced a child whom he abandoned, and that he subsequently became a bishop?
[i] Please do not pull this thread off topic. [/i]
And Daniel, there is a problem with accusing people of “oversimplifications”, because it’s precisely what I find the conservative lobby in the Church are doing all the time with regard to the current pressing issue. But it seems to be just fine and dandy for ecclesiastical conservatives to make everything black and white when talking about other people’s most private and deep personal relationships, as long as it’s just done from their point of view, I suppose…?
#21: Sir – If you find oversimplifications above, you are most welcome to comment on/critique them. I have said nothing about anybody’s personal relationships as they are none of my business, nor have they anything much to do with the topic we have been invited to discuss. The issue in this space is a particular argument made by a particular individual about a particular topic. I think it disappointingly weak and am prepared to defend that position. I think your comments on Augustine overly simplistic and beside the point. The fact that others are guilty of the same thing outside this discussion can hardly be germane. If you wish to defend the theological rectitude of Prof. Markham’s speech, I am all ears. Otherwise, well, I wish you all the best.
Daniel: verbosity is not the same as intelligence.
#23 Sir – I couldn’t agree with you more, though I fail to see how such a truism is germane to the matter at hand. It is worth noting, however, that Prof. Markham would seem to provide a counterexample: his misstatement re the Trinity may well be an ill-considered attempt at economy of expression rather than an indication of theological error. I rather hope so, though it makes no difference to the failure of his overall argument.
By the bye, with respect to the claim made in #20, I disagree. Augustine at no time abandoned his son Adeodatus, who was with him on his return from Rome to Africa following his conversion and died at 16 shortly after their arrival. Again, I wish you well.