It is clear that today there is a huge issue about the relation between Christianity and sex which is a part of the debate about what social order, if any, Christianity implies. Despite the decline in religious practice, the big secular ideal of socialism has also for the moment collapsed. Secular people only embrace capitalism half-heartedly, with a shrug — as unavoidable reality, not as an ideology. In this vacuum only religion offers ideals — either the conservative Protestants idealize capitalism, or others put forward religiously grounded communitarianisms and ecologies. The debate within religion — and this really means, for all pretense otherwise, the debate within Christianity — is now the great debate.
And part of this debate — a big part — is about sex. In just what way can there be a sexual path that is also a spiritual path? In a sense, this is a debate about human ecology, and it is notable that today, as earlier in the twentieth century, those who are “conservatively” critical of over-technologization and the exploitation of nature also tend to be in favor of a more positive attitude toward sex (D.H. Lawrence, J.C. Powys and Eric Gill, for example). Inversely, those who are more conservative, puritanical and legalistic about sex are often those who fully embrace technological modernity, the ruthless exploitation of nature and economic liberalism.
Moreover, in reality nearly all mainline Christian opinion has veered more toward the former combination than the latter. Even the Roman Catholic Church has taken new steps this century to admit more fully that sex as such, rightly exercised, is productive of good. And even the pope seems to concede, unlike his predecessors, that homosexual orientation as such is not wicked. Already, then, there has been a shift of Christian identity. Christianity is the religion of love — yet what is love? Is agape also eros? Is love of the neighbor entirely distinct from love of the friend and love of the lover, including physical love? Astonishingly, there has been no Christian consensus here: for example, Kierkegaard’s view is almost the opposite of that of Aquinas (the latter seeing agape as essentially also philia and eros, the former absolutely not).
To be divided about love and physical love may not be so trivial. Moreover, this is also a division about authority. Although I favor the gay cause, I actually think the conservatives are more or less right about the Bible. Only disingenuousness fails to see that the ancient Hebrews and later the rabbis associated homosexuality, like other forms of sexual deviancy, with idolatry. To turn from the true God and the true mode of worship was linked with a turning away from the true objects and modes of sexual devotion. Failure to acknowledge this reading is often linked with an old-fashioned denial that there was an ancient Hebrew (more than Greek) obsession with the question of what was “naturally” fitting and what was not. This is both a ritual and a moral matter, since the Torah makes no such distinction at bottom.
For a professor of theology, it is quite odd that Milbank would characterise as “theological nonsense” the concept of holding clergy to a higher standard than laity. Unless, of course, he’s never actually really read the Bible. His repeated linkage of evangelical Christianity in general with untrammeled capitalism and disregard for the environment also betrays an ignorance as deep as his bias is broad.
Predictable professorial piffle.
Milbank isn’t an ordained theologian of the Church, he’s a teacher in a secular university who can say what he likes (or is allowed to say, according to present day academic coercion). This was written in 2003 and events are proving him wrong.
The pro-gay ‘Radical Orthodox’ movement he helps lead is not orthodox and it’s failing. R. R. Reno explains why in ‘First Things’.
Folks may find of interest Scott Carson’s critique of Milbank’s article.
Link to Reno’s article:
Radical Orthodoxy Project (see the latter part of the article).
[blockquote]And even the pope seems to concede, unlike his predecessors, that homosexual orientation as such is not wicked[/blockquote]
This will certainly be news to the pope.
Professor Milbank may not recognize that he has done something in his argument that he should not have done. What he has done is the equivalent of saying, “I don’t agree with your axioms; you’ll have to change them.” to conservative evangelicals and others who agree that the Bible is clear on the issues of the sinfullness of homosexual acts (in Romans 1 and elsewhere), and the qualifications required for bishops and other clergy (as set forth in 1 Timothy 3). No matter that the article is now almost four years old, I would hope for better from one whose title includes the words, “Professor of Philosophy.”
Wow! In reading articles like this I find a veil lifting from me that helps me seriously understand how misordered thinking can become so accepted, commonplace, and dominant. I guess I’ve just never been exposed to enough ivory-tower liberal academics to appreciate just how out of touch with reality they can become. A few choice examples:
So the idea is, when things get complicated it’s ok to embrace that which is incorrect? Just because we suspect TEC won’t go back and do the right thing does that make what they have already done the right thing? Progress at any costs?
What theological grounds might these be? Is there something in the BCP, 39 Articles, Canons, or Bible that I’ve missed? Has Augustine, Origen, Aquinas, or Cromwell [ 🙂 ] issued something to support this statement? How about Chesterton, Lewis, or Merton? Anybody?
Perhaps he hasn’t noticed that those same “sinister” factions of Christianity are growing fastest in both the U.K. and the U.S.? And hasn’t he noticed that the whole USSR experiment failed? And is a world who has reduced childhood disease and death to the lowest levels in recorded history really “desperate”?
Really? Theological outrage? Clergy taking to the streets in protest? Sit-ins? Demonstration? Prophetic witness that Scripture is wrong??? Think about that one for a minute. Who had that witness, what did it go like? “God has spoken to me and said explicitly that Scripture is wrong.” Isn’t a prophetic witness against Scripture sort of an oxymoron?
He sounds so disappointed! And how about you out there, are you embracing capitalism “half-heartedly”? Or are you glad you can take advantage of the free flow of money and information that we are blessed with here in the U.S.? Poor guy, he’s so missing the boat.
Not bad enough to make such a sweeping generalization, but to make one so wrong-headed is just stunning. Capitalistic technocrats are conservative about sex???? I suggest he spend one midday martini lunch at a high-end strip club and disprove his pitifiul statement. Or better yet, take a look at my older friends now who were very liberal in their youth and now have jobs, mortgages, and children. They are the same people they were before internally, they just took the time to grow up.
Right. The actual term he used was “disordered”. And he expressly said that sex outside of marriage is a sin. And that marriage can only be between a man and woman. I’m not getting any “softening” of the Papal position out of these statements.
Actually, there has been striking Christian consensus on the place and differences between Eros, Agape, Philadelphia, etc, those who have tried to confuse these loves and minimize the differences between them have consistenly been non- or barely- Christian apologists in the first place. The Church (Rome, Constantinople, Canterbury, even St. Petersburg) have been remarkably in agreement on these issues. In my opinion, he’s just flat wrong about that.
Fancy that. Only Nixon could go to China, I guess. Too bad he spends the next few paragraphs explaining why Scripture doesn’t matter in this case. Still an extraordinary admission.
Since when does radical = Salvific?
Contradictory. God is great, creation is boundless, yet man is still an animal? Gender is obviously one of the gifts God handed down, and his “height over height” God would have certainly had reasons for both genders to behave in certain ways. Why is this difficult to understand?
Rally round the flag boys! We’ll win the battle “An inch at a time”. I’ve yet to meet any of these “young evangelicals” who’ve decided that Scripture was wrong about homosexual practice. And I’ve no doubt that he’s correct that resistance will gradually fade and normalization will occur. Man will forget, sooner or later. The question remains, will God adjust His standard on our behalf yet again?
KTF!…mrb
What a great article – I was particularly moved by this:
In so witnessing they will be giving a lead to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which will shortly have to confront the gay issue for themselves. I believe that when they do, it will eventually become apparent that a Catholic theological view points to acceptance of homosexual practice by those created with such an orientation.
Since even many younger, quite conservative evangelicals are changing their minds on this issue, there is every reason to think that gradually resistance to gay practice will fade. Therefore, Catholic Christians should not feel afraid of taking a prophetic stand at this juncture for fear of schisms which are likely to prove only temporary, since they do not concern more perennial divergences of doctrine. Not to do so is likely further to compromise the church in the eyes of the world which, not at all without reason, believes that over this issue it is mired in fantastic and almost comical depths of hypocrisy.
Re: #8,
I was moved by this
“they will be giving a lead to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches which will shortly have to confront the gay issue for themselves. I believe that when they do, it will eventually become apparent that a Catholic theological view points to acceptance of homosexual practice by those created with such an orientation”
too — moved, that it, to wonder about how a man of education and intelligence could have written such self-deluding nonsense, especially after nearly 25 years of “John Paul the Great.” But, then, maybe he thinks that Papa Ratzi is his disciple.
#8: “the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches…will shortly have to confront the gay issue for themselves.”
The issue has been settled for centuries.
That entire passage is utter nonsense.
“Those who are more conservative, puritanical and legalistic about sex are those who are more likely to embrace technological modernity” Technological moderinity has brought you viagra and it’s clones, penile prosthesis, implants to aid women with orgasms etc. Sorry this fellow’s logic just doesn’t follow.
Wow — Milbank was way off in his predictions. Things are *much* more hardened than they were six years ago and conservatives have actually moved farther conservative, as witness the Roman Catholic church’s new rules and enforcement of those rules regarding homosexuality in seminaries, to name just one instance..
I particularly note:
“Only disingenuousness fails to see that the ancient Hebrews and later the rabbis associated homosexuality, like other forms of sexual deviancy, with idolatry.”
I believe it is called “scholarship” in the ECUSA/TEC rather than “disingenuousness”. And the latter is an especially multisyllabic construction of the word ‘lie’.
i jest be guessin’ that ole Millbank ain’t as much under the affluence of inkohol as some thinkle people he are!
Blah…blah …blah…
So tell us John….What’s your favorite pitch?…the curve or the slider?
I believe that, not in our lifetimes, a synthesis of the reality of homosexual orientation with Christian belief will come from the Roman Catholic Church. It (the RC Church) will absorb that reality and sanctify rationally. Other ecclesiatical bodies are incapable of thinking clearly and authoritatively enough to do this, expecially evangelically orientated ones. There is a critical mass in the RC Church that will impel this change gradually forward, just as there is already, I believe, a critical mass in the Church that will likewise impel WO. Give it all another 100 years.
#15
You have no grasp of reality if you believe that to be true. The Church is not a democracy and will not be swayed by the current secular flavour of the month. Whatever modernist or relativist elements that have crept in post-VII are finally being purged. The vast majority of men being ordained at the moment are traditional and orthodox whilst the troublesome baby-boomer generation are retiring and dying off. The RCC will never sanctify sin and will never ordain women.
#16 Conor, I certainly do appreciate your optimism about the immovability of Rome. I don’t share it, but I do appreciate it.
KTF!….mrb
I agree with Conor (#16), and frankly, rob (#15), I think you are fantasizing, as Rome has pronounced, as authoritatively as it can, short of an ex cathedra papal definition, that WO is simply impossible (Pope John Paul II’s “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis” in 1994 declared “ecclesia nullatenus facultatem” which is as much as to say that “the Church totally lacks the ability (or competence or wherewithal)” to ordain women, and as for SS, the whole of Catholic Tradition rules it out. Furthermore (and, I repeat, with due respect), you have taken this line for years, repeatedly on the “old Pontifications,” and have been challenged on it several times. Where is your “evidence?” Is it simply a “gut feeling” — or, even worse, a case of “the wish being father to the thought.”
I am moved to write this, now, because, despite the modest and subdued nature of your rhetoric, you are, in substance, in total agreement with the vaticinations of John Milbank, which strike me as neither “Catholic” nor in any historical sense “Christian.”
“The election of Gene Robinson was premature. There was no proper preceding discussion even within the United States that could have legitimated such a new departure in church practice. However, it has now happened according to a formally correct canonical procedure, and to oppose his consecration once it has occurred is likely to become de facto to support conservative opposition to homosexuality. ”
General “Buck” Turgidson: General Ripper called Strategic Air Command headquarters shortly after he issued the go code. I have a portion of the transcript of that conversation if you’d like me to to read it.
President Merkin Muffley: Read it!
General “Buck” Turgidson: Ahem… The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, “Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won’t stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let’s get going, there’s no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural… fluids. God bless you all” and he hung up.
[beat]
General “Buck” Turgidson: Uh, we’re, still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.
President Merkin Muffley: There’s nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. This man is obviously a psychotic.
General “Buck” Turgidson: We-he-ell, uh, I’d like to hold off judgement on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.
President Merkin Muffley: General Turgidson! When you instituted the human reliability tests, you *assured* me there was *no* possibility of such a thing *ever* occurring!
General “Buck” Turgidson: Well, I, uh, don’t think it’s quite fair to condemn a whole program because of a single slip-up, sir.
After reading this article I think it would be wise for someone to double check the spelling of the author’s name. Since just about everything else he wrote is wrong the odds are in favor of a correction being needed for that as well.
Why are you wasting so much time on the likes of this man? You have read this all a hundred times before. There is nothing new here, nothing cogent or original. This is the echo of an echo of an echo.
Larry