When revolutionaries are worried about “truths” written in books, they usually ban the books or burn the books. In this case they are just ignoring the books. If the books containing “truths” aren’t included in a bibliography then the books and their “truths” don’t exist.
We have just published on Fulcrum a new article by Robert Gagnon, ‘[url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=314]Going in the Wrong Direction: A Response to David Atkinson'[/url]. We have also published the [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=313]paragraph[/url] by David Atkinson to which Robert Gagnon refers in his article.
For me, Gagnon’s whole argument is undercut by statements like “Polysexual impulses — sexual desires for more than one person — are common to humanity, especially to males.” That may seem self-evident to him, and it clearly reflects popular opinion, but it does not reflect universal human or even Christian belief. Until a few centuries ago, almost everyone believed that women are more lustful and less self-controlled than men.
There is the assumption throughout Gagnon’s writings that there is a single, unvarying, universal Judeo-Christian theology of marriage and sexuality that faithfully reflects empirically demonstrable principles of natural law. As Atkinson says, Gagnon discounts completely the historical, social, and cultural context of particular statements in the Old and New Testaments and the Church Fathers.
In fact, there have been at least two Christian sexual revolutions before the current one. The first hearers of Jesus’ message believed that adult Jews had a duty to procreate, and that belief was shared by most of their pagan contemporaries. After the first sexual revolution in the first century, perpetual celibacy was seen not only as an acceptable alternative to procreation but as much the preferred alternate. The first few years of the Protestant Reformation saw a second sexual revolution in which marriage moved back to front and center. The proponents of both revolutions read both Scripture and natural law in ways that were entirely inconsistent both with each other’s readings and with Jewish readings.
There has been a third revolution underway since roughly World War I—a [i]Christian[/i] sexual revolution quite distinct from the secular one—which has resulted in some very profound changes in doctrine and practice within even the most conservative churches. For example, there is the acceptance by the Vatican both of family planning by means other than total abstinence and of second marriages following “annulments” that look a whole lot like divorces. Other examples are the near-universal acceptance of kissing between unmarried persons and of sexual conduct between spouses that is not intentionally directed towards reproduction.
That is not to say that Gagnon’s conclusions are wrong, but his insistence on “traditional” principles that have not in fact been held everywhere at all times by everybody make me nervous.
I don’t recognise the Robert Gagnon you are writing about. It would be hard to find a writer more careful to understand the distance between the cultures of the ancient world and our culture today. Everything he writes is meticulously argued through specific discussion of primary texts. He is the enemy of the unfounded generalisation. It makes his writing heavy going sometimes – but always worth persevering with.
One revisionist Bishop to whom I recommended reading Gagnon had a go – and came back to me with the response that he found him ‘pedantic’! I think that means he didn’t have an answer to Gagnon’s points of detail.
And I don’t know where you derive the idea that Gagnon is arguing for a simple traditionalism based on naive assumptions. I cannot find that in his writings.
When revolutionaries are worried about “truths” written in books, they usually ban the books or burn the books. In this case they are just ignoring the books. If the books containing “truths” aren’t included in a bibliography then the books and their “truths” don’t exist.
Don’t worry AF, I’m sure they will get around to the banning and burning in short order. We see the beginnings of it in Canada already.
We have just published on Fulcrum a new article by Robert Gagnon, ‘[url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=314]Going in the Wrong Direction: A Response to David Atkinson'[/url]. We have also published the [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=313]paragraph[/url] by David Atkinson to which Robert Gagnon refers in his article.
For me, Gagnon’s whole argument is undercut by statements like “Polysexual impulses — sexual desires for more than one person — are common to humanity, especially to males.” That may seem self-evident to him, and it clearly reflects popular opinion, but it does not reflect universal human or even Christian belief. Until a few centuries ago, almost everyone believed that women are more lustful and less self-controlled than men.
There is the assumption throughout Gagnon’s writings that there is a single, unvarying, universal Judeo-Christian theology of marriage and sexuality that faithfully reflects empirically demonstrable principles of natural law. As Atkinson says, Gagnon discounts completely the historical, social, and cultural context of particular statements in the Old and New Testaments and the Church Fathers.
In fact, there have been at least two Christian sexual revolutions before the current one. The first hearers of Jesus’ message believed that adult Jews had a duty to procreate, and that belief was shared by most of their pagan contemporaries. After the first sexual revolution in the first century, perpetual celibacy was seen not only as an acceptable alternative to procreation but as much the preferred alternate. The first few years of the Protestant Reformation saw a second sexual revolution in which marriage moved back to front and center. The proponents of both revolutions read both Scripture and natural law in ways that were entirely inconsistent both with each other’s readings and with Jewish readings.
There has been a third revolution underway since roughly World War I—a [i]Christian[/i] sexual revolution quite distinct from the secular one—which has resulted in some very profound changes in doctrine and practice within even the most conservative churches. For example, there is the acceptance by the Vatican both of family planning by means other than total abstinence and of second marriages following “annulments” that look a whole lot like divorces. Other examples are the near-universal acceptance of kissing between unmarried persons and of sexual conduct between spouses that is not intentionally directed towards reproduction.
That is not to say that Gagnon’s conclusions are wrong, but his insistence on “traditional” principles that have not in fact been held everywhere at all times by everybody make me nervous.
Re: Dale Rye’s comments
I don’t recognise the Robert Gagnon you are writing about. It would be hard to find a writer more careful to understand the distance between the cultures of the ancient world and our culture today. Everything he writes is meticulously argued through specific discussion of primary texts. He is the enemy of the unfounded generalisation. It makes his writing heavy going sometimes – but always worth persevering with.
One revisionist Bishop to whom I recommended reading Gagnon had a go – and came back to me with the response that he found him ‘pedantic’! I think that means he didn’t have an answer to Gagnon’s points of detail.
And I don’t know where you derive the idea that Gagnon is arguing for a simple traditionalism based on naive assumptions. I cannot find that in his writings.