“…this opposition to divinely ordained determinacy with regard to bodily gender can only proceed by disregarding divine prohibitions. Veritatis Splendor repeatedly insists that ”˜the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the ”˜creativity’ of any contrary determination whatsoever.’”
–Hans Boersma, “On the rejection of boundaries: Radical Orthodoxy’s appropriation of St. Augustine,” Pro Ecclesia 15, 4 (Fall 2006), p 444. (Hat tip:SP)
Hell, why stop there — by that logic, when my mother began developing cataracts, God’s plan was for her to start living as a blind person, and for her to abstain from reading and other pleasures reserved for those born with eyes that didn’t cloud over as they aged. When Mom had a surgeon remove her cataracts, she sinfully placed herself “[in] opposition to divinely ordained predeterminacy with regard to [vision].”
And while we’re at it, let’s condemn a would-be mother who takes folic acid while trying to get pregnant: If God has ordained that her child is to live with the agony of spina bifida, we certainly wouldn’t want her to interfere with that divinely ordained predeterminacy either.
What utter tripe. This so-called reasoning should be an embarrassment to any thinking person, even more so than the skubala that Gagnon peddles.
I just thought of an even better one: According to this so-called logic, when blind people learn to read Braille, they too are “[in] opposition to divinely ordained predeterminacy with regard to [vision].â€
Hell, why stop there – the pros all tell us pedophiles can’t really be cured – let’s let them run wild in accord with the way they’re created. I just thought of an even better one: according to this so-called logic, we don’t dare tell anybody to change his behavior in some way so as to comport with some idiotic idea of a “god.” Let’s go with the questioning atheist and call it a day. Bottoms up!
Phil [#3], your pedophile counter-analogy isn’t germane; you need to offer one in which only consenting adults are involved and genuine harm is being done to someone. (“Endangering their own immortal souls” doesn’t count as genuine harm: Assuming arguendo that we have souls, we have no real idea what does or doesn’t endanger them.)
Correction: You need to offer a counter-analogy involving consenting adults where no apparent harm is being done to anyone.
#5 – no, I really don’t. There either are divine precepts or not.
“Consenting adults” is D. C. Toedt’s standard, not one that’s even been observed across cultures and histories. That is, it is arbitrary.
#6 – um – the golden rule?
Nice try, though. Or is Divine is whatever Phil thinks it is…
How does the golden rule apply here, John? Maybe you got your comment numbers mixed up – heck, it appears you’re not even commenting on the right thread – the divine [sic], apparently, thinks exactly as does D. C. Toedt, not me.
#1, Yes, your comparison makes perfect sense. Oh wait, I can’t seem to find the scriptural prohibition for seeking medical care. Maybe you can enlighten us and tell us and tell us where to find it.
Indeed, the door of innate biology has already been kicked down here. It’s just waiting for the next group to walk through.
All that stands in the way is the law, and that will of course need to change as the language of civil rights is brought to bear on the plight of pedophiles and their inborn appetites, preferences and lifestyle. Appeals to a quaint sense of morality will naturally be laughed at as relics of benighted, superstitious sectarian belief, ignorant of the findings of Science.
You know this, John, and you’ve already approved the next step. You’ll approve this one in time.
A great two sentences, Jeffersonian — and so transparently true as given the two or three revisionists who have commented here over the past several months, luckily providing immense quantities of evidence for what you say.
RE: “All that stands in the way is the law, and that will of course need to change as the language of civil rights is brought to bear on the plight of pedophiles and their inborn appetites, preferences and lifestyle. Appeals to a quaint sense of morality will naturally be laughed at as relics of benighted, superstitious sectarian belief, ignorant of the findings of Science.”
Jeffersonian [#10] and Phil [#3], you seem to be claiming that allowing same-sex unions would put us on the road to legitimizing pedophilia. That makes about as much sense as claiming that the outdoor display of floodlit crosses puts us on the road to legitimizing KKK lynch mobs.
D. C. #12, if one made the claim that biology compelled certain people to light up crosses and parade around in white sheets, you’re right, it would.
[blockquote]Jeffersonian [#10] and Phil [#3], you seem to be claiming that allowing same-sex unions would put us on the road to legitimizing pedophilia. That makes about as much sense as claiming that the outdoor display of floodlit crosses puts us on the road to legitimizing KKK lynch mobs. [/blockquote]
I don’t recall the Klan arguing that illuminated crosses were the reason they lynched blacks. On the other hand, the entire reason non-celibate gays are being waved into the clergy and episcopate is that their orientation and behavior are supposedly innate and, therefore, “natural.”
This is no slippery slope argument, DC, as you and your fellow revisionists have already taken us to the bottom of the hill with this argument. Perhaps unwittingly (though I don’t doubt for a moment that there are other revisionists who are quite aware of what has been done), you have blown a hole so large that you yourself will be shocked one day at what will slither through.
Jefferson, we probably do agree that a hole was blown: but blame birth control for that one. Once we allowed women to have greater sexual freedom, the whole house of cards started falling down: now we have straights having sex outside of marriage, women choosing to have children out of wedlock. Blame those who use birth control and started having sex for pleasure. Once they started having fun with sex, the procreative priority became diminished.
Jefferson, we see things very differently. I’m not sure what “innate biology” is, given the wide… variety… of sexual practices are found in the natural world (or even in straight marriages). And you still haven’t explained how consent works in pedophilia. Liberals believe in consent as related to that foundational view called the golden rule, which can be found in scripture – its a verse that rabbis and Jesus actually reduce all of scripture to. It is the summation of the law.
Phil, there is a logical connection between the golden rule and consent. If I do not want something to be done to me, I shouldn’t do it to someone else. And if someone does not want to be done to, I should respect that they do not want to be done to, because I, myself, would not want to be so diminished. I’m surprised you don’t see it.
I would also remark that reasserters don’t see the element of greed in sexual relationships that exists.
John, nothing you posted in #15 has any bearing whatsoever on the discussion about who is fit to be a deacon, priest or bishop.
I use the term “innate biology” to distinguish between certain traits that are part of one’s DNA and those that are manifested simply as physiological or biochemical responses to external stimuli or choice. This is the argument of revisionists as it pertains to homosexuals, so I want to make my arguments as narrow as possible.
Finally: Surely, John, you know that children give consent to a host of things already in the course of their day. Why not to sexual congress, particularly if the one requesting is quite certain that (s)he would enjoy having it done to him/her? Isn’t that what the golden rule is all about?
That’s hardly going to save you, John. Three or four or five people can fervently choose to “do” an orgy to each other, just as a brother and sister could (and do) choose to be “married,” and just as a man and a prostitute could choose to transact for sexual services.
Jeffersonian makes a good point (#16). We’re told that St Mary herself might have been 14 at the time of the Annunciation, and, of course, as Christians, we do not gainsay her consent: “Let it be done to me according to your word.” So, if we’re talking about consent and the golden rule, when does ECUSA start doing child weddings?
Jeffersonian [#14] writes:
I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. I’m sure there are some extremists who claim that anything that is “natural,” is consequently permissible. I’m not one of them, and indeed reject that claim. As you rightly point out, the logical extension of the claim would legitimize pedophilia. I doubt any of the reappraisers who hang out here would accept the claim either.
What many of us do assert — especially when human beings stand to be hurt, at least in their estimation — is that:
• “we’ve always done it that way” is almost never an excuse for careful consideration of whether “that way” is still a good way, let alone the only way; and
• it’s simplistic (and/or lazy, and/or even cowardly) to insist that data not found in Scripture is irrelevant to morality, and that a moral decision is automatically invalid if it doesn’t conform strictly to scriptural teachings.
Damn, my fingers aren’t functioning: In the first bullet of #18, I meant to say that “we’ve always done it that way†is almost never an excuse for shirking from careful consideration of whether “that way†is still a good way, let alone the only way
[blockquote]I doubt any of the reappraisers who hang out here would accept the claim either. [/blockquote]
I don’t know if he hangs out here, but it’s ++Rowan’s reasoning. Didn’t you read the recently-leaked letters?
Surely you know that the “unnatural acts” language of Scripture is explained away by your fellow revisionists as heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts. The idea is that homosexual acts engaged in by homosexuals are “natural” and therefore not sinful…they are only doing what comes naturally.
Speaking of simplistic and lazy, D. C., you seem to be missing the whole point. Since your comments show you’re quite intelligent, I can only assume it’s being done on purpose.
What the extremists – and, claiming a man can “marry” a man pretty much puts one in that camp – argue quite often, if not always, is that such unions have to be glorified because this is the natural state of affairs, and it would be a heinous crime to deny anybody the sexual pleasure they crave as a matter of biological course.
Naturally, no reappraiser would admit to applying that logic in general: politically, it would be suicide. (Or, to be more precise, it would be political suicide now.) But the fact that the logic, like it or not, also admits pedophilia, child marriage, incest, eight-way orgies, serial college kid hookups and anything else the distorted heart of man can dream up in his fantasies is transparent to all but the True Believers.
Phil, you forgot “Gay Pride” Parades where the morality of the barn yard is brought to a street or city park near you. But hey, public masturbation hurts no one, right?
Jeffersonian [#20], I think you’re reading +Rowan’s letter to Deborah Pitt as claiming, in effect, that if something is natural, we may not prohibit it. But +Rowan doesn’t make nearly so strong a claim. He argues only that the existing scriptural prohibition of same-sex relations should not be read as applying to homosexual relationships that, like heterosexual marriages, are exclusively faithful and lifelong (pp. 1-2 of the PDF file).
I especially like what +Rowan had to say in the penultimate paragraph of his first letter:
From the [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4473814.ece]Times[/url]:
[blockquote]However, in an exchange of letters with an evangelical Christian, written eight years ago when he was Archbishop of Wales, he described his belief that biblical passages criticising homosexual sex were not aimed at people who were [b]gay by nature[/b].
He argued that scriptural prohibitions were addressed to heterosexuals looking for sexual variety. [/blockquote]
But of course, as has been posted here and validated by at least one revisionist, that whole “loving and monogomous” meme is not likely to last very long once the non-celibate issue evaporates.
So, if one can trace one’s deviance to “nature,” or some reasonable (and politically popular) facsimile, it appears unlikely that there will be any principled objection to “full inclusion” of said deviance within TEC. Or am I missing something?
Quoth John Wilkins,
[blockquote]Blame those who use birth control and started having sex for pleasure. Once they started having fun with sex, the procreative priority became diminished. [/blockquote]
So you’re saying that the door was kicked open sometime in prehistory? Barriers and drugs have been around for a [b]long[/b] time, and so have heterosexual oral and anal intercourse (there are some pretty interesting pottery drinking pots from the ancient Andes, among other testimony). And I stand bemused at someone so parochial as to think that only moderns are capable of recognizing that sex is fun.
There are two issues related to the above. The first is whether the scriptural refusal to approve of homosexual sex is clear and determinate. The ABC, as has so many other liberals, found a different answer but only by torturing the text. The textual prohibition is clear and final. If it is not, then the reader cannot grasp clear, and if it is not definitive, then nothing in scripture is. Because the prohibition is definitive, nothing can be said about it save that one agrees of disagrees.
More important in this context is the role of standards. At what point is is necessary or desirable to alter an accepted standard? The answer must start with this: That one has a better standard to put in its place. When one removes a standard and does not put a better in its place, what is the result? In the present context, we see that the alternative is the substitution of personal wish and desire to fill the vacuum created by the demise of a standard. So, in this case, the vacating of the marriage standard – one man and one woman – produces the above substitute, e.g., marriage can be whatever you wish it to be. T his means of course, that marriage becomes meaningless, for the presence of a clear standard is the sine qua non for the creation of meaning. It is therefore impossible for the homophile to advance the proposition that marriage should include two men but not more than two, because this is no longer a proposition that can be defended as a standard, i.e., this is not a better substitute for that which has been destroyed, since one cannot show that such a marriage is better or worse than three men or four liberals – a fearful adumbration of the coming darkness.
Accordingly, to Mr. Toedt and Mr. Wilkins, show me how the marriage of two men, but not more than two, is a better standard than the accepted standard? This same argument is applicable to homosexual sex, obviously. If the scriptural standard is vacated, why is sodomy between two men a better standard, and how is this a better standard that sex between a man and his dachshund? If you cannot show this, then the destruction of the accepted standard is replaced by personal wish and desire.
And t his, I submit to you all, is in fact where America is in much more than the homosexual pas de deux. This is the REAL disease, and the bubo of homosexuality is a gross and terrible symptom, but a symptom nonetheless. Larry
NWOhio Anglican – you seem to have an unusual reasserting view. The consequences of pleasurable sex outside of marriage are much fewer than previously.
Phil – that’s not really the reappraising argument. Nor would it be a good one. For us a marriage is a bit more than sexual desire – it is about an entire relationship. Nor would we deny, in principle, sexual restraint. The reasons for restraint are numerous. It might not be obvious to you – or Jefferson – but pedophilia often involves a sort of predation.
Jefferson does believe in the slippery slope, but I think this is unfounded. Still – if he is right, he is perfectly rational for his opposition. As the Gay Catholic theologian noted – they think we are the stormtroopers ready to bring on the third reich – and if Jefferson is right that allowing two gay men to make a lifelong commitment to each other will bring a destruction to all that is good in Christianity – then he is completely right to oppose this. I don’t see it. I think straight people have done a good enough job disintegrating the moral claims they make about gay people.
Larry – I’ve mentioned this several times, but you have not listened. There are good economic reasons to oppose institutional polygamy. It might help you to understand that the lens for the reappraiser when it comes to sex is one through around sexual greed and predation. The lens for most reasserters seems to be around purity and procreation. Jonathan Rauch offers a strong case, for example, how they are different. I suggest reading them.
“There are good economic reasons to oppose institutional polygamy.”
So what? For a lot of poor women there are good economic reasons to support it! Polygamy is a very real option today – and it’s finding a new home in the west, thanks to immigration. Get with the times, John!
#11: I imagine the law will change not so much by recognizing the ‘rights’ of pedophiles but the ‘rights’ of 11 or 10 year olds to have sex – which cannot be far away, Hollywood, SIECUS,
Planned Parenthood etc having prepared the ground.
[blockquote]NWOhio Anglican – you seem to have an unusual reasserting view. The consequences of pleasurable sex outside of marriage are much fewer than previously. [/blockquote]
Apparently not, given the rate of bastardy. Though perhaps you mean that societal disapproval is way down.
But my root point is that the Church (and ancient Israel) have always been countercultural WRT sexual matters (and, of course, many other things). It’s not that our understanding or knowledge of these things is so much more complete now, it’s that our resistance to the zeitgeist is so much weaker.
Once again, it’s not just on sex that the Church is countercultural; For example, E.J. Dionne [url=http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=171]recently commented[/url] that William Jennings Bryan was probably a creationist (more correctly, an anti-evolutionist since he had no problem with an old Earth) because, as a Christian, he found social Darwinism appalling. That was the zeitgeist of his time, and he was resolutely countercultural, as all Christians should be.
John, you did not read, or simply chose not to respond to, what I said about standards and the absence thereof. I have made a case re: the function of standards, their relation to the creation of meaning, and the consequences of vacating the accepted without a replacement of equal value. The world of value cannot tolerate a vacuum. Wash the pier away and replace it with nothing, and the space will fill with driftwood and the waste of the sea. It is to be hoped you will address this issue directly. LM
Larry Morse [#27] writes:
Larry, your comment reflects the perpetual tension between standards and freedom. It’s a question of where to draw the line for a given issue, and why it should be drawn here as opposed to there.
Reasserters seem to believe, in the main, that humanity must draw the line wherever Scripture tells us — that, once we discern what Scripture says, the discussion must end and the line must be drawn once and for all. Some of us are unwilling to truncate the discussion there (which is a separate line-drawing problem in itself), for reasons we’ve written about extensively here.
[blockquote]Jefferson does believe in the slippery slope, but I think this is unfounded. Still – if he is right, he is perfectly rational for his opposition. As the Gay Catholic theologian noted – they think we are the stormtroopers ready to bring on the third reich – and if Jefferson is right that allowing two gay men to make a lifelong commitment to each other will bring a destruction to all that is good in Christianity – then he is completely right to oppose this. I don’t see it. I think straight people have done a good enough job disintegrating the moral claims they make about gay people. [/blockquote]
I’m not personally a believer in the slippery slope (but you seem to be, John, though you invoke a “house of cards” metaphor), however when a general principle is invoked in the justification of a particular action, one must then consider what other acts might fit under that principle. So when revisionists insist that homosexual acts are not sinful when performed by those for whom they are natural, it’s entirely reasonable to ask, if we are to adopt this principle as valid, why incest, polyamory, coprophilia, etc. are not also to be declared sinless acts.
Your brickbat swung at heterosexuals is well-aimed, but irrelevant. No one is talking about the secular culture here; we’re talking about Church teaching and practice. What you are pillorying appears to be what you are advocating: Moral license.
Lastly, and for the record, I am for, and have been for civil gay marriage for more than a decade. I don’t see any significant state interest in preventing gays from marrying.
Jefferson: are you arguing that the reappraising view is about easing standards? It does seem like that – I agree. And it seems that the church view is one simply of inculturation, as NW ohio anglican assumes. I admit some surprise that NW anglican sees the church as always counter cultural (it would be great if this were always the case), but the reappraising view is a bit more sophisticated.
Our view is a pragmatic response to a real pastoral problem: how do we realistically teach self-control and encourage peace when men are often prone to violence. We don’t reject moral license – but we begin with the importance of honoring a promise; we believe that relationships should bring peace rather than rivalry.
If this seems trivial to you, look at how rare honoring promises are; and how difficult relationships between the sexes are already. Most reappraisers are bewildered that the God of the universe, finds gay sex – or any kind of particular act – in itself worthy of damnation regardless of any context. To me it just looks like a very anthropomorphic understanding of God, Jesus as a prudish school-marm.
#29 – azusa, are you saying you support trafficking in women? Perhaps that is the problem: reasserters are casual in their understanding of persons as property. Perhaps poor women would like to be sold into marriage. PeI don’t think you’ve thought about the consequences of such economics – which would be disasterous. Scripture contains lots of stories about how problematic such relationships are.
John #35, I think most of us, reappraiser or reasserter, are bewildered about certain things the God of the universe does. One sign of somebody who actually believes that we are dealing with, in fact, the God of the universe, is that, upon becoming bewildered, he concludes that, although he can’t make the reasoning work, he is wrong and God is right. It appears you choose the opposite, concluding God has not reasoned as carefully or judiciously as you, and doesn’t share the proper priorities (which are yours, natch); therefore, His precepts are discarded.
That’s a refreshingly honest analysis, and my two cents are that it pretty consistently comports with the dialogue I’ve had with many reappraisers in the last few years.
I didn’t say the church [b]always is[/b] countercultural. I said it [b]should be[/b] countercultural; with, of course, the caveat that the Church’s standards don’t change. If the zeitgeist happens to support the Church’s standards, that’s an area where the Church doesn’t have to be countercultural [i]during that particular era[/i]. After all, even a stopped clock etc.
This is, by the way, distinct from “pastoral provisions” that bend the church’s standards; see, for example, Jesus’ comments about the Mosaic Law and divorce; the rules for conversion of polygamous families currently in force in Africa; or the strict regulation (rather than outright banning) of slavery as evidenced in the Mosaic Law, as well as the Catholic slave codes and other pronouncements of the Catholic Church.
OK, mea culpa. I [i]did[/i] say the Church “is” countercultural. Of course I meant “should be.” Why can’t you read my mind, John? 🙂
#35: “#29 – azusa, are you saying you support trafficking in women? Perhaps that is the problem: reasserters are casual in their understanding of persons as property. Perhaps poor women would like to be sold into marriage.”
Not at all – I’m a couple steps ahead of you here, John. You seemed to be saying polygamy was bad for economic reasons; but I say it’s bad because it’s a sin against the Law of Christ. In many cases polygamy could be ‘good’ economics, especially where there are very wealthy men (like my wife’s polygamous Chinese grandfather) and numerous poor women. But it’s still a sin.
In the same way, same-sex ‘marriage’ could produce social ‘benefits’. But it’s still a sin.
Perhaps that is the problem: revisionists are casual in their understanding of the word of Christ.
[blockquote]If this seems trivial to you, look at how rare honoring promises are; and how difficult relationships between the sexes are already. Most reappraisers are bewildered that the God of the universe, finds gay sex – or any kind of particular act – in itself worthy of damnation regardless of any context. To me it just looks like a very anthropomorphic understanding of God, Jesus as a prudish school-marm. [/blockquote]
I find that promises are kept in the vast majority of cases, John, if you include all promises made: commercial, personal, professional, etc. It’s precisely in the realm where left-liberal ideology has made its greatest inroads – sex -that chaos rules. Somehow, the “honoring a promise” part got lost in translation. Looking at Changing Attitudes’ reaction to the reveleation of Davis Mac-Ayalla’s predatory sexual exploits while in the US, I’d say it’s still not much of a priority.
It might seem school-marmish to you to suggest that God has set down rules for sexual behavior, yet the Bible does address such behavior. Perhaps the school marms were listening to God, and you are listening to someone altogether different.
So when revisionists insist that homosexual acts are not sinful when performed by those for whom they are natural, it’s entirely reasonable to ask, if we are to adopt this principle as valid, why incest, polyamory, coprophilia, etc. are not also to be declared sinless acts.
The above is Jefferson’s, and I would call to his attention (if it is necessary) that this simple bears out what I had said about the abandonment of standards without sufficient replacements. With the standard emptied, the replacement is a quod libet, and it is worth repeating that TEC’s word for the results of this moral vacuum is inclusiveness. What objection to bestiality rests on a widely acceptable moral principle if the traditional one is eliminated?
In fact, there is none. Surely a man can love his dog, and if he does, why should he not have sex with her/him? There are practical reasons that support such behavior, e.g., widely practiced, bestiality will lower the risks of overpopulation, and it has favorable economic implications: The practitioner will never catch AIDS or any STD. So I would ask Mr. Wilkins – or Mr. Toedt, whose argumentative skill is of a higher order – how one can refuse on moral grounds to accept this proposition if the issue of sin – the traditional view – is negated.
And it is worth saying again that if we approach problems of value on economic or practical grounds, then the world becomes morally meaningless, since both positions above are not moral ones; they are merely circumstantial solutions to common dilemmas. For a moral standard to exist, if must be seen, in Kantian fashion, as a ruling for all men, and this is to say that the problem is viewed, not circumstantially, but sub species aeternitatis.
Larry
Jefferson, I’m not sure what left-liberal ideology is. Is it a code word for something bad? It’s a way of halting discussion.
You’re smart, Jefferson. I’ll admit. I’ll move a bit slowly through your comment: you say that promises are kept in a vast marjority of cases. True. Then you say that people don’t keep promises within sexual relationships. But sex implies a variety of promises that are both assumed an implicit, which is why it is a bit more complicated: right?
One could argue that in the culture of serial monogamy, people generally honor implicit promises most of the time as well. If two people are dating, they do not have sex with other people, for example. Granted, there are lots of little deceptions in dating (take -online sites – people lie about their height and weight), but I don’t think this is much different than people taking liberties with their taxes.
But then you create a straw man. As a reappraiser, I think predatory behavior is wrong – be it by Mac-Ayalla or not. Changing Attitude’s perspective seems to me to be based on a peculiar political strategy, caused mainly because the COE has a hypocritical attitude toward homosexual clergy. That it was an American episcopalian who called him out represents, I think, that TEC really believes that there are sorts of relationships between gay people that can manifest the best of what marriage offers.
It seems to me that calling something “left-liberal” is really an excuse for hard thinking, in part because we probably disagree about what “left-liberal” is. In my world, the left, and liberals, were not always in the same set. Nor do I think that they are coherent world-views in themselves. I do think that giving women property rights, the disconnection between childbearing and death, and the pill changed the facts on the ground in a way that would be unthinkable in biblical times. To me this is just pretty plain, and not a matter of ideology. One these things happened, we are in a new environment.
It is possible that school-marms were listening to God. For that reason, they should not have gay sex. But I have seen school-marms change when they find out their children are gay.
Again, Jefferson, reappraisers may believe that God set aside rules for behavior. But pace Azusa, I think that the Law of Christ was not merely a divine fiat uttered by a bug dude in the sky, but had real consequences for peace in the here and now. Marriage – even in scripture – was about abundance and wealth, not merely about the erotic.
As far as listening to someone different, I only judge by the fruits of the spirit. If being partnered means having more self-control, then it seems blessed to me. If enforced celibacy and shame from being disordered means a lifetime of secret liasons and destructive behavior, the former is where the church should stand. For the reappraiser, the choice is first between honesty and deception – with the hope that honesty in God brings a transformation in one’s self. For the reasserter it seems to be between a God who cares about a certain kind of sex, or atheism.
#41 – Larry, are you arguing that scripture does not care about economic issues?
RE: “Is it a code word for something bad?”
Hopefully he means it that way, yes.
D.C., I wonder what standard you hold for what constitutes “consenting adults”. In early rabbinic law 12 and 1/2 years is old enough for marriage for a young girl. I think Christins put it at 13 for the minimum age up until the last three hundred years. Islam has it enshrined in the Qur’an that any girl who has had her first menstrual cycle can be married. Muhammad, after all, married Aisha, the mother of Fatima from whom the line of Imams descend, when she was nine.
Cultures change, of course. But how can one argue against changing a much older and more universal tradition (against same sex relationships) and still expect to hold onto the more recent one of a relatively late age of consent for marriage and therefore sexual activity? If a girl can be sexually active at nine, why not a boy? Wat are the standards that can hold?
[blockquote]But sex implies a variety of promises that are both assumed an implicit, which is why it is a bit more complicated: right? [/blockquote]
In the absence of societal consensus, it’s not complicated but anarchic. There was once such a consensus and, while not everyone was of the exact same mind and not everyone followed it, everyone knew within a certain confidence interval what those norms were. The push to overthrow those norms began in earnest in the 1950s and reached its goal in the 1960s. And yes, John, it wasn’t those mossbacks at [i]National Review[/i] leading the charge. The victory was so complete that today, a blogger can be subjected to prolonged harrassment from “progressives” because [url=http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/08/18/this_is_why_our.html]she had the temerity to suggest that having six fatherless children by five different drug dealers[/url] was a less than admirable family situation. I mean, who are we to judge? Isn’t it just serial monogomy?
[blockquote]That it was an American episcopalian who called him out represents, I think, that TEC really believes that there are sorts of relationships between gay people that can manifest the best of what marriage offers. [/blockquote]
I think what it means is that there are some revisionist individuals who really believe in the “loving, monogomous” meme, but that the organizations they support (i.e. Oasis) treats them as useful idiots. Even you thought the idea of blessing one-night stands “sound[ed] like fun.” It does seem like a choice between honesty and deception, doesn’t it?
Sarah, you are hilarious!
Phil – on some level you are right – but bewilderment and confusion implies one simply does not understand what is being said. I honestly do not understand what reasserters call the “plain text.” It is simply not plain to me any more because the scripture urge toward charity leads me to accept, perhaps, the potentially flawed reading of reappraisers. As Jesus said, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” I will trust that gay Christians have real witnesses to Jesus in their lives.
It does mean that I think that God did not say that such sex is bad: but ancient Jews did. And they may have done so for good reasons, responding to God as appropriately as they could for their age. I do not think they were wrong for their age. But for our age, I look to see how Gay Christians struggle with Jesus Christ.
John, obviously we disagree. For you to return again to your theme, “I do not think they were wrong for their age. But for our age…” only admits to the truth of the indictment mainstream Anglicans direct at ECUSA. Not only do I not see any evidence that Christ taught us to mirror the zetigeist back to itself, I’m convinced He taught the opposite.
Heh. And I’m feeling good!
Feisty too . . .
But you know, I see that the “code for something bad” did not halt “discussion” . . .
; > )
[i]Reasserters seem to believe, in the main, that humanity must draw the line wherever Scripture tells us — that, once we discern what Scripture says, the discussion must end and the line must be drawn once and for all.[/i]
Only for Christians. For all others, who live in a state of fallen-ness, then of course, they can do ‘what is right in their eyes’, however it wouldn’t be right in God’s eyes unless it followed the line drawn by Scripture. That’s the teaching of Original Sin and (corrupted) free will.
Peace
Jim E. <><
#41. I cannot see how you reached the notion about economic issue. Scripture does indeed care, but very little about economics qua economics, but a great deal about the moral issue raised by the marketplace. Scripture’s task is to assign values of a particular kind, and thereby create a new meaning where little or none was before. You and others like you have sought to find loopholes in the Law, theological sea-lawyers all, in the hopes that an exception or a loophole will disprove the whole, or to assert new standards by destroying the old ones. But scripture is not of that order; its purpose is to find new meaning in and through the old standards. Say the Chinese,”From the flute, new music comes.” The flute, you observe, stays the same. This is surely what Christ meant when he said he had come to fulfill the law, not replace it. (And yes indeed, that IS what he meant, because I saw him at the local WalMart, driving out the fat ugly people who bought plastic garbage to give to children at Christmas. He was driving them into the outer darkness. I asked him specifically.)
Still I was hoping one of you would address the substance of my preceding entry. Or is it really not answerable? (He said coyly.) LM
Chris Hathaway [#45] asks (apropos of the changing age of consent for marriage, and implicitly, for sexual activity): “What are the standards that can hold?”
Chris, I submit that the only robust approach to this question is a pitiless pragmatism: The behavioral standards that can hold are those that — in hindsight, for whatever combination of reasons — did hold.
Specifically, the standards that hold are those that happen to be adopted by individuals or groups (1) who succeed in preserving their individual- or collective freedom of choice, at least enough to avoid having outsiders’ standards forced upon them; (2) who succeed in raising children, and/or attracting converts or other imitators, and inducing them to adopt the same standards; and (3) the children and other imitators themselves succeed in all of activities 1 and 2. Any behavioral standard that, for whatever reason, fails to meet each of these three requirements will inexorably die out.
Consider the Shakers, whose age of consent is infinity (they practice celibacy). They’ve attracted a few converts, but as a group they’re pretty much dead.
“Moral” behavioral standards likely continue because they’re pragmatic, or because at least they’re not counterproductive. Consider a tribe of desert nomads, struggling to scratch out a living and fend off hostile neighbors. They need as many warriors, hunters, and farmers as they can possibly produce. They probably will fare better in the struggle to survive if they happen to proclaim that homosexuality (which reduces childbearing) is forbidden, and then enforce this behavioral standard by killing or banishing those who don’t comply. The tribe’s bards might claim that this behavioral standard was handed down by God; this theological claim might itself have survival value to the tribe if it increases compliance, but it wouldn’t mean the bards were right. In any case, neither aggressors nor agriculture will care a whit about the tribe’s morality; in the end, what matters is whether, on the whole, the tribe’s behavioral standards are sufficiently adapted to its environment that the tribe’s children can successfully raise children of their own in those standards.
It’s sometimes said that form follows function. I think we can plausibly argue that behavioral standards, even ones we think of as “moral” standards, tend to follow long-term group survival.
FOOTNOTE: Behavioral standards sometimes end up looking like morality. Suppose a behavioral standard causes a father (or mother) to overcome the urge to run away from an aggressor, and instead to die fighting so that his mate and his children can flee. Both the dead father’s genes and his behavioral standards would seem have a better chance of being passed along to future generations, than would those of a coward who abandons his family to the enemy. Similarly, a desert standard of (cautiously) extending hospitality to strangers can pay dividends when the hospitable hosts are later themselves the strangers. The crew of an Inuit fishing boat is compelled by tribal standards to share its abundant catch with less-successful crews; obedience to the standard promotes group survival, because it forces the successful crew to store its surplus in the bellies of others, which makes for a nice insurance policy against the day when they are the ones who have a bad day on the boat. (Some of these examples come from Robert Wright’s books The Moral Animal and Non-Zero.)
FOOTNOTE: Behavioral standards (being human) can be short-sighted, of course. We’re all familiar with one long-term consequence of China’s one-child policy, combined with the traditional Chinese desire for boys (and the resulting selective abortion of girls): The nation is starting to experience a severe gender imbalance among its young people. Because of the shortage of young women, China is having to figure out what to do with millions of testosterone-laden young men who likely will never be able to marry and “settle down” in the traditional way. If that’s not a recipe for social trouble, I don’t know what is.
You and I have little in common, Mr. Toedt, but I like your answers because they are well thought out and are consistent with some substantial leverl of experience. But you are mistaken in much of the above because you have confused the evolutionary world and its pratices, and the moral world.
The evolutionary world “practices” a pitiless pragmatism. The simple rule is, as you say, that what works is what works, and this situation will continue until it no longer works, when something else will work. This world is meaningless because it has no moral dimension. To be sure, this is a mere truism. It has no meaning and no moral dimension because it has no standards of any sort. WE may see standards, but this is simply vulgar (or well educated) anthropomorphism. Or perhaps it is better called the objectifying of the pathetic fallacy. So when you talk about behavioral standards and connect behavior to genetic continuity, there are no moral issues,qua moral, and if one is gene driven, or driven by evolutionary indwelling mandates, there are no standards involved.
Moral standards become an issue when we undertake to practice (and identify) self discipline in order to deflect or contain the internal mandate, the dark drive. T his is why the hard lesson is saying “no.”
Education BEGINS here. Saying “yes” is the liberal mantra, but it does not yield new meaning; it is mere drifting on a current. The damming of impulse is the source of standards, the peculiar human ability to press back against the flow, a practice we call self-discipline, and – this throwing back – see Frost’s West Running Brook – is the source of meaning and morality. You will agree with me that self discipline is the ground from which moral decisions spring, yes?
Christ’s message was strongly thus,to say NO to temptation, to thwart our tendency to sin which is, by definition, innate. And he came to tell us why this was meaningful, why is was necessary, how to carry this discipline forward, and what rewards exist for those who succeed. In short, he came to revitalize standards and so infuse new meaning into life. We cannot rise above evolution – God has seen to it that we be given an opportunity to perish utterly – but we can make the pitiless pragmatism generate meaning by resisting its inevitability. We cannot win this battle in this world, but we can give it value, so that we can understand the proposition: You must die to live. It is incomprehensible otherwise. Larry
Larry Morse [#53] writes:
I submit that it’s more nuanced than that, and that it’s possible to see God’s hand in all of this. When we do Action X, and it turns out that Action X does harm to others or ourselves, eventually that knowledge gets incorporated into our behavioral standards. (A few random examples: Smoking. Drinking and driving. Seat belts. Racial discrimination. Antisemitism. Sexual harassment.)
On the other side of the coin: If Action Y was thought to be harmful, but experience gradually proves otherwise, then allowing people to do Action Y if they wish can open up new possibilities.
In either case, humanity gets more productive, the better able to contribute to God’s continuing creation project — what Robert Wright calls the relentless upward escalator of progress.
(Thanks for the kind words, incidentally.)
Frankly, Mr. Toedt, Robert Wright is full of the stuff that comes from the south end of a northbound horse. Evolution is not progressive; that was noted decades and decades ago by JBS Haldane. Evolution rewards what produces enough offspring to carry on the species, on the short-to-medium term, even if “what produces offspring” harms the self or others.
There is no “relentless upward escalator of progress” anywhere in nature. There is no inherent morality in nature, or in science. In spite of this, the natural world is filled with amazing beauty — which points to God as the source of goodness beyond the natural.
NWOhio Anglican [#55], I’m curious what you’ve actually read by Robert Wright. For you to claim that evolution does not result in progress suggests that you have a very bounded view of “life, the universe, and everything” (with apologies to Douglas Adams) as it exists in the present versus how things were in the past.
By “evolution,” I think we have to refer to cultural- as well as genetic evolution. And cultural evolution is happening at a white-hot pace (says Wright, rightly).
For a recent example, consider the recent rise in oil- and food prices. I know of no serious economist who believes this is due to speculators. The consensus seems to be that, thanks to technological- and economic improvements of recent decades, hundreds of millions of poor people in China and India are starting to be able to afford basic necessities. Basic laws of supply and demand are therefore causing prices to rise — which will eventually provoke entrepreneurs to develop alternative sources of supply. Please tell us you agree this is a good thing.
You might try Gregg Easterbrook’s thought experiment from The Progress Paradox: Would you volunteer to permanently trade places with a random person who lived 500 years ago? How about 5,000 years ago? Remember, this would be for the rest of your natural lifespan, and for all you know you’d end up being an impoverished peasant in a land ransacked by warlords. My guess is that few if any people, living in any era, would agree to make this trade. That suggests very strongly that overall, life has indeed improved. This has happened through the generation of new genetic- and cultural variations in the world, followed by the propagation of those variations that “work” and the disappearance of those that don’t. That, my friend is evolution.
————-
You say that “[e]volution rewards what produces enough offspring to carry on the species, on the short-to-medium term, even if ‘what produces offspring’ harms the self or others.” You might want to reconsider that position.
For humans and many other species, merely producing enough offspring in the short-to-medium term isn’t enough. More is required to pass the test of natural selection: the offspring must be successfully nurtured, by someone, to a stage where they can live independently and, eventually, have offspring of their own. Otherwise, the offspring will die before reproducing. In that case, the parent’s genes will die out, just as surely as if s/he had had no offspring in the first place.
On this point, any human parent can confirm that (other things being equal) herds, packs, families, villages, clans, and tribes who help each other get through life have a decided advantage over loners in raising their offspring to reproductive age.
——————
You write: “There is no inherent morality in nature, or in science. “
I emphatically disagree. Ask yourself why humans and other animals have evolved to where they don’t always behave in unthinkingly-selfish ways. (See my comment above about herds, packs, families, clans, etc.) To me it suggests very strongly that, to a certain extent, morality is somehow built into the fabric of the universe. And in that regard I very much see God’s hand at work.
—————–
You write: “… [T]he natural world is filled with amazing beauty — which points to God as the source of goodness beyond the natural.”
I’m agnostic on the “beyond the natural” part, but otherwise we’re in wholehearted agreement.