This is a response to a post by Clifton D. in the extended discussion on Reconciler's blog. I am responding with a post of my own since the productivity of the discussion had seemed to run its course on Reconciler's blog. I think Cliff raises questions that should be addressed but I cannot address his questions as representing the views of Reconciler or the Pastoral staff, at this time. So,Like the other posts referencing the discussion on the church's blog, these comments are my opinions and they do not necessarily represent Reconciler's position. (If you have not read the 67th comment you will probably need to do so in order to completely understand this post.)
As I understand Cliff, he claims that Reconciler wants to assert that issues of sexuality are private interpretation and that "Traditionalists" assert that "what they believe about sexuality is Public witness." I can see how Reconciler's position may be interpreted as such, but I am not certain this is in fact what we are saying. However, if Reconciler or anyone else claims that for the Church issues of sexuality are merely private opinion and not public witness,then they are misguided.
What I in fact see is that there are competing claims about what the public witness of the Church concerning sexuality should be and/or is. As I see it then what was suggested is that given that both sides of the issue are members of Christ's Body each side must take more seriously the claims of the other side. I see it this way because I do not think that either position (in the Protestant and Anglican context) is theological well founded. Also, It seems to me that we are not listening fully to the Orthodox position: "there has been 2000 years of unchanging teaching by the Church"(this I think needs to be unpacked and explored but we are poor theologians if we simply ignore this claim).
So Cliff, as I see it you conflated the traditionalist Protestant/Anglican view with the Orthodox view, this disregards an important difference between the Orthodox and traditionalist Protestants: all who broke from Rome believe implicitly that the Church in some particular things has erred, while it may or may not be admitted that in the broad sweep the Church has not erred. This is even to some extent, I think, true for Roman Catholics since the Pope has admitted a number of errors/mistakes committed by the Church: the Inquisition and Crusades being the most notorious examples. Though this does not extend admittedly to doctrine. However, to this protestant both the Crusades and Inquisition resulted from the teaching of Rome so I would need to be persuaded that the Pope can admit mistakes and still claim the church has never erred. It seems to me that if one believes the
Church at some point needed reformation or if it needs to apologize for mistakes then it has erred and therefore continued possibility of error in some of the details.
So, yes I am willing to say that the Church could have gotten some of the details about human sexuality wrong, though I would argue that error in some of the details does not mean that the Church's entire teaching on sexuality for 2000 years has been wrong. As I understand it the Orthodox don't like/allow for such a nuance. It's this disallowance that is one of the main reason for my remaining Protestant, it certainly isn't that I believe that Protestants are the Church and no one else is.
Now back to Public witness:
Sexuality is a matter of the Church's public witness. Given that members of the Church claim differing things concerning that witness and given that these Christians can neither fall back on private interpretation nor "well the church is without error and it has always taught this" each side must critically look into both their own claims and the claims of the others position. Since the traditionalist tend to simply assert what has always been without willingness to take a critical eye to the teaching and those who see the Church as needing to change its position on homosexuality have not actually provided any coherent theological reason for doing so, there is the need for both sides to remain together until actual and extensive theological examination has taken place.
So yes, I am saying that one or both sides will need to change their position. I personally do not find it outrageous to ask a Christian to consider that an aspect of their life might be "not only not of God, but of darkness and the demonic anti-Christ" since we are all on a journey from Darkness to Light, of theosis and sanctification. We have oriented ourselves towards Christ and away from Satan, but is there not continued struggle and cannot we be blinded from sin in our lives? I would answer yes. It is also not outrageous (given what I said about error and the Church) to ask traditionalist to consider the possibility that the Church has been wrong in this particular instance.
Now this discussion has been tangentially dealing with the question of the nature of the Church which Cliff asks of Reconciler. First let me say that I think the lacunae that Cliff detects in Reconciler's pastoral vision statement is explicable in that we are not seeking to form a new denomination with an eclesiology of its own. I would venture that to understand the eclesiology of Reconciler one would have to look at the possible ecclesiology of Baptism Eucharist and Ministry and then ask what are the eclesiologies of the three denominations which form Reconciler.
I will atempt a brief answer for the Evangelical Covenant Church: Two influences form the background of Covenant Eclesiology Lutheran teaching and Believer's church conceptions. We say, with the Lutherans, that the Church is where there is the right administration of Sacraments and the proclamation of the Word/Gospel which shows connection with the historic apostolic witness of the Church. WE also add, agreeing with the Believer's Chruch tradition, that such a church is made up of those who have come to faith, we then add and are baptised. Given this definition Reconciler is a chruch and is part of The Church. Given this eclesiology I do not see why Reconciler would be a parachurch organization. There is nothing that prevents me, as a Covenater from sharing the Eucharist with any other church/denomination, it is an other church's eclesiology that would prevent me from so partaking.
I do not claim that I am satisfied with Covenant eclesiology (it can be a bit vague because in truth the Covenant doesn't have a well defined eclesiology of its own) or with Lutheran and Believer Church eclesiology from which we borrow, but as far as I understand Orthodox eclesiology I do not as of yet find it convincing. If I did I would be Orthodox.
Larry said “What I in fact see is that there are competing claims about what the public witness of the Church concerning sexuality should be and/or is. As I see it then what was suggested is that given that both sides of the issue are members of Christ's Body each side must take more seriously the claims of the other side. I see it this way because I do not think that either position (in the Protestant and Anglican context) is theological well founded. Also, It seems to me that we are not listening fully to the Orthodox position: "there has been 2000 years of unchanging teaching by the Church"(this I think needs to be unpacked and explored but we are poor theologians if we simply ignore this claim). “
ReplyDeleteSorry Larry, but this is drivel. Suppose you substituted genocide for the term sexuality in your above spiel, thus putting the Bible as gospel truth folks on the defensive, since parts of the Old Testament sure seem to support genocide, (although to do them justice, I’ve never heard a traditionalist interpret it that way.) Would you still be saying “that given that both sides of the issue are members of Christ’s Body each side must take more seriously the claims of the other side,” etc. etc.? Or would you say that “Sure I can understand where you get that silly and evil idea, but nevertheless, what ya’ll are saying is dangerous nonsense.“
“However, to this protestant both the Crusades and Inquisition resulted from the teaching of Rome so I would need to be persuaded that the Pope can admit mistakes and still claim the church has never erred. “
As I understand it, and I’m no theologan, and maybe I need Clueless or Clifford to help me out here, the Popes claim infallibility only when speaking ex cathedra, and that thus far they have spoken ex cathedra only on the subject of Immaculate Conception. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm But surely if even I, who know nothing about theology save what I’ve read in C.S. Lewis knew that, you must have known that?
Attila
Attila,
ReplyDeleteI do not see this as an absolute formula to be applied to all possible theological and moral disputes in the Church. So, I would agree that if you plug in "genocide" for "sexuality" that what I say is drivel. However, "sexuality" and "genocide" are not equivalent. For starters while obviously there is appropriate forms of "sexuality" there are not appropriate forms of "genocide" at least I don't know of anyone who would so argue, as you admit. And certainly no one would argue that "genocide" was instituted by God as the proper order of Creation. There is no dispute about what the public witness of the church is concerning genocide.
If you would replace "sexuality" with "war" then I think it makes perfect sense. There are Christians who oppose war absolutely and Christians who believe there is such a thing as "just war". There is an on going dispute concerning the church's public witness concerning war, and I would say that what I argue makes sense in the case of war. Now, the difference is that one could argue I suppose that the Church has not had a clear and definitive position throughout its history on the issue of war. Though, my point is that my statement could make sense or not with a variety of words placed in the place of "sexuality" but all words and concepts are not equivalent. It is nonesensical to think that issues surrounding "genocide" are moraly and theologicaly equivalent to issues surrounding "sexuality".
Furthermore, for my statement to be fully deffended one needs to understand why I think that the question of humand sexuality is theologicaly open like the question of war, and not theologicaly closed a with the issue of genocide (at least I would hope it is closed), or the issue of the Trinity or Incarnation the nature of Christ etc. Granted that the burden of proof is on those who claim the theological question to be open. I might post on the full reason for my believing this to be so, but not immediately.
As to my asside about Roman Catholicism: yes I know the Pope is considered infalible only when speaking Ex-cathedra. My question assuemed Papal infalability ex-cathedra. I was not asking about the infalability of the Pope but had a question about how Roman Catholics would speak of the church and eror outside the realm of Papal infalibility. My point being that Orthodox claims about the Church and the possibility of error are different from what a Roman Catholic or Protestant would claim. Thus it seems possible to me (one who is ingnorant here of possible nuances here for Roman Catholics) that according to Rome outside Papal infalability it would be difficult to speak in the way Cliff did about the Church and error. It really is a question, that I had not considered before this discussion. I invite any Roman Catholic who might have an answer to comment.
Actually, what I was wanting to assert, but apparently did not well communicate, was that what traditionalists may well feel the ecumenical approach Reconciler is taking with regard to sexuality is to turn what for traditionalists is a matter of public witness and make it merely a private interpretation. Or, to say it another way, traditionalists would think, and rightly it would seem to me, that Reconciler is trying to take what has been clear, unequivocal and taken for 2000 years to be the mind of Christ, and turn it—without any apparent good or legitimate reason—into merely one opinion among many.
ReplyDeleteYou speak about the “competing claims about what the public witness of the Church concerning sexuality should be and/or is.” Competing claims, indeed. Which will mean then that you must ask and answer the question of authority. It is simply unquestionable that the people of God, from Israel through to the entire history of the Church, have been unequivocal and clear: there is one and only one valid dynamic of human sexual expression, one man and one woman united in marriage for life. Also clear is that one inescapable and properly normal part of sexual expression is the intent, willingness and trust in God for the creation of new life. Conception will not happen for every sexual act, nor every husband and wife, but conception is an integral part of every act of intercourse. This is the consistent, clear and unambiguous teaching of the Church.
By what authority do you, or others, call this into question?
I am certainly guilty of conflation of traditional Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox stances on sexuality, but on this point in particular I think the conflation legitimate since in form, if not always in matter, Orthodox, Catholic and traditional Protestant agree that the mind of the Church on this matter is settled and clear.
But, coming as I do from the Orthodox position (or at least that's my intention), I think the matter of ecclesiology integral to this whole discussion. Given the Protestant paradigm, I do see the questioning of Holy Tradition on this matter as the logical outworking of the Reformation dynamic. And I've read Scanzoni/Mollenkott, Boswell, Scroggs, et. al., and do not find anything in their works which takes into account two important matters: that Jesus promised his apostles the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (or Truth), and that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. Instead I see an elevation of reason and personal experience to positions of papal-like infallibility.
What details has the Church gotten wrong on human sexuality? What about the details of modern society? That there is some physical or genetic component to same-sex attraction? None of that's been scientifically verified; and most of it has been thoroughly debunked (e. g., the 10% mantra, the gay gene, the size of the hypothalamus, etc.). That gender is constructed and fluid? Kinsey's research has been vetted and found tainted, biased and unreliable. That proceation and sex should be separated? Tell that to all those who've properly used their various contraceptive devices and still have them fail. Tell that to the 40 million and more human lives that have been killed for this lie.
More importantly, how do you determine which details are right or which wrong? Reason? Science? Personal feeling? To beat the horse which has shuffled off this mortal coil: What's your authority?
Why is the “Church is without error and has always taught this” equated with private interpretation? We have divine prohibition of the latter, and biblical evidence for the former. On what basis do you equate these?
I'm not arguing that we should throw one another out of the Church, but on what basis does one make equal the 2000-year-old teaching of the Church (and Israel before that) with a teaching not even a century old? Just because two church members disagree, does that automatically make their positions mere opinion? If the new teaching does not have a cogent argument and rationale, then why should it have the privilege of sharing equal consideration with an ancient and apostolic teaching which does have both these things (not to mention divine imprimatur)?
I'm not competent to address Baptist, Anglican or Covenant ecclesiology, and given that my ecclesiology is radically different—and that there is no single overarching ecclesiology for Reconciler—I suppose the questions I posed must be left where they're at, and let your reply suffice.
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteMany good questions. I will not pretend to have answers for all of them or even most of them. Though I may use this opportunity to write further on this subject in another post.
Though as a begining of an answer to some of your questions let me attempt to outline how I have understood the debate. I will attempt to outline how it has played out in my Protestant context and the presupositions that I have brought to my evaluation of human sexuality and the Chruch's teaching human sexuality.
First, to speak of the church as having a teaching on something is foreign to me, though I am coming to recognize the significance of speaking in this way. I may have spoken about historic Christianity or the Creeds etc. But more important than these things is the Bible and the leading of the Holy Spirit. The promise reported in John that you quote is seen as being a promise to all believers, and I have understood it as meaning that all truth was not given to the Apostles and is a warrent for doctrinal development.
Therefore my approach to this question has been to examine the relavant texts in Scripture and examine their meaning. Now why even begin the examination? First the sense that in observing commited gay and lesbian couples function with love and commitment that rivaled most heterosexual couples. This happened in college and it raised the question in my mind: do the relavent texts address the phenomenon I was observing. The biblical descriptions and what I observed did not seem like necesarily the same thing. Second, I had been taught and still find convincing that there is nothing inapropriate about the use of contraception. Intercourse and procreation is not linked even in the conservative positions on sexuality in the Covenant.
So, when I began looking into this question I already assumed that sexual intercourse and procreation could be legitimately devided and the use of contraception was appropriate to the Christian couple, second that the issue had to do with whether particular texts could be applied to current phenomena and exprerience.
But then there was interaction with gay and lesbian Christians who as far as I could tell, excepting the possibility of the sin of same sex intimacy demonstrated lives (as far as I could tell) which were full of the Holy Spirit and in all other respects exemplary of the Mind of Christ. It was the witness of gay and lesbian lives filled with the Holy Spirit that caused me to question and continues me to pause even in the face of the 2000 years of consistent teaching.
However, as I live and dialogue with Eastern Orthodoxy and am less confident about the way I have reasoned about this issue. And yet, there is still the witness of lives that are indicative of lives full of the Holy Spirit, and yet are gay and lesbian. This is my struggle.
The authority question is difficult for me to answer. By what authorit do I question (and now I am going to sound Baptist) by the authority of my being a baptised Christian filled with the Holy Spirit. But I also recognize that does not fully address your question, for I cannot claim infalability for my self or my judgements.
My position is not settled though I have obvious leanings at the moment.
I will say for clarity (not because you have suggested otherwise) that I am seeking the truth in this, and the guidance of the Spirit, I have questions and long have perhaps it is a failure of Protestantism perhaps something else, perhaps the church has been wrong, perhaps not. This is not an answer just being honest about where I stand. I do affirm the place of sexual intimacy in marriage, but also see the possibilty there is an other place --in commited same sex relationships. I am not in a place to assert that this is definitively true but at the moment my Biblical study my testing of the spirits and the witness of felow believers who are in commited same sex relationships suggest this possiblity.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the trust and respect you evidence in such an open and honest reply.
A clarification: I do believe that the promise of the Holy Spirit leading into all Truth is also for all Christians, otherwise it wouldn't make sense to assert that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. However, as you might guess, the private interpretation prohibition comes into play. That is to say, if an individual Christian asserts that which is contrary to the received testimony and experience of the Church, then it is--with all due respect--questionable whether such an individual can claim to know more than all the holy ones who've gone before us and that such leadings are of the Holy Spirit. More to the point, it raises the very question of whether the Holy Spirit contradicts himself. If He has led the Church to such and such a dogma, and if God does not lie, then it would seem reasonable to suppose that the Holy Spirit is not in the contradiction but in the apostolic deposit.
My assertion here, I know, may well be taken offensively by my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, and their loved ones, as I seem to be devaluing their experience. But my intent is not to devalue anyone or their experience. I can barely summon the wherewithal to pray each day, how can I judge my brother? But I do know that I have been given a responsibility I cannot shirk: to guard and transmit the apostolic Faith. And that Faith is clear on matters sexual.
But you see Cliff, I don't see this as an issue of simply individual interpretation, since there are Christians who have similar questions and assertions. If it was just me, and nothing else, there would be no question what the answer would be.
ReplyDeleteBut then I guess that perhaps a group of christians with a differing position from the teaching of the church would be an individual opinion of the group? I don't know.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteI can see how my use of both "private" and "individual" can create some confusion about the Petrine prohibition of private interpretation (2 Peter 1:20). The Greek there is idias epiluseo^s, or "one's own explantion/interpretation." In other words, prophetic activity is utterly communal. Note, in the context of that verse, Peter uses the "we," that is to say, the apostles. He says "we" have a more sure word of prophecy even than those of our forefathers of Israel. Of course, that prophecy was not Peter's own individual experience, but the communal experience of the Three on Mt. Tabor, and all the brethren at Pentecost and following.
Or, to state it baldly: the Church as a whole has the more sure prophecy. The so-called "Vincentian canon" as to what should be believed is settled by the rubric of believing that which has been held "always, everywhere, by all."
St. Vincent of Lerins says, in chapter 2 of his Commonitory: "I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."
In other words: What does Scripture say? And then, what does the Tradition say?
Why rely on tradition? St. Vincent: "But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,-because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."
In other words, it is the very fact of disputed interpretations of Scripture which force us back to the mind of the Church in the Tradition.
St. Vincent continues: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."
So, it is not simply a matter of only one individual teaching something different from the Church, but includes even entire groups. In fact, St. Vincent points out this in chapter 3: "What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
"But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate andconsult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."
In fact, we can take as illustrative the experience of St. Athanasius and the Arian controversy. It would seem that on the basis of simple majority, the Arians were right (the "everywhere," and [almost] "all" of the Vincentian canon), but in point of fact, and here St. Athanasius (and the Gospel was victorious), it did not satisfy the measure of "always."
In terms of the sexuality matters, it is clearly the case that the attempt to validate homosexual behavior, even if believed by very many, does not fit the rule of the Church concerning disputes of faith.
The following illustrative comments come today from Fr. Al Kimmel's blog (he's ECUSA). He is summarizing a debate between Tobias Haller and William Witt on the validity (or not) of homsexual unions. Toward the end of the entry he writes:
ReplyDelete"Jews and Christians have, until recently, always understood the proscription of homosex as belonging to the moral law and hence binding upon all humanity. Yet Haller is not convinced by this appeal to tradition. In his response to Witt he writes: 'But it is not enough simply to show that Augustine or Aquinas or Hooker thought so-and-so, or even Saint Paul. The assembly of a florilegium tells us no more than that the preponderance of the Christian tradition thought homosexuality was wrong. We know that. The question is, were they correct in this?'
"This is a revealing passage. Not only is the judgment of antiquity ultimately irrelevant in our interpretation of Scripture, but not even the testimony of an Apostle is binding upon us! At this point Haller decisively separates himself from the catholic understanding of biblical authority. Scripture is only binding upon us when it agrees with what we already know to be true. It’s hard to see, given Haller’s “criteria for setting aside a Scriptural requirement,” how God could ever speak a moral word to us in the past that we could not easily set aside according to our own private judgments and preferences. The bottomline is this: Haller believes that homoerotic unions, at least under some conditions, accord with God’s will, and he has devised a hermeneutical strategy that will allow him to interpret Scripture along these lines. He has learned the truth of the moral goodness of homoerotic union not from Scripture nor from the Church but from some other unspecified source, and it is this unspecified source that is truly authoritative for him."
This puts it baldly: where's the authority to which we appeal?
Read the whole post at: http://pontifications.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=628
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteMy lack of responce to your question about athority has to do with wishing to give a considered responce.
In looking at 2 Peter, I don't think I am subcombing to private interepretation, precisely because my treatement of the whole of Scripture admits what Peter here affirms, that the writers of scripture wrote moved by the Holy Spirit. As I read this though I see the issue surrounding primarily what was revealed about Jesus Christ. Though, I am not saying this to necesarily limit the application of this text. My thought is how is it that the acceptance of commited same sex couples compromises the Gospel and the witness to the Gospel in the Law and the Prophets.
Let me just say at the outset that appeal to the various passages and even the "teaching of the Church" does not address my question, for it seems to me that permanent same sex relations exclusive of all other relationships does not seem to be envissioned either in the scripture texts or in the church's teaching.
I am of course assuming the reality of something called "sexual orientation". I feel warrented to so assume since both the official Roman Catholic Teaching admits this, and since most reading on this I have read from an Orthodox perspective also admits the possibility of sexual orientation (unfortunately I do not have references at the moment since it has been sometime since I did any reading and study on this).
I think my answer to your question about authority is the Gospel. The question it seems to me isn't whether I or anyone else wants to see homosexuality as good true and holy, but whether or not there is something antithetical to the Gospel in permanent committed same sex relationships. Here I may be at odds with a number of people who argue for the church's acceptance of homosexuality: I affirm that promiscuity is not God's intention for sex and that sexual intimacy is intended to be two people exclusively commited to each other. That means for heterosexuals not outside marriange, for homosexuals I would say only for them in permanent commited relationships.
I guess I would say that the Church's teaching should submitt to the Gospel. IF the church's theaching inadvertently prohibits something (in seeking to be true to the Gospel) that is not in fact antithetical to the Gospel then there seems to be a warrent to adapt the Church's teaching. But this is after all the one million dollar question. I have my leanings here I am not in a position to pronounce this to be so at the moment. I do feel though that it is a legitimate question even given 2 Peter and Vincentian canon. Arian teaching would radicaly undermine aspects of the Gospel, as does the numerous Gnostic teachings about Christ and God and divine emenations etc.
I need to be shown just how this is so with the question before us. It does not seem to be parallel to me.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteA few thoughts.
The Orthodox understand the euphemistic "sexual orientation" to same sex as a disordered passion. They recognize it's reality (as a part of the fallen creation) and our obligation to resist acting on such a passion (or set of interrelated passions).
The advocacy of same sex partnerships may indeed embrace Gospel themes: self-sacrifice, fidelity, assistance in growth in faith and sanctification. And in these things we do well to give glory to God. However, in none of these things do we have anything that may be uniquely attributed to marriage, in Christian understanding at least. We do not, and for good reason, take these qualities as exhibited between a brother and sister and then advocate for their sexual union. Neither, then, do these qualities logically bring us to the conclusion that since same sex couples exhibit them, we ought then to bring Christ's blessings on their same sex practices.
There, are, however, two unique characteristics of marriage as understood in Christ, that same-sex couples are not, in themselves, able to incarnate.
1. Procreativity. We have in the creation account of humankind the revelation of the divine will for humans: the union of one man and one woman forever and from that union the procreation of children. Humans were not only blessed in this union but also brought under obligation to "be fruitful and multiply." Though same sex unions may incarnate other Christians graces, they cannot incarnate one of the primary goods and ends of marriage: the subcreation of life.
2. An Icon of Christ and the Church. In this we have perhaps the unique characteristic of Christian marriage: the "iconing" of the relationship of Christ and the Church. This is a mystery, and one whose depths we can hardly plumb, but some things stand out. The relationship between husbands and wives is ordered on the principle of image: the wife is the image of the husband in a way analagous to Christ being the image of the Father. This relationship is predicated upon the creation account. In this way, two men or two women cannot provide the sort of iconic reality that Christian marriage does.
You have asked what Gospel principles same sex practice betrays. To put it baldly: it is a betrayal of discipleship, the obedience to all that Christ taught his Apostles. I think it very clear: when Christ wanted to talk about marriage, he very specifically and clearly referred back to the creation account to do so. He need not have done so. In many of his acts, he stood against societal customs. If it were the case that Jesus intended to open the Church's blessings on same sex attraction, he could have more explicitly done so. He certainly did in explaining more clearly what God meant by adultery. Instead, Jesus very emphatically asserted the creation account as the norm of marriage--even and especially against the societal customs of his day.
Advocates for the validity of same sex behaviors want to opine that since Jesus said absolutely nothing about homosexual behavior, he did not/does not condemn it. But in point of fact, Jesus did say something about same sex behaviors--by speaking specifically about the creation account (and by extension, all that the Law says about human sexual behavior). Same sex union advocates must necessarily argue from silence (in terms of Jesus' explicit words) and against the clear prohibitions of Scripture (as well as divide St. Paul and the Torah from Jesus). Advocates of traditional marriage need to nothing more than to point to the clear and unequivocal teaching of the Scriptures and our Lord.
Finally, many today seem to have a rather pointed hubris in assuming that the ancient Church knew nothing about about "sexual orientation" or other modern dogmas on sexuality. But in point of fact, the Church has always had those who've had same sex attraction. And it's a given that some of those have been ordained to the Eucharistic ministry, or lived otherwise blessed lives. However, they did so within the strictures of Christ's Gospel and the Church's Tradition: celibately.
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI'm a new poster to this site (though a lurker from the beginning). For full discloser purposes, I went to seminary with Larry (Hi Larry, I've enjoyed seeing what's going on with you through this blog) and have since taken a job as a pastor in a Covenant Church in Iowa... one I must admit is a bit more conservative than I am about many issues, though I would not necessarily call myself libral.
Anyway, introductions out of the way, I just wanted to chime in with a comment based on a book I just started reading. The book is by Brian McLaren, one of the leaders of the emergent church movement. It is entitled "A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I am a missional, evangelical, post/protestant, libral/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/calvinist, anabaptist/anglican, methodist, catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian" In "A Generous Orthodoxy" McLaren, who many conservatives think has moved away from the gospel altogether, attempts to redefine the word Orthodox and I kind of like what he is saying, "For most people, orthodoxy means right thinking or right opinions, or in other words, 'what we think,' as opposed to 'what they think.' In contrast, orthodoxy in this book may mean something more like 'what God knows, some of which we believe a little, some of which they believe a little, and about which we all have a whole lot to learn.'"
A key to what McLaren is doing and also what I believe from what I've read from Larry and Reconciler church is approaching God and Truth and faith with, wait for it, humility. This is so important to me when approaching the Bible and the Creeds and God.
I think of the Pharisees and religious leaders of Jesus' day who tried their best to be true to their scriptures (which we hold to be the word of God) but still didn't recognize the very God they worshipped when Jesus showed up in their midst. They allowed their theology and their history and their understanding of doctrine to hide their Messiah from them completely. Oh, this wasn't true for all of them, but Nicodemus had to come to Jesus in secret because he would get in trouble for learning from Jesus.
I think orthodoxy is important. I believe it is important to believe that there is Truth, capitol "T". Scripture is very clear on this. But I also believe that we have to approach that truth with humility. We cannot take pet issues and say that we are right and that the church has always been right. We know that the church has made plenty of mistakes throughout its history; every church has, every denomination has.
Anyway, this isn't a response to a specific post or response (though I have read the whole discussion up to this point), but rather it is my rambling on the topic. I hope it adds to the discussion in some way.
Blessings.
Gavin,
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you. Glad you have been lurking.
Your point on humility I think links up with a post I am currently working on.
I have read excerpts of Brian Mclaren's book (not the whole thing so my own remarks are very provisional) and I think what he is saying is provisional and particular, that is this book articulates a Protestant's point on a journey elswhere. In that sense I would hesitate to apply his redefinitions too broadly. But then I think that is just driving home the point about humility. Something I might add to needing humility is the need for repentance in these matters. But you'll have to wait for the next post for further explanation.
Oh oh! a cliff hanger. I am sure you are all now on the edge of your seats. ;-}
Pastor Gavin:
ReplyDeleteGreetings in the Lord.
Both you and Larry have made the claim that the Church has been wrong on a lot of issues. I would be interested in knowing:
1) what specific issues the Church has been wrong about (noting specifically the difference between what the Church catholic [east and west] has taught and that taught by segments of the Church)
and
2) on what basis do you know #1?
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me address the point about marriage and same-sex unions. Your point brings me to two things that I think about when addressing this issue. One is that perhaps the term Marriage should not be applied to same-sex unions even if blessed by the church? Now I sense that this possibly opens a whole new kettle of fish. But it should be remembered that my sense is that we may be talking about something analgous to marriage but other than marriage.
Secondly, it is not clear to me why iconic dimension of man and wife cannot also be a dimension of same-sex partnerships?
Of course there is the question of why the Church woudn't have known about this before now? Why wouldn't have Jesus mentioned it. I suggested that maybe the church simply had not fully encountered the possibility that same-sex partnerships could lead to certain (limited) development of Gospel virtues (as you admited), not due to a lack of knowledge of "sexual orientation" but a lack of experience of that in Gospel affirming ways. As I would see it if this could be argued then what is in fact happening is not so much that the church has erred on the subject as lacked a particular experience that has arisen only relatively recently or only come to the church's attention relatively recently. I would have to do a more thorough historical investigation to argue this fully, but my study thus far has suggested this possibility.
I think it would avoid some of the more problematic aspects of the arguments and positions that are current on this issue. Including the hubris you mentioned.
Re: error and the Church.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment the erors I readily think of don't readily affect the Orthodox. huh?! I am thinking indulgences, private masses, Things Luther and Calvin et al. took exception to in the practice and teaching of Rome in the 16th century.
The only possible error that I could come up with without some searching, would be the veneration of Icons, but as you know I don't consider that an error, just some of my fellow Protestants would. (There is also the prohibition of women from the ordained ministry but that would get us into another different but related discussion. Should we wish to address that can of worms we should probably not argue it in the comments here.)
One could seek to point out the failures in piety, pogroms or falling back on purely fromalistic reliance on Liturgy and doctrin etc. but I am not prepared to devide out here polemics, historical facts and how to understand the failing of piety and what that might mean in terms of church and error.
But as my privious comment suggests I am not certain my position depends on ascerting error per se. More a filling out of the Tradition or finding lacunae in the teachings and experience of the Church. But then that probably brings us back to authority, doesn't it.
The question of whether the Church has been wrong about certain issues is a difficult one as you point out by your second question. For it is true that I could be the one who is wrong, not the church. But the fact is that in the west, the church has "flip-flopped" on a number of issues, claiming Truth on either side of the issue. The church's acceptance of slavery and using scripture to support it is one area that comes to mind. Here in America, there were denominations that split over this issue, though most Christians I know today would never try to support slavery using scripture. I must say that coming from a protestant background, I am not as well qualified to speak to the eastern church. I also believe that the eastern church has avoided some of the problems that the western church fell into.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it was taught in the church that the earth was the center of the universe. Saying otherwise was herasy. It is a silly example, I know, and one that doesn't seem very important in the context of same-sex marriage, but the Catholic church excommunicated people over this very issue, one in which they were wrong. Again, I do not know the eastern response to Galileo, so I am unable to comment on such.
It is hard to find issues that are completely settled but which were split in the past, so I'll stick with these two: slavery, the structure of the solar system.
When you move past right belief and move into right practice, you come upon a number of practices that are at least questionable, done in the name of religion, both from the west and the east: the Crusades are a glaring example. The eastern church asked for help from the west (not really knowing what it was that they would get) and the Pope decreed things that are just plainly not Biblical. And when Jerusalem was first taken, Christians, Jews and Muslims were slain in the streets... 'Kill them all and let God sort it out.' And even today, there are Christian groups throughout the world responsible for genocide.
These examples tell me that we have failed to be the Church that God has invisioned, we have failed to be the people that God has called, we have allowed earthly desires and temptations to get in the way of following God. There has been corruption in the leadership of many churches. The Church is made up of sinners, and none of us leave our sin at the door.
Larry, thank you for your comment about repentance coming with humility. This is something that is oh so important, and something that I don't always remember.
Cliff, thank you for pushing my comment with your questions. I thought it'd be easier to come up with an answer than it was.
Blessings.
It is, of course, tempting to downplay the sins of one's own community. That Russian Orthodoxy lent itself to pogroms is a hideous and horrifying reality, sins which the Russian Church paid to the last farthing in its own persecution under Communism.
ReplyDeleteThese other failures you both have mentioned: "failures in piety, . . . or falling back on purely fromalistic reliance on Liturgy and doctrin[e] etc." are real, of course, but not limited to any one church or time or place. The Orthodox have these failures as well.
(As an aside: the Crusades did not arise in the Eastern Church--for various historical reasons, not the least of which was the persecution of Christians by Moslems--and indeed it was the Fourth Crusade in which Constantinople was ravaged by Western Christians that has remained long a barrier to relations of Christians East and West. Similarly, due in large part to simply the need to stay alive (re: persecution), but also because of the divergence of East and West in the early Middle Ages, the East enver had its "Renaissance" or Enlightenment, and therefore no Reformation.)
A final prefatory comment: You both rightly tie holy living with holy doctrine. It is absolutely illogical to divorce pure dogma from the failure to live that dogma. For example, the continuation of slavery in society despite official Church teaching (ranging from condemnation to the enactment of ecclesiastical law designed to mitigate and ultimately eliminate slavery) is a grievous evil. But too much has been made of the evil without also considering what the Church actually did to change this institution. (There is an excellent article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm ).
That being said, there is a substantive difference between an error in dogma, and the failur to live into that dogma. The former is a failure of the promise of Christ to lead his Church into all truth, the failure of the Church to be the pillar and ground of the truth--which calls into question the entirety of the faith. The latter is the result of sin, surely, but not a defeasor of the dogma.
Though Larry attributes a lacuna of the Church's experience to its failure to have already blessed same sex unions, this still smacks of a certain progressivist hubris to me: that somehow only in our own enlightened age have we ever been able to know and experience same sex relationships that rise to the level of (if not being the same as) marriage. With all due respect: hogwash, say I.
Though not the same phenomenon exactly as same-sex unions/marriages, we have ample testimony from ancient writings as to the exhibited characteristics of tenderness, respect and concern of the homoerotic relations between an older male mentor and his protege that was not uncommon in Athenian society circa Plato and Aristotle.
Similarly, one cannot read Aelred's Spiritual Friendship, and not see the possibility of the submlimation of same sex attraction in medieval monastic celibacy. Here is tenderness, devotion, loyalty. And here too one is surely justified in supposing is same sex attraction--not necessarily on Aelred's part, nor even on a wide scale. But inferentially possible nonetheless.
So, I submit the Church has no lacuna here. She has experienced these things from the beginning--and still rightly rejects homosexual practices.
Which still brings us to my previous two questions which remain yet unanswered:
1) What dogma has the Church erred in?
and 2) What is the authoritative basis for that judgment?
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteSome prefactory remarks: I have tried to approach your last comment from varrying starting points, it is difficult for two reasons: 1) your "hogwash" statement which even if true does not aid me in conversing with you in fact it just leaves me uninterested in further conversation. While it might be good polemic it is rather poor communication. (I hope I have gotten past that now that I have said something.) 2) With your concluding remark I suddenly feel that I have entered into a debate, in which you are interested in scoring points for your defense of Orthodoxy. Debate can be fun but I am uninterested in it primarily because I have no use for the defensive stance that it produces in myself.
In debating terms I would agree with you that your question about church error and and authority for identifying that error have not been answered. However, Both Gavin and I attempted an answer and have admited that we do not have clear grounds for such a claim. Since we are conversing and I am willing to have my mind changed if I find that I am holding an untenable position or convicted by the Holy Spirit. You are going to get the fight your concluding remark seems to be begging for, I simply have no interest in proving the church has erred in the way you define it. I will not be pulled into the rancor of polemics. (See next comment for addressing the rest of your comment)
Now to the some of the substance of your comments:
ReplyDeleteI have reviewed my statements about error and the Church and I think that I have been perhaps a bit sloppy (at least from your perspective) in my use of the term "error". I have not made the distinction you make between holy doctrine and holy living. As a Pietist they stand or fall together. (Some of my Pietist co-religionists would even raise holy living above holy doctrine). So here is a more careful account of how I have viewed error and the church, which at this point I am not arguing for.
If there is sin in the church that is if you cannot appeal as Rome does to some infallible office, then where do you look for getting everything absolutely correct. Your answer: the promise of Christ of the Holy Spirit that will lead to all truth. I would agree. Yet that promise seems dynamic and not static, it seems to allow for something to come up that was not seen or understood before. Granted this is somewhat progressivist, but I don't think necessarily modernist. Why should "lead into all truth" be something that happened as opposed to something that is happening? If individual Christians can miss it in terms of living the dogma and coming to truth happens over time, it has seemed to me that something new that is consistent with the Gospel but unforeseen could emerge. An analogy here would be the wording of the Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed; "same substance" is not biblical terminology and as far as I understand it was not initially accepted by all not because of Arian sympathies but because the Trinity had never been spoken of in these terms before. Now this is not the same thing I realize.
My point though is this (and this is my struggle) it seems doctrine develops and culture changes and the church tended to seek to speak the truth within the context of culture. Is it possible that these two things taken together leave open a possibly other understanding of sexuality (without attributing error to earlier teaching, similar to the traditional innovation of "same substance" in reference to the Trinity. Now, in conversing with you on this I think that such a claim is not well established and I may not be able to make such a claim, however this has been my thinking.
As too my postulate about a "lacunae", If I understand correctly (and I may have to return to study these again) neither the homoerotic relations between an older man and a younger male mentor nor Aelred’s account of friendship in a monastic context address my point. First, what is described in Plato and Aristotle does not exclude heterosexual relations and marriage, nor is it a relationship of mutuality and permanency that would make it analogous to marriage. I take it Aelred would be describing such things as a monastic and for monastics and thus celibacy is already assumed. Your two examples thus say to me that the church has not had the experience of same sex attraction and intimacy in ways that would parallel, marriage. This does not mean it is possible to revise our perspective but you have not in your comments met the nuance of what I am suggesting. As you agree what you are pointing out is not the exactly the same phenomenon as same-sex exclusive and permanent unions. It is here in the "not exactly same phenomenon" that I suggest there may be lacunae. My experience with Christian gays and lesbians suggest this lacuna. I cannot say at the moment that I know this to be true, but I think it should be explored, without the modernist presuppositions of many of those who argue for same-sex unions. My reasons for exploring have been given.
You mistake my exploration for assertions. This exploration may be ruled out of court according to Orthodox thinking, but this is not obviously so to me.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteThough I had thought I had tempered my emphatic "hogwash" with an intentionally over-the-top formal construction which was supposed to convey a bit of good-natured but firm, "No way, Jose!" I see that once again, my online writing fails to communicate all that I intend. Please accept my sincere apologies for the needless if unintentional offense I caused.
Like you I don't want to debate. Unlike you, however, I see no need nor reason for any exploration about the matter. This is not to say that one cannot ask sincere questions of the Church and her Faith, or that one ought not search how best the Gospel is to be incarnated in one's own time and place. A sign of strong faith in God is the willingness to ask the psalmic questions, to allow oneself to be pinched and strained by the paradoxes of Gospel living, and to live that Gospel faithfully, even in the midst of unanswerable paradox, as a prophetic witness to a mostly uncaring world.
None of that obligates nor permits one to jettison the clear and unequivocal dogma of the Church. Here the Torah, the New Testament and the entirety of the Church's teaching is united in its condemnation of homosexual practices. I have personally read Scanzoni and Mollenkott, Boswell, Scroggs, and other online apologia for the validation of homosexual practices and same sex unions. None--I repeat, none--of them make their case on the terms of the Gospel. All of them utilize unverifiable and unwarrantable presumptions. Furthermore peer-reviewed, verifiable social science research has consistently provided evidence showing that homosexual practices have quantifiable health dangers and psychological disorders tied directly to the behaviors that accompany them.
Your consistent query has been whether or not the Church has experienced the sort of same-sex unions you are thinking display the Gospel qualities necessary of Christians--a query which you assume is negative. I threw out a couple of instances providing evidence that the Church has had experience of homosexual unions which displayed Christian character traits. Your objection--which notes the original qualification I made--is that neither of these examples are exactly the sorts of same sex relationships you envision.
In point of fact, the preponderence of present-day same sex unions are not the sort of relationships you envision. Here the research is clear: promiscuity, multiple partnerships, same sex partner violence are all the "norm" in same sex relationships. The relationships you envision are the extremely rare exception. So I would argue, on your own terms themselves, the Church still doesn't have any real experience of the sorts of relationships you envision as being possibly validatable.
More to the point, in what way are these same-sex unions unique? So unique, in fact, that the Church has never had the experience of them? It can't be proceation, since only heterosexual marriages have that. It can't be the imaging of Christ and his Church because Scripture is clear that only a husband and wife do that.
Is it fidelity? Is it self-sacrifice? Is it support and encouragement? Is it any number of the fruit of the Spirit? But then all Christian relationships, whether of blood family or friends, are to exhibit these character traits. And in that sense the Church has had experience of same sex unions very much like what you envision (though celibate) and has consistently refused to claim these relationships are sacramental in the same way that marriage is.
To assume that the Church has never known same sex relationships is historically naive. In point of fact she has. She has also known persons of same sex attraction in her midst who display all the character traits of married couples (fidelity, self-sacrifice, and so forth). What she has not experienced is gay marriage. Why? Because she has known the risks and dangers that are (we now know) proven to be associated with homsexual practices. And to protect her children from death and sin, she has forbidden homosexual practice.
She has always had persons of same sex attraction in her midst, and always will. And she says to them, Stay chaste and celibate.
If we depart from this teaching, we depart from what the Church has known for millennia. And we will cause untold, if unintentional, harm to those we love so very much.
That is not the Gospel.
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteI recieve your appology. I figured that what I recieved in your words was not your intent and yet, I could not escape how I recieved them.
I hear you and believe me we have the same concerns. I too have read the sources you read and I am deeply troubled that their presenation is profoundly un-theological and lack being informed by the Gospel.
You appeal to statistics and studies to counter the homosexual relationships "I envision". Yet, I am not speaking of what I hope to see or "envision" but actual gay and lesbian relationships I observe that even without the sanction of the church seek comitment and exclusivity in our culture which is promiscuous and unfaithful in so many ways.
In terms of your insistence that outside of procreation there is nothing unique to the marriage relationship or the possibility of a same sex union, I find uncompeling because of what I know to be true in my own marriage. The relationship I have with my wife, Kate, provides for similar support and sharpening of other Christian relationships. Yet, there is none other that so fully day in and day out forces me to face my self and turn to God. I coud not be who I am as a Christian and minister without her.
You may say that is marriage, true. Yet, I do not see how this is tied to procreation per se. As I see it there is the reality of who we are before God as a married couple and there is the pontentiality of who we will be before God as parents, they are linked but they are not necesary to our relationship as a married couple.
My point is that what I observe in those partnered gay and lesbian friends is a similar reality to what I have with my wife. Do those things also exist outside of marriage with other fellow believers? Certainly, but the exculsivity of the marriage vows creates an intensification of that common building up one another in Christ that is only found outside of marriage in a monastic setting.
What you have said does not infact address what I see and am getting at. I do not share the assumptions and presumptions of the extent literature. If what is out there is the only way to affirm same-sex unions then I agree with you there will be found only what is contrary to the Gospel.
However, what I see and observe is other what the literataure says and other than what is statisticaly put forward. I think it would be a mistake for the Church to attempt to shore up its position or change its position based in science and statistics, those dicisplines speak to the natural and fleshly disordered world they do not have the eyes of faith. However,what I am saying is that any blessing of same sex unions must conform to the discipline and reality of the Gospel. That is must be other than sexuality dominated by the passions. A Christian affirmation of homosexuality is not, and cannot be the acceptance of a sexual ideology that is contrary to the Gospel, any more than the afrimation of heterosexuality in Chrsitian marriage is simply the affirmation of the heterosexual sexual passions and the ideologies of patriarchy or matriarchy or fertility etc.. Marriage may be universal cultural reality but the Chruch brings that "natural" reality into the reality of Chrsit and the new-creation. It is why through the lifting up of celibacy as a sign of the Kingdom marriage is not the only state that a Christian might be called to in regards to his/her sexuality and its expression. As Jesus noted in responce to the Saducees, marriage itself is that which will come to an end in the age to come. Celibates then are signs of the age to come.
Any affirmation of sexuality that does not take into account discipline, celibacy and ascetical nature of Christianity misses the place that sexuality plays in the Christian life.
The Askesis and discipline of my relationship with Kate (shored up and made possible by the vows we made before God and the Church) I see repeated in the gay and lesbian same-sex unions I observe close to me. These brothers and sisters in Christ witnesses to the possibility of God doing something new, not that changes the position on what sexuality is and is for, nor even radically change the Chruch's teaching.
Now I will agree that at the moment there is no such case that has been made, at the moment no one can say that in fact God is doing something new. Thus perhaps what I see is an anomoly an odd blip that has no effect on the teaching of the Church. Unlike you though I do feel that the question needs to be asked and the Chruch's teaching needs to be pusshed on this. But we can go around the the source of my authority to do this, my answer is the same the Spirit and the Gospel. Dangerous answers I know, I will not pretend that this question is a safe one, but there is a break between the teaching of the Church and witness of Scripture and the witness of lives of Christians I know. The witness of these lives is not equal in authority but it does present a question. The answer may in fact be the same answer that has always been given, but I feel it must be tested. If it is true and of Christ and of the Spirit in its entirety then it will stand. If there is a lacuna in fact then the dangers you speak of will be avoided in the articulation of the new. You will disagree with this. What I then ask of you my brother is pray for me a sinner. Pray that I will come to the truth. Know that I am not treating your words lightly nor the witness of the Orthodox.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteIn a previous reply, the possibility of distinguishing same sex unions from marriage was suggested, allowing the Church to "keep" marriage as is, but potentially creating a new category of relationships ("same sex unions") which the Church might find it possible to bless.
The other possibility is to make same sex unions equivalent to marriage. Both of these routes are inescapably self-contradicting.
If same sex unions are not marriage, then why bless them? And if one blesses same sex unions, what other relationships can one not also bless? If fidelity, self-sacrifice, and equality are Gospel norms legitimizing sexual relationships--and ultimately this is what is being blessed in same sex unions, all talk of other Christian characteristics aside--then there is nothing whatsoever prohibiting the blessing of sibling sexual relationships, parent-sibling sexual relationships, multi-partner sexual relationships (so long as all partners are faithful to one another), and so on--so long as all these relationships are consensual and exhibit the Christian characteristics which one seeks to affirm and bless in same sex unions.
One cannot prohibit the sexual relations noted above on the basis of Scripture because, in the argument you are presenting for same sex unions, Scripture nowhere prohibits sex between consenting adults who exhibit fidelity, self-sacrifice, and so forth.
In other words, the problem with creating a new category of relationship to bless, is that one effectively does away with the foundation on which one began to bless the relationship in the first place. If the relationship is not unique--if all we're really blessing is these Christian characteristics as they are exhibited in this particular sexually active (or not) relationship--then we can pretty much bless anything.
But the gays and lesbians I know don't accept this. They see that this is still making them "second class citizens." Their relationship is not marriage, so we can put them off over here in this category, and still do the neat marriage and sacrament thing with heterosexuals.
No, ultimately, those who are after the blessing of same sex unions want them to be viewed in the same category as marriage. It might be apples and oranges, or grapes and peaches, but it's all fruit, all sacramental, and so on.
But once again, the problem here is that by making same sex unions equivalent to marriage in kind (even if different in some of the specifics) they end up so generalizing what is meant by marriage (and therefore same sex unions as defined in concert with or even over against marriage) that there is nothing left to bless. Any old relationship will do (assuming, of course, the Christian virtues).
All that is simply to say, the huge problem in this seeking to bless same sex unions is that it fails to understand that marriage is unique among all human relationships. It cannot be boiled down to "Gospel essentials" and compared to some other relationship which displays those essentials. The uniqueness of marriage depends quite specifically on heterosexuality and the icon of Christ and the Church. Procreation--even when no children are conceived, even when procreation is "sublimated" for the sake of the Kingdom--is the inescapable and irreducible characteristic built into marriage. So, too, and even more fundamentally, is the "icon-ing" of Christ and the Church. No other relationship can be said to image Christ and the Church in this way--not parents and children, not master and slaves. Only to marriage is reserved this mystery of grace.
Self-sacrifice, fidelity, and so forth, are essential to marriage, indeed. No doubt about it. But these characteristics do not in themselves make marriage what it is. So marriage can only be a relationship in which procreation is a parameter (and same-sex unions do not have this) and in which a man and a woman in a ineffable and inexplicable way image Christ and the Church.
The Church does not err in its marriage strictures, because it takes its teaching and living of this unique Gospel reality not only from the creation and its ineradicable normativity, but more importantly for Christians, it takes those very strictures from the Gospel itself, which is to say, from the hypostatic union of Christ and the Church.
Cliff,
ReplyDeleteFirst let me say that, it seems to me that a blessing of same sex unions (however they end of being defined) would not lead to an inability to draw the line at incest and polyamory. I believe this is so one because incest has the problem of mutuality and exclusivity, in terms of incest confuses various roles. The relationship I have with my paretns or sister is so qualitatively different that to violate those familial roles for the sake of sexual atraction would not equal the sort of relationship exemplified in Christian marriage (BTW incest alows for the possibility of procreation). Polyamory has the problem of fidelity as exclusivity as the discipline of commiting oneself for life to another individual.
Lastly it is unclear to me why same-sex unions cannot be an icon of Christ and the church. Since that realtionship is not dependent on gendering, in fact it seems to displace gender, since in a sense men as part of the church are the bride of Christ. Gender is not the only relavant difference here it seems to me.
Yet, in saying these things I do not think they completely answer everything you bring forward. I will not continue this discussion at this time, you and anyone else certainly can continue to respond. I though need to back away from this particular discussion, and clarify my thoughts. I may post on this again in the future once I have collected my thoughts.
Larry:
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear how exclusivity somehow problematizes polyamorous or incestuous realtionships. After all, exclusivity can be redefined just as marriage can be redefined. A "couple" which includes say two men and one woman can be exclusive with each other. To put it another way, it's not clear how exclusivity in your scenario demands binary structures.
Nor is it clear how an incestuous relationship could not exhibit mutuality. Let's assume the siblings or parent/siblings are grown adults, mature, and otherwise healthy. If they freely and voluntarily desire an exclusive sexual relationship, then how does this not exhibit Gospel values as you've construed them?
I think the problem with our culture is that it makes sex the sanctifying agent of marriage. In point of fact, that is not the case. This is not meant to imply that sex outside of Christian marriage is merely physical. Sex does what it is designed to do and brings metaphysical union even when it is done in ways dishonoring to God and one another, which means that such unions are disordered and have consequences beyond the merely physical. But sex is always a metaphysical act.
That being said, it is marriage that sanctifies sex, not sex marriage. And in the Christian context, the only definition of marriage that God has given us is one man and one woman for life.
Relative to Christ and his Church and gender. Some of what you say is true. That is to say, men who will function as icons of the Father and of Christ to the congregation, are yet also part of the Church which is the Bride of Christ. But this is typology not gender. There is no way that the icon of Christ and his Church--which we can only assume is reserved exclusively for a husband and wife since God has revealed no other possibility--somehow degenders anyone. Just because men are part of the Bride of Christ does not eliminate their role as head and the relationship of imaging God has given them vis a vis women.
In any case, even going along with your argument, this degendering cannot undo one's sex, which is created and built very much into the physical aspects of who we are.
I'm grateful for your respectful conversation thus far, and I hope you feel it has been reciprocated on my part. I look forward to your further thoughts.