jb
Acolyte
Posts: 10
|
Post by jb on Apr 22, 2008 13:26:15 GMT -5
What I have found in many years of discussions about this topic is that very few people actually believe in the way that the caricatures of either side think they do. That was said very well, Phil. While I have not formulated an opinion regarding Gay Marriage vis a vis sacramental theology, other than the brief overview of my last post, I do have some observations regarding what I call the ethos of eros. It is difficult to summarize my outlook over against the more traditionalist take on human sexuality as articulated by the RCChurch hierarchy and others. To put it most succinctly, I guess my critique would be that there is way too much being proved regarding sex and gender issues using such sources as Scripture and the Natural Law. While these Witnesses to Revelation may be useful in guiding us regarding the most general of moral precepts, when it comes to more complex moral realities, we need to attend, also, to other Witnesses and to employ additional methodologies. I explain what those are in my collection of essays: Toward a Consistent Ethos of Eros, which can be found here: www.geocities.com/campmerci/ethos_eros.htm. That collection is excerpted from my contributions to a discussion at National Catholic Reporter, which took place here: ncrcafe.org/node/1337?page=3.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Apr 25, 2008 9:35:13 GMT -5
It's taken me some time to read, let alone digest, the texts to which you linked your post. (And, I'm not really sure I really digested everthing that was offered. There were some pretty big words in there.)
I've come to a point at which I am less interested in the outcomes of certain discussions, than I am about the underlying reasoning (or lack thereof) that bolsters the arguments. I now suspect that most controversies regarding "proper" behavior are less about the behavior than about the world views that encapsulate and nurture the conclusions about "proper" behavior. Your proffered texts lend further credence to my suspicions.
Without digging too deeply into the texts (a product of sloth rather than disinterest) it is crystal clear that your predominant audience is Roman. Your discussion of the magesterium and natural law underscore two of the most important underpinnings of Roman moral theory. These two concepts (magesterium and natural law) don't seem to play much of a part in Protestant discussion of homosexuality as they do in Roman argument. Certainly this is true in the case of the magesterium, an entire concept that is undefinable and unexplainable in Protestant thought. The Protestant assertion that individuals are free to interpret scripture pretty much destroyed a coherent argument for it. And, natural law, as a foundational argument, has not had strong play, save among fundamentalists, in Protestant thinking. I suspect that is because natural law, when based upon observation of natural phenomena, provides a wider variety of responses and behaviors which expands, rather than contains, that which could be called "natural." Protestant arguments tend to be strongly centered around exegetical and hermeneutical issues. I suppose that has to do with the strong role of individual access to the scriptures so prominent in Protestant thinking.
|
|
jb
Acolyte
Posts: 10
|
Post by jb on Apr 26, 2008 0:19:57 GMT -5
Protestant arguments tend to be strongly centered around exegetical and hermeneutical issues. I suppose that has to do with the strong role of individual access to the scriptures so prominent in Protestant thinking. I have been reading The Crisis in Moral Teaching in the Episcopal Church, edited by Timothy Sedgwick & Philip Turner. And things seem to be, in many ways, in chaos. The last chapter is How the Church Might Teach and it approaches that issue as follows: 1) the question of justification - what issues should the church teach and why 2) the purpose of moral teachings - prophecy or advocacy? 3) to whom ought the church speak - its own members or the general public 4) the question of language - appeal to Christian warrants alone or a more universal moral language 5) how should the church speak? dialogue, canons, resolutions, developed documents 6) who should speak - individual members, General Convention, House of Bishops, executive officers, standing commissions, religious orders, congregations, vestries, theologians, rectors, seminary faculties 7) how to proceed - that all voices in church are heard, that the right agent is charged with the responsibility , that the Christian warrants are developed in such a way that adequately reflects the implications of same for moral and political life 8) the question of reception - is there an obligation for church members or others to listen What I found confounding is all of the emphasis on who, what, when, where, how and why but very little discussion regarding the most basic issue of all --- moral deliberation itself. In other words, there is a lot of talk about almost everything except the substance of the arguments that ground the teachings themselves. There was this sentence: It cannot do so (instruct its members & speak to the consciences of all people) rightly or successfully, however, unless it can show that it has a reason for speaking that accords with an adequate articulation of Christian belief and practice and with the demands of right reason.My question is what the EC-USA means by the demands of right reason? How does it justify or argue or demonstrate right reason or reason its way to moral judgment when speaking to all people and not just its members? A good resource to answer these questions [perhaps?] can be found here: home.earthlink.net/~deervale44/Scroll Down to these categories of theology class notes: Ethics: Course Syllabus Ethics I: Introductory: Ethics and Moral Theology Ethics II: The Ethical Task Ethics III: Nature, Scripture, Principles, Persons Ethics IV: Making Moral Choices: Making a CaseI think it is clear from these notes and from this book --- Holmgren, Stephen. Ethics After Easter. The New Church’s Teaching Series, vol. 9. Cambridge, MA: Cowley Publications, 2000. --- that, at least for some Anglicans, there is a role for natural law reasoning? Probably, however, for Anglicans, the Roman tendency to prove too much is tempered by Protestant sensibilities vis a vis humankind's depravity? For a Catholic voice re: homosexuality and Scripture, I commend the thought of Daniel Helminiak. Thanks for your time and consideration. jb
|
|
|
Post by comanche250 on May 3, 2008 8:14:34 GMT -5
What is your opinion on gay marriages and civil unions? I believe that the Church should sanction both gay marriages and civil unions. I also see nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual sex acts. I agree. Homosexuality should be accepted by society. It's nothing more than yet another variation of human sexuality. When engaged in by consenting adults, it's okay. Christians should remember that Jesus Himself said nothing about homosexuality. The big condemnation of it in the New Testament began with Paul, a guy who didn't know Jesus personally. Interestingly, Paul hung around with young men, whose company he apparently craved. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 3, 2008 14:32:12 GMT -5
Comanche, it is encouraging that you apparently view the Bible as authoritative when you cite the lack of direct references to homosexuality by Jesus. There are two things you should consider, however.
The First: While Jesus didn't talk about homosexual behavior he did talk about marriage. In particular he said that marriage was the only appropriate place for sex, and he said that marriage was between a man and a woman. This would seem to leave little room for sexual practices between members of the same sex.
The Second: The entire Bible is the canon, not just the words of Jesus. While some people pay special attention to the words of Jesus, even using "red Letter" editions of Scripture, this is a very modern innovation and treats scripture as a cafeteria of ideas from which we can pick and choose. I doubt that God condones this picking and choosing of what we will obey and what we will ignore.
Your innuendo concerning Paul and the company of young men is simply ad homynim character assassination. While it is true that many, probably most, practicing homosexuals seek the company of young men, not all or even most of those who seek to befriend and guide young men are homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by comanche250 on May 4, 2008 10:04:37 GMT -5
The Bible isn't a book, but a library. When did you last read everything in a library and consider every book therein of equal importance? The Bible is also a gigantic collection of interpretations. I too am capable of offering my own interpretations. Finally, yes.....what Jesus said takes top priority for me. Paul didn't know Jesus, yet wrote over one-fourth of the New Testament. Something isn't right with that. First there was Jesus. Then came a flood of interpretations of Him. I remain focused on Jesus. We all 'pick and choose' the interpretations we prefer. Mine are as valid for me and yours are for you.
|
|
|
Post by christian on May 6, 2008 7:11:40 GMT -5
Clearly you don't like Paul. You have a lot of company there. Some people even put him in jail. Most scholars seem to think he was executed for his beliefs, although records concerning this are scarce.
Jesus brought Christianity primarily to the Jews. Paul brought it to the gentiles (with a lot of help). It was by Paul's (divinely inspired) efforts that Christianity is not just a small Jewish sect today. Apparently that effort required a lot of paper and ink. Comanche, are you a member of a small Jewish sect? What would be your knowledge of Jesus without Paul?
There is no need to even consult Paul on the question of homosexual behavior. Jesus clearly said that sexual activity is only acceptable within the bonds of marriage, and that marriage is a (hopefully lifelong) union of a man and a woman.
I don't know how you arrive at your "interpretations", but I first read the document (the Bible), I then do as much cross-referencing within the document as I am able including the old testament, I then study what the patristic fathers had to say about these passages and subjects, I them seek out more modern scholarship and practice, I then attempt to assemble all of this information into a coherent whole. This is how one uses the power of tradition and reason to understand Scripture, and this is what Hooker's 3 legged stool, and the Anglican Tradition, is all about. I find this path far more enlightening than worrying about what a few self indulgent children are going to want. I prefer to teach the children rather that try to have them teach me. I would never assume that I know more that 4 millennia of Judeo-Christian tradition and thought. I have proved my original thoughts wrong so many times that I carefully reserve making any conclusions until I see what those who went before me have concluded.
How do you arrive at your interpretations?
|
|
|
Post by Uriel on May 7, 2008 9:01:40 GMT -5
"simply ad homynim character assassination..." Did you mean "ad hominem," or are you referring to a logical fallacy found in the land of Gulliver's fourth voyage?
|
|
|
Post by segrether on Sept 11, 2008 13:52:36 GMT -5
As a lesbian Christian, I have definitely struggled with this issue. Obviously, I support civil marriage for homosexual couples, however, I do see scriptural problems with performing same-sex marriage ceremonies. In addition, I am aware of the scholarship of John Boswell, who found tons of evidence that the early church (before the 13th century) performed same-sex commitment ceremonies.
Personally, I'd prefer God's blessing of my union over the state's, but am very open minded to the dialogue of both sides.
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Phil on Sept 12, 2008 8:12:43 GMT -5
segrether;
Welcome to Episcopal Voices. As you'll have figured out from this thread, there is a wide range of opinions on this and other topics on this board. For myself, I think it is appropriate for the civil society to grant civil unions to homosexuals because the civil government represents everyone and there should be legal protection extended to unions of this type. The issue of the how the church should react is complicated by Scripture, as you rightly point out. The issue remains difficult and easy answers not forthcoming. All we can do is to keep reading Scripture, pray and discern. What I regret the most about the last few years is that the heat of the debate has obscured any light that might be shed on a solution.
But, welcome here, again. I hope you'll enjoy interacting with us.
Peace, Phil
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Sept 19, 2008 15:16:55 GMT -5
As Phil says, there is more heat than light on this item. As a partnered gay man, I probably have a dog in this hunt. However, I am more concerned about maintaining the integrity of my relationship with my partner than I am about the means to assure safety for that integrity. That safety, at least currently, in the United States, rests within civil law. The Church cannot confer nor protect the property agreements that exist between my partner and me. The Church cannot confer nor protect our rights to act as each other's health care representative or to hold one another's Power of Attorney. Rendered legally irrelevant to either the creation or preservation of the legal bonds which structure the relationship that my partner and I share, I, from the practical stand point, could care less about the Church's role in marriage.
The only other question that remains for me (and it is really an intellectual question, the answer to which is, again, not particularly relevant) is what is the theological implication of marriage. As with most theological arguments, the scriptures provide more questions than answers, and depending upon who you authorize to find and declare the Truth which must be ferreted out through a wide variety of methods, your answers are going to vary. But, from my perspective, Christian marriage is a promise made between two people in the presence of God: no more, no less. Now you can push that further and say that if it is made in the presence of a priest and other witnesses, it takes on a social significance. One can push that argument even further and say that it is promises taken as part of a Christian Community in which the community agrees to support the couple as they wend their way into life's vicissitudes. One can even argue that the priest, as a representative of the Church and of God, announces God's blessing on the couple (as would be the Cramnerian view of who gives a blessing). All of these accretions, however, do not change the fact that the wedding is the statement of promise that two people make to each other.
Thus, in my view, a marriage can exist when the promises are made in the sight of God. Hsaving said that, the role of the Church, in my view, becomes unnecessary, and thus, the question of what the Church should do about gay marriage is actually meaningless and doesn't particularly interest me anymore.
I do concede that there are different interpretations of the theology of marriage and the role of hte Church in marriage, and if one holds to a different set of predicates, one will, naturally, arrive at a different view of marriage.
Finally, I am the first to admit that neither my theological explanation, nor my practical indifference to the issue of the Church and marriage, are necessarily a reflection of the views of all, or a majority, of gays.
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Sept 19, 2008 17:53:07 GMT -5
Sojourner,
I only realized a few months ago that you were gay, and have never considered the question because you have previously referred to your son.
I assume this means you were once married to a woman. (Please correct me if I am wrong. I suppose the son might be an adoption.)
If so, you'd be at least the sixth person I have come to know in recent years like this - three in my parish, my cousin, and of course Bishop Robinson.
I have asked some of these people if they could explain the mentality behind this sort of history. I was wondering if you would be willing to to do the same. I've never been completely satisfied with any of the explanations. (Of course, if one is bisexual, that's a reason - but nobody has ever given that explanation.) I have heard talk of pressure to conform. But I find it hard to understand how gettting married to someone one does not desire is ever a better option than not being married. I'm not married, and it's not so bad.
I hope you don't mind indulging my curiosity, as I think this sort of information may help us understand the human condition better. If conformity is the whole explanation, one can only wonder what other kinds of ways people are willing to sabotage themselves in order to fit in.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Sept 23, 2008 11:20:03 GMT -5
I will tell you my story, and I hope that I can do it with some sense of honesty. However, at the end, I still cannot explain it, and, I too, am not satisfied with the "explanations." I have no desire to be understood, nor to find either acceptance or approval for who I am or what I have done.
At the root of where I am today is fear. It was a fear born out of coming of age in the 50's and 60's. At that time there were states in which you could be jailed for having sex with a member of the same sex. In the society in which I was raised there was always the stated, but mostly unstated, undertone that acting on such behaviors was wrong and that, somehow, something was the matter with you.
When I was in my teens I experimented with a number of guys (it's interesting that most of them, 50 years later, are fathers and grandfathers, and, as far as I know, lived their lives as heterosexual men). I mention this fact because, for me, it shows the fluidity of human sexuality. Knowing that heterosexuality was the societal norm, compounded with the horrible social and emotional toll that could be paid by not conforming to that norm, it was not unthinkable that a teenager would do everything possible to be like one was "supposed" to be.
For me, it was not all about sex. During the time that I was 18 until I was 25 I had crushes on two guys. Although I lived with each of them during that time, we did not have sex. But the emotional bonding we had was intense. These relationships ended when each one of them got married. The fact was, however, that as room mates, I had with each of them, a oneness and simpatico that was emotionally satisfying.
However, the prospects of living as a gay man and being subject to legal and social discrimination in housing and employment was a significant disincentive. Who wants to be shunned by one's family? In order to solve this dilemma I chose to lie to myself. In those days it was easy to believe that if one prayed hard enough God would take this "curse" away. It was easy to believe that one would "grow out of it," that "it was just a phase." It was easy to indulge in magical thinking which, ultimately, led to believing things that were untrue. We have a strange capacity for denial, for hope, for intention. But the failure to acknowledge who and what we are is, finally, a lie.
I need to comment on your statement, "But I find it hard to understand how gettting married to someone one does not desire is ever a better option than not being married." From my perspective that is not a valid assumption. I was able to perform sexually with a woman, and I really believed that I was, would, could change. At first we were compatible. And I remained monogamous for 22 years, but as the years went by I became more and more dissatisfied, and withdrew emotionally from the relationship which caused significant strain and finally destroyed the marriage. I take full responsibility for that. After leaving the marriage I ultimately met the person with whom I have been for the past 11 years.
In my mind -- and that may be different from objective fact, I don't know -- my life evolved less from a desire to conform than it did from fear of very real and damaging sanctions which I did not have the integrity nor fortitude to accept. That, and the mistaken belief that I could forever change. I believe that things have changed in the past 40 years and, while it is not comfortable, in some situations, to live as an openly gay person, the most onerous sanctions have diminished, and, therefore, I would hope that I would have the fortitude to accept myself and realize that I was not going to change.
Is this a story I tell with pride? Of course not. Do I ask for understanding? No. It is my story, and you asked, and I have told you.
|
|
srigdon
Eucharistic Assistant
Posts: 214
|
Post by srigdon on Sept 23, 2008 15:47:02 GMT -5
Thanks for your story.
Although it doesn't seem important to you, this sort of testimony is valuable to those of us who have not had such experiences. I think that gay people in the church have missed out on a valuable avenue of persuasion by not working harder to explain this behavior. (I realize that, as you say, you do not seek the acceptance that others do.) But for those who do seek acceptance, leaving questions like mine unexplained would seem to lend support to belief that homosexuality is not innate and can be 'fixed.'
I agree with your thought about the nature of denial. We must all be capable of it.
That's all I can say in response right now.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
Post by marsha on Oct 27, 2008 3:18:51 GMT -5
Interesting, because I just watched the movie "Kinsey", last night, about the man who researched and wrote the "Kinsey Report" back in the 50's. He interviewed literally thousands of people, asking about their sexual experiences. Many more people than you would ever think have had same-sex attractions and have acted on them. It was his conclusion that as sexual beings, very few of us are strictly at one end of the continuum or the other. Most of us are somewhere in between.
|
|