Replies: 20 Comments
on Friday, April 16th, 58er said
What if the rules are morally wrong?
The rules forbidding women as priests were. And now that we have women in the priesthood, we are blessed by the gifts they bring to the ministry. But the rules said no to that at one time.
I understand the need for rules and for following them -- if you don't what's the point of having them, right? And in most cases I am a strict rule follower. But until we see gay clergy at work in our churches and see them doing a terrific job, the fear of gays and lesbians in such roles in the church will never go away.
on Friday, April 16th, Athanasius said
Leave aside the question of whether the Church should allow sexually active gays in the ministry. The question raised here is this: how does one go about achieving change in the the Church? In virtually all denominations, there are processes for making such changes. There's a process in the ELCA that currently involves a sexuality study that will culminate in votes in 2005 on whether to change the rules. What happening in these situations is that churches are deciding to undermine a process the denomination has decided upon, and create new "facts on the ground" that they think will force everyone else's hands (a la the Episcopal ordinations of women in the 70s). That approach to bringing about change is essnetially anarchistic in its approach to rules, and coercive in its approach to opposition. Is that really how the Church should operate?
on Friday, April 16th, 58er said
And if the study you mentioned comes back with rave reviews for gays and lesbians, everyone will of course vote to change the rules? Research really doesn't make change. It simply gives people information to process. Then there is the process of tearing down the research because it's in disagreement with a person's belief system. In any case, just what is this sexuality study studying?
Just out of curiosity, do you receive communion from women celebrants?
on Friday, April 16th, Phillipa said
Guys!
You can't compare the ordination of women and the ordination of gays. It's apples and oranges. If it weren't for women, the church could never have evolved to what it is today. A women bore Jesus. Two women were the first to discover that Jesus had risen from the dead. When someone finds a scripture as clear as "if a man lay with a man as with a women, he will surely die" (forgive the paraphrase), that pertains to women ministering and leading the church, I would like to see it. If Christ had wanted us to be bystanders, he wouldn't have ministered to women at all. In fact, an overwhelming preponderance of the people in the gospels who accepted Jesus message without noticeable protest were women. How about the widow (woman) giving her last penny quietly while the man makes a big production about dropping his offering in collection plate? It wasn't the rich young woman who walked sadly when Jesus told him to give all he had away. How many Pharisees were women? Christ's betrayer was not named Judith! How about Peter (a man) denying Christ? There is so much stupidity, betrayal, callousness, cruelty, self-righteousness, greed, and smugness perpetrated by MEN in the gospels it's not funny. If all gays left the church universal, that would add up to less than 1% of all church populations. If women left, you're talking about more than 50%!, Please come up with better reasons to bar actively gay clergy than that! Like, what is a gay pastor going to say when a teen confides in him/her that they are thinking about becoming sexually active. "Sex outside of marriage is okay, I do it all the time"?? How is a gay pastor going to repond when asked about denial of self? "I gave up chocolate for lent"? And while we're talking about commitment level, are there any gay missionaries? Is there one that is ready to give up his/her gayness in order to minister to people? Let's not even talk about the sanctity of marriage! Like I said, guys, find other reasons to disagree with the ordination of gays. Women should not only be members of the church, they should be leaders, too. Sheesh!
on Friday, April 16th, Athanasius said
58: I do. I don't have any problem with women as pastors, since I don't think the NT directly addresses the question of ordination at all. My objection in the ECUSA situation was to the way it was done, not that it was done.
As for the ELCA study, I'm sure you're right in the way you characterize it. Again, my problem is with the way things are being done. It was the liberal element that put the study forth as something that should be done by the church as a whole, followed by a vote to hopefully resolve the issues surrounding homosexuality. Instead, you've got lone rangers doing their own thing, bishops who will do nothing to stop them, and the inevitable claim soon-to-come that "the church can't go back" now that the deed has been done.
on Friday, April 16th, Athanasius said
Phil: The comparison I was making between women and gays had to do with the process by which the issue of ordination was dealt with in the ECUSA (lots of others have done it in good order) and the way gays are being shoe-horned into the ministry in ECUSA, ELCA, and others. I'd be the first to say that they are very different issues.
on Saturday, April 17th, 58er said
So it's ok to deny full membership to folks who are only 1% of the church population -- if it were, say, 25% would you include them? Or does it need to be over 50% as women are? Yes, I'm being snide and I apologize, but really, does it matter how many people are affected by this? If it's a problem for even one person in a church, aren't we obligated to do all that we can to remedy the situation, whatever that may entail?
As for being sexually active outside of marriage -- if gays and lesbians could get married, they could be held to the same standard as heterosexuals and counsel a teen not to have sex outside of marriage because they could say: "No sex outside of marriage -- I am faithful to my spouse all the time."
Women should absolutely be in the church and act as leaders as they are personally called to it.
I guess until you are denied the full inclusion of the church you grew up in, and love dearly in so many ways, could you understand the frustration and pain of being excluded because of something you believe to your toes to be completely inborn. Who would choose to be excluded in so many hurtful ways?
on Saturday, April 17th, Athanasius said
No one has said anything about denying gays full membership in the church, just ordination. No one has a right to be ordained, and saying that gays are being denied "full membership" because of a ban on ordination more than implies that lay people are not full (or complete) members.
Unfortunately, at least among men, the chances are very good that allowing gays to marry will not stop the phenomenon of extra-relational sex. Studies I've seen indicate that for men, being in a "committed, monogamous relationship" means that instead of 50+ sex partners in a year, they "only" have 8-10. Legalizing gay marriage will primarily have the effect of weakening the already shaky definition of marriage as a sexually exclusive relationship.
Finally, on homosexuality being inborn. Leave aside the very slim scientific evidence for a belief that has become an article of unquestioning faith among liberals. Even if it is so, there are many behaviors for which there is or may be a genetic basis, including alcoholism, pedophilia, etc. The church's response to such behaviors is not, "well, you were born that way, you go right ahead, God doesn't make mistakes." I do not suggest that anyone makes the "choice" to be gay, but everyone who engages in homosexual behavior chooses to do so, just as my wife and I choose to engage in heterosexual behavior. Could we abstain? Sure, and if there was a good medical reason for doing so, we would. We are not "driven" to engage in any particular kind of sexual behavior. The church's message is clear: no one in condemned for being gay. Homosexual behavior is condemned as being contrary to God's will expressed in Scripture. Does that mean that gays can't be forgiven, and accepted in the church? Of course not. It means that they are expected to wage the same battle against sinful impulses that I and every other Christian does. It does not mean that the church must accept what God has declared sinful as righteous.
on Saturday, April 17th, Phillipa said
58er:
First, I said we shouldn't put open gays in pastoral positions. Also,I never said we should bar them from church membership. If lack of sin was a requirement for church memberships, then we'd have a lot of empty churches. I will say that it's ridiculous to split a church right down the middle so that 1% of the membership will feel "included." Jesus included them as partakers of salvation when he died for our sins. Jesus also said "go and sin no more." Jesus didn't tell the woman caught in adultery that she should go home and take up with yet another man. He didn't scold the people stoning her and demand that she be named rabbi just because he wanted adulterers to feel "included."
If we ordain gays as pastors and confirm them as bishops does that mean I can let everyone know that I have a drinking problem and get sloshed on a regular basis and still expect to become an elder in my church? After all, my dad was a drunk and I have a predisposition to alcholism. (Just an example) Maybe if I leave my husband and move in with another man they will name me to the board of trustees. Personal behavior has everything to do with leadership. Would you hire an admitted thief as a bank president? Hey, my accountant has been convicted on tax fraud charges, but that just means that when I try to cheat on my taxes, he'll turn a blind eye. Would you let your son join a boy scout troop that was led by a convicted pedophile? Get real!
Athanasius:
I too, have a problem with the way it (Robinson's confirmation, etc.) was done. However, the fact that it was done badly should only point up the fact that it was a stupid thing to do, not that the confirmation should have been questioned because it was done badly.
Some revolutionary ideas, like printing a bible in the common language and not Latin, may have been done badly, but they were necessary for the growth of the church. If we say proper procedure is required to make a change in church policy and operation does that mean that if it's done right it's okay?
on Saturday, April 17th, Athanasius said
Uh, no. Please don't hear me confusing process with substance. My objections to Robinson stand despite the fact that his elevation was all perfectly legal (at least if you buy the idea that ECUSA canons have nothing to say about sexual morality, a la the Walter Righter jury). What the ELCA is doing is compounding the problem-not only are they seeking to toos aside Christian teaching about homosexuality (substance), they are also trying to destroy the process by which such decisions are made. I would contend that when people use illegimate means to achieve even worthy ends, they sullyy the whole enterprise. And that goes for the Reformation. If the reforms desired by Luther and others had been achieved in an orderly fashion (granted, there were plenty of obstacles in their way, but have a little faith, guys), we might not now have 30,000 denominations or whatever it is. Maybe something like the splintering of the Church was inevitable, but maybe not.
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
Comparing gays to adulterers, alcoholics, theives and pedophiles? And you are telling ME to get real? Where do you live - in Topeka?
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
By the way, about choosing to engage in a specific activity... what if you were told by an interpretation of the Bible that you were not to engage in sexual activity with your wife. No medical reason, no reason whatsoever except a person's interpretation of the Bible. And say, for the sake of argument, that you disagreed with the interpretation? Then take it a step further and say that this particular interpretation said that you were not worthy to do a job you felt called to do?
Being in power makes it hard to imagine how other people feel when they are continually told that they are "less than."
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
And don't do the semantics things about language -- I use "a person's interpretation of the Bible" to mean an interpretation of the Bible. I don't care how many people adhere to an interpretation, more folks having an oppositional opinion doesn't automatically make it right. Remember that whole "The earth is flat!" "No, it's round!" argument? That first single voice for a round earth was right -- In spite of the many (uninformed) who opposed the idea.
on Monday, April 19th, Athanasius said
58: First, let's cut out the mud. Tne Topeka remark is out of line. My comparison is between one form of (possibly) genetically based, volitionally controllable behavior and another. Philippa's was netween one form of behavior frowned upon in Scripture and another. There's nothing "Topeka-like" in either comparison.
As for your hypothetical, it's just that. The Church's condemnation of homosexual behavior is of 2000 years standing, based on the (until a couple of decades ago) unanimous opinions of exegetes, theologians, and ethicists. In fact, the silliness of your hypothetical proves my point-just because some individual (say, Johnn Boswell) claims that Scripture actually says homosexual behavior is ok doesn't make it so. The arguments for such a view are so weak that advocates for gays are abandoning them in favor of simply saying that Scripture doesn't apply. That might go over well with the already convinced, but I doubt that anyone who takes the authority of Scripture seriously will be moved.
As for the last, of course it's true that the number of adherents doesn't prove the validity of a point of view. And that works both ways. A loud minority isn't always right, no matter how strongly it wants to be or feels that it is.
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
Well, I'm not one to sling mud, so I apologize. But in the future could you please use different examples of "(possibly) genetically-based" behavior that is frowned upon -- left handedness faced some detractors and we use the word "left" in a number of different languages for less than favorable situations (i.e. gauche, sinister). That was in-born, frowned upon, and now viewed as a ridiculous fear.
Ok, so perhaps it is not Biblically based. Of all that I have read, it seems that one could make a case that a person views the Bible literally or contextually. The literalist would take words at their face value and apply them -- is that a fair statement? The contextualist would look at the context within which the writing was done and interpret meaning from there to apply to questions in society today. Is that a fair statement?
Ok, from there, let me ask two questions that I just can't get my brain around.
1. If the Bible is taken literally, then why aren't a lot of other behaviors we see as completely acceptable in society today condemned by the same folks who condemn homosexuality as against the Word of God (i.e the laws in Leviticus)
2. If one is to take the Bible literally, why is it that there are so many different versions of the Bible used today? They really read quite differently. Which is the accurate Word of God?
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
And a minority isn't necessarily wrong no matter how strongly the opposition wants it to be or feels that it is. The noise level of a minority may just indicate how heartfelt their conviction is.
on Monday, April 19th, Athanasius said
Apology accepted. I'd be glad to continue the discussion using whatever examples you'd care to suggest, as long as they involve genuinely volitional behavior. Lefthandedness doesn't qualify-trying to change a lefty to a righty almost always screws a person up, whereas refraining from drinking despite having a genetic predisposition to alcoholism is pretty much always a good idea.
You're also quite right about your last point, which is why the intensity of a belief does nothing to prove it one way or the other. I'll deal with the biblical questions separately.
on Monday, April 19th, Athanasius said
Your statement about literalism sets up a straw man. I know of no biblical scholar, no matter how conservative, that treats Scripture the way you propose. Consideration of historical and cultural context is a universal practice among even fundamentalists. (What non-academically trained individuals do with the text is, of course, another matter). That being the case, it makes it a little difficult to answer your questions, but let me take a whack at it.
1) Three responses: First, what is acceptable in society isn't necessarily acceptable in the Church. Second, the OT law has three elements-ceremonial (having to do with cultic and ritual cleanliness practices that are no longer binding on Christians); national (having to do with penalties for legal violations in theocratic Israel, also no longer applicable to Christians); and moral (having to do with standards of behavior, which Christians are still called to adhere to). While there are a few OT laws which are ambiguous as to which category they fall in, the vast majority are pretty clear. Third, there's no doubt that the Church has drifted away from some biblical standards (for instance, on divorce), and that these need to be given as much or more attention as the question of homosexuality.
2) There are essentially two kinds of biblical translation, "word-for-word" and "thought-for-thought" (also called dynamic equivalence). In each, there is an effort to maintain the integrity of the text in a way that will best convey the message in a way understandable to the contemporary reader. These methods represent different philosophies, both of translation and of reading. Both can be done with a minimum of agenda-driven results, and the best translations do that. The problem comes when a person's theological, moral, social, or political agenda starts dictating, whether consciously or unconsciously, the choice of words or phrases used. At that point, you no longer have a translation, but a paraphrase such as the Living Bible. I warn folks away from the use of such texts under virtually all circumstances. All that having been said, I'm not really sure that one will come away from a reading of the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, or NASB (the most common word-for-word translations) with all that different an understanding of the basic teaching of Scripture than you do from reading the NIV, ESV, CEV, or TEV (most common thought-for-thought versions).
on Monday, April 19th, 58er said
Thanks for your insight on the Bible questions. I'm still digesting them.
As for left-handedness... You hit the nail right on the head. trying to change a lefty to a righty almost always screws a person up. What I'm trying to say about homosexuality -- and I will only speak in my own case -- is that it is as non-volitional as handedness, or eye color, or shoe size. I arrived on earth this way. So did God make a mistake? Or is God's plan for me to be a celibate human being? Why create a person biologically built and wired for sex to be celibate? I can understand people who choose to take vows of celibacy as a specific act of faith, but it simply doesn't make sense as a rule for everyone when it applies to the way a person is built. I know you disagree that it is inborn. Again, I can only speak for myself when I say that I have never felt any other way. I wouldn't have chosen this for myself, and I hold myself to the same standards of sexual behavior that are commonly associated with the rules applied to heterosexual couples as communicated through the Bible -- monogamy, fidelity -- the works.
on Monday, April 19th, Athanasius said
58: I appreciate your honesty very much. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to find you correct in holding your sexual orientation to be inborn. Actually, I believe sexual orientation to be an extremely complex combination of genetics and environment. I don't think every gay person was "born that way," but I don't doubt for a minute that many if not most are genetically predisposed in that direction.
The questions you raise are serious, so let me try to give as serious a set of answers as I can in such a limited framework. When I speak of homosexual behavior as "volitional," I'm not referring to orientation. That, indeed, may-generally is-as non-volitional as eye color (though there are a growing number of "queer theorists" who contend sexual orientation is a social construct that can be changed volitionally, which I mention not because I agree, but to indicate that this isn't a settled subject, even in the gay community). But while orientation is non-volitional, behavior is very much a matter of will, emotions, and intellect joining together to make a decision about whether to engage in a specific act. Particularly with regard to sex, I am generally-leave rape aside-free to accept or reject any specific action. If my wife suggests that we get it on in a public bathroom, I can say no. It is those specific actions that are the crux of the debate.
Now, does that mean God made a mistake? Certainly not. Every human being is born with a nature that is bent toward sin, though that bent takes different forms, and under the influence of environment it takes as many specific shapes as there are people. For some, it takes the form of gossip; for some, drug addiction; for some, serial promiscuity; for some, inveterate lying; etc., etc. None of those people are mistakes by God. They've simply been born with a disease that afflicts all of humanity, from which Christ was sent to deliver us.
"Why create a person biologically built and wired for sex to be celibate?" Perhaps as a way of presenting that person with an arena in which to face sin and, through Christ, defeat it. The prideful must face their pride and learn humility; the lustful must face their lust and learn self-control and continence; the control freak must face her need for control and turn her life over to God. There are as many variations on this theme as there are people.
I have heard of studies that suggest that men have been biologically programmed to "spread their seed" to as many women as possible, in order to insure that some offspring will be born and survive to perpetuate the species. I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. If so, isn't the monogamy that Scripture requires contrary to the way God made us? And isn't the call of Christ to rise above the demands of nature and nurture, and to be reshaped into the image of Christ?
This is obviously a complicated question that isn't going to get solved on my blog. But I'm happy to comtinue the conversation, and again want to tell you how much I appreciate your being forthcoming about yourself. Please know that while we can and do disagree on this issue, that that entails no judgment of you (as opposed to the ethics of the issue) on my part. I can assure you, I have my own sins-some of which may have been on display in this thread-that you would be absolutely right in taking me to task for! That doesn't change our brotherhood in Christ.
