Replies: 27 Comments
on Thursday, June 3rd, Little Fly said
It does not sound like the ACC is too concerned to be considered irrelevant by the Global South. If the ACC is rendered irrelevant, it is only because the Global South is telling them that they are, which begs the question why the Global South or anybody else needs the Cold North for redemption anyway. Since Christians legitimately disagree over the status of same-sex unions, one wonders why the ACC should be concerned with Global South opinion, except that their tendancy toward localism interferes with majoritarian arguments for moral authority on the question of same-sex unions. I dare say the concern here is not what the ACC's move means for provincial relations but what it means for church governance. I imagine those who feel they have the majority on their side are afraid of any move that would make that majority less able to stop practices they disagree with.
on Thursday, June 3rd, Phillipa said
Who gets to define "committed?"
on Thursday, June 3rd, Phillipa said
Who gets to define "committed?"
on Thursday, June 3rd, Little Fly said
Hopefully "committed" here would entail the same rights and duties as marriage.
on Thursday, June 3rd, Katherine said
Christians do not "legitimately" disagree on the status of same-sex unions. Same-sex erotic behavior is clearly prohibited by Scripture, as is all other sex outside of marriage; these prohibitions are not trivial, but are closely tied to the doctrine of creation and human nature. Neither in the writings of the apostles nor the church fathers nor in the practice of twenty centuries can approval for such activity be found. Those who disagree must look seriously at whether they are Christian in any traditional sense.
on Friday, June 4th, Mark said
In what way is the logic of the following syllogism deficient?
Sexual relations outside of marriage are adulterous.
A committed, life-long, blessed-by-a-priest relationship that includes sexual relations is not a marriage, if it is not a marriage.
A committed, life-long, blessed-by-a-priest relationship that includes sexual relations but is not a marriage, is adulterous.
on Friday, June 4th, concerned southerner said
Still finding difficult to see Jesus saying to the blessed-by-a-priest 'same-sex couple' : "You are doing the will of God." (and I thought that was a condition for entering the kingdom Matt.7:21)
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
And again I am told that I am not Christian. It is much easier to refuse the legitimacy of a debate when you refuse the legitimacy of those you disagree with. I have never said that I don't think some Christians have good reason to oppose gay marriage. But having good reasons and having the only reasons is not the same thing. Is it too much to ask "real Christians" to awaken to the reality that "good Christians" disagree over homosexuality, and that this debate has a place in our church and our history. That it has Biblical and theological understandings that support both sides. That it's not just about sex. Some Christians want Christianity to conform to what it looks like in its perfection in their minds. They seem to forget that Christianity lives out there, in the world, in the form of 2.1 billion different witnesses.
on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said
Little Fly, Christians disagree on all sorts of issues and are still Christians. This present disagreement is not just about sex. It's about the nature of God's self-revelation in history and the inspired recording of that revelation in Scripture. Church Fathers, Reformation leaders, Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians all operate with their thinking immersed in Scripture. If you reject the normative authority of Scripture, it is reasonable to state that you are no longer within the Christian tradition.
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
Not only did I say "It's not all about sex," but that the issue has "Biblical and theological understandings that support both sides." If you do not acknowledge this possibility, then I dare say you have refused the legitimacy of the debate because you refuse the legitimacy of those you disagree with. You are confusing Christians' being immersed in scripture with the normative authority you find there. This is something about which Christians disagree.
on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said
Of course I'm not a biblical scholar, but Prof. Gagnon is one, and he has produced an exhaustive scriptural study on the subject of same-sex activity and the scriptural witness about it. The clearest thinkers in the pro-same-sex party admit that Scripture is universally negative about it, and that approving it requires jettisoning Scripture. This is, of course, a logical approach for them to take, but it is not the Christian approach. Theological support for same-sex relations is extra-scriptural, and contrary to it.
I don't refuse the legitimacy of those I disagree with. I deny the legitimacy of their argument within the Christian worldview defined by Scripture and Creeds.
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
I would contend that pro-same-sex party theologians are not jettisoning scripture, but are instead applying a different hermeneutic to it than you or Prof. Gagnon would. A good example of this would be the volume Prof. Gagnon published with Prof. Via. I do not recall Prof. Gagnon ever claiming that Prof. Via had "jettisoned scripture," as much as he admits they disagree on the interpretation of scripture. I have no problem if you disagree with this or that person's interpretation of scripture. Christians disagree about interpretation all the time, even those who are unified in their rejection of homosexuality. But your disagreement does not make the persons you disagree with on homosexuality any less concerned with scripture, or any less Christian.
on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said
I agree with your statement (Christians legitimately disagree on many points of scriptural interpretation) on many issues, but unfortunately not on this one. The issues around sexual behavior go straight to the core of our creation as humans; ignoring the universal witness of 3,000 years is a very serious matter. Would you say, for instance, that one can deny the reality of the Resurrection, treating it as symbolic rather than an actual event, and still be Christian? Jesus very clearly ratified marriage, referring directly to the creation narrative. Some things are open to legitimate debate, and some are not.
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
I'm not willing to concede your point that Christians do not legitimately disagree on this point. Apparently then, you are giving yourself no choice but to deny that I am a Christian. Would I say that one can deny the reality of the Resurrection, treating it as symbolic rather than an actual event, and still be Christian? Yes. I know many who do. But you have already denied that they are Christian, so it hardly merits mentioning. Anyway, your suggestion that "issues around sexual behavior go straight to the core of our creation as humans" is a matter of Biblical interpretation upon which we don't agree. Also, your contention that pro-same-sex party theologians are "ignoring the universal witness of 3,000 years" is a matter of interpretation over which we disagree. There is really nothing in the same-sex-union debate over which we couldn't disagree. So, again, you can either avoid conversation with pro-same-sex Christians by telling them they are not Christian, or you can acknowledge that we have legitimate disagreements. If you take the former route, then you are telling me I am not Christian. Thanks! It sure makes pro-same-sex Christians know they are being taken seriously!
on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said
I am taking your points of view very seriously and supporting your freedom as a God-created human to hold these points of view. Some points of view can be held under the umbrella of Scripture and Creeds and two millenia of practice, and some cannot. It would be far better if we could simply acknowledge, you and I, that our religious views differ so drastically on basic points, like human nature and the Resurrection, that we no longer share a common religion. The traditional Christian teachings on these points I call "Christian." The belief that Christ was only symbolically but not truly resurrected is a docetic heresy.
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
You are quite right that Docetists deny the resurrection of Christ. But I cannot agree that we no longer share a common religion, because I am not willing to concede that Christians have ever had agreement on these issues, regardless of your reference to "scripture, the creeds, and two millenia of practice." This "pre-modern consensus defense" is an historical and theological fiction.
on Friday, June 4th, Chris Humphrey said
I think that Katherine makes her case. One may want the Christian label or the forms of worship or other things identified as Christian, all for one reason or another. But it is not finally a matter of our wills, but of our acceptance of the truth about God and ourselves.
I am currently editing my wife's most recent article on this subject, and she shows, as a NT specialist, what every honest person will admit: the Bible sounds no positive, no neutral notes, about homoerotic behavior (pace Countryman, Rogers, et al).
Those who disagree with Scripture have to find ways to discount it, either denying that St. Paul is talking about what we are talking about; saying that homoeroticism is like slavery or women in the priesthood, an issue that we can fudge at will; or claiming that it’s not immoral, everybody just thought like that back then. In each case the orthodox answer trumps the revisionist claim. (This can only be shown by rehearsing the arguments on both sides.)
Katherine's right: at some point we are talking about views that put people outside the church. Fortunately, God can change minds and hearts!
on Friday, June 4th, Katherine said
No, it's not a fiction, although you like to think so. There have been, indeed, many people who have denied the Resurrection. Christians believe it, and other groups don't.
Thanks for this conversation. It has long been my feeling that those who deny traditional teachings on marriage are also often heretical in their basic religious beliefs. You have confirmed this. I don't rejoice; I grieve.
on Friday, June 4th, Little Fly said
I fear the "pre-modern consensus defense" is a fiction, first because it cannot be framed without a theology of continued revelation that is itself a threat to the defense. Second, telling a history of church dogmatics or church polity that ignores the diversity of historical Christian religious communities does not prove pre-modern concensus. It only proves that you choose to ignore the ugly details of Christian diversity by hiding behind some magesterial authority, thus cutting off diversity as somehow abnormal, heretical, or unchristian. Again, this is a method for denying that people who disagree with you are Christian ("Christians believe it, and other groups don't"). Why then are you suprised that Christians who disagree with you stop caring about what you think? Do you not want to be taken seriously by the leadership of churches like the ACC? Or do you really want the church to split because you cannot for a moment countenance the thought that the pro-same-sex person sitting next to you is a Chritian? Then let the churches split. Since you can't take me seriously, and have even tried to belittle me in your last statement, you have given me no reason to feel regret if they do. Since you have told me I am not a Christian, you seem to reject that we have any relationship worth fighting for. Some universal church, huh? Chris, I can't agree that "in each case the orthodox answer trumps the revisionist claim." I happen to find many of Rogers' arguments quite compelling. But then again, I'm not orthodox. Oh right, I'm not a Christian either. I guess that makes the whole problem go away, doesn't it?
on Saturday, June 5th, Chris Humphrey said
"Little Fly," I don't see any benefit in pursuing the question of whether you are a Christian. But I would challenge you to show me from Scripture any approval of homoerotic relations. Rogers tries to suggest that St. Paul is theologically limited (and he misuses the apostle's analogy of grafting in Romans 11 to try to contradict Romans 1). But this is to say we know better than St. Paul about same-sex relations. I don't believe that. We can say we reject what Scripture has to say about anything, but it is hard to square that in any Christian tradition with faithfulness to God.
Anyway, I'll let you have the last word, unless you think you will learn from anything I might say.
Best wishes,
Chris
on Saturday, June 5th, Little Fly said
I already have learned a lot from what you say. I also think we do know better than Paul. That may be impossible for you to accept, but it is not for me. I don't imagine you see any benefit in my pursuing the question because no one continuously and categorically denies your Christianity, just your sexual ethics. Because of my views, opponents like K. try to deny my faith. Apparently, this is much easier than being open to Christians who think we can know better than Paul. This sort of talk is profoundly disproportionate and a conversation stopper. But K. seems perfectly happy to kill conversation, so I guess that's it.
on Saturday, June 5th, Katherine said
Little Fly, I'd be happy to continue the conversation, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere constructive. It's not a question of being unwilling to talk. It's a question of your being unwilling to accept that we have reached the end of the discussion, with neither of us being convinced by the other.
I haven't said you are a horrible person, just that your belief system is not classic Christianity. It is the "progressive" majorities in ECUSA and ACC who are not taking the scriptural and doctrinal arguments of traditional Christians seriously. It's very sad, but there can be no "conversation" when one side won't engage the others' arguments. I say that there is eternal Truth in the self-revelation of God contained in the Old and New Testaments. You say the truth is relative, to be determined in each generation based on experience, and that we can know better than St. Paul even on the Resurrection and essential anthropology. We disagree, and there it is.
on Saturday, June 5th, Little Fly said
Then maybe the split is better for the both of us after all. Then let us split in peace.
on Saturday, June 5th, Katherine said
In peace, but not without great sorrow. I used to think, being mostly uninformed, that all this stuff about creeds was just a bunch of out-of-control
Greek minds arguing about nonsense. Or, in your way of thinking, perhaps, imposing control for political reasons. But, wanting to know more about my faith, I began reading lots of books and articles. I found there exists the split in thinking that I've been talking about here, and the more I read, the more I came to believe that the orthodox teachings matter, are true, and lead to right actions. If Christ is not resurrected, if he is not who Scripture and Creed proclaim, then why bother at all? It becomes just a nice story, among other mythologies, all or none of which may contain any truth at all. Nihilism and despair lie down that path. May God help us all.
on Saturday, June 5th, Little Fly said
Indeed. While I myself do not sympathize with the question "if he is not who Scripture and Creed proclaim, then why bother at all?" I do understand that this is a matter of faith and conviction for many Christians. The fact, then, that churches exist for the both of us is good. What causes me sorrow is the pain of the process of separation. If there was ever a pre-modern concensus (and I would assert that there was not, but that is beside the piont here), it is beyond us now to recreate. Better that we seek redemption for the world by other means.
on Monday, June 7th, Bubba said
Can someone explain to me why the Moravian Church is even considering full communion with the ECUSA? The have obviously abandoned their own history, traditon and historical doctrine. Do we really want pulpits open to those who "preach another gospel"? As to LF, although I don't agree at all with your view on this subject, your relationship with Jesus is what determines your salvation, not your understanding of homosexuality. What is undermined by your position is the authority of Scripture in the eyes of others. When we discard what we don't like, where do we stop? Is slander, gossip, drunkeness etc also now acceptable because God has revealed more to us than Paul? What about divorce, pedophilia, greed, hate, and the like. These all show up in lists with homosexuality as being barriers to the Kingdom, as sin. Can we disregard these as well if we don't like them?
on Thursday, June 10th, Bubba said
Quiet out there?
