|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: traditional Christianity = sex
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
That's what the politically conservative Orthodox commentator Rod Dreher seems to think, anyway.
quote:
I consider a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian all to be “traditional Christians.” <snip> It seems to me that “traditional Christian” is political code for “Christians who adhere to traditional teaching about sex and sexuality.” <snip> When I deploy the phrase “traditional Christians” in my writing, I’m not thinking about ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or any other thing that separates Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. What I’m thinking about — what we are all thinking about — is this: what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
I'm afraid he believes that. I'm afraid he means that.
Which means that I think he's replaced Holy Tradition with a "traditional teaching about sex and sexuality," and he's replaced the Eucharistic union of the Church with shared beliefs about sex and sexuality.
And I can't decide what I think about that. Other than the fact that I hope his bishop reads this, and maybe talks to him about it. Because I'm afraid what he's talking is, if not idolatry, then perhaps something worse.
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
He's accurately declared the emperor naked.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
After skimming this really interesting piece,(thanks for linking Josephine,) the import seems to be that our cultural determiners of what we approve are based in our religious beliefs and these, in a practical sense determine our attitudes to sexual behaviour. Then, he reverses the thinking and says well, what is your attitude to sex? The answer, determines your religious standing and in turn whether you are in favour of traditional Christian ethics or whether you have moved on to a different cultural ethos. Is he right? I think he is. It is really interesting that the pollsters have figured out that sex questions can indicate who we'll vote for! It seems so obvious when put that way.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Antisocial Alto
Shipmate
# 13810
|
Posted
Well, using "traditional" as a code word does have its uses. I attended my parish's workshop on Social Media and the Church, where our guest speaker pointed out that, in the US Episcopal context, if you put the word "inclusive" on your website it means "LGBT-friendly" and if you put "traditional Anglican values" it likely means you don't approve of female clergy.
Maybe "traditional" is not the right code word to use, but I am glad there's a way to figure out a church's position on Teh Ladies and Teh Gays before I attend there.
I don't know why liberal churches need a code word, actually- I think "LGBT-friendly" would do fine.
Posts: 601 | From: United States | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Antisocial Alto:
I don't know why liberal churches need a code word, actually- I think "LGBT-friendly" would do fine.
That upsets those who are preventing fences from defying Newton.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Is he right? I think he is. It is really interesting that the pollsters have figured out that sex questions can indicate who we'll vote for! It seems so obvious when put that way.
I think that he is right too.
It's not that the other aspects of traditional Christianity are not important, or more important than sexual beliefs and behavior. It's that these beliefs and behaviors are powerful markers, both emotionally and spiritually.
People with different views and practices around sexual morality have a marked antipathy for one another. Other views cluster around these emotional touch-stones, making them reliably predictive of a whole range of beliefs.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
I don't think he's saying that's what it means to be Christian, or that he is equating "traditional Christian" with Holy Tradition. I think he's saying that in common parlance, when people say "traditional Christians" they mean Christians who hold traditional views on sexuality. I imagine he is right.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ah! There is nothing like having foes in common to break down barriers amongst very different churches. It makes things like infallibility, One True Church (whichever One), sola scriptura, veneration of saints, and believers' baptism into mere trifles. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy to think we libruls made this miracle possible. Hallelujah!
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's what the politically conservative Orthodox commentator Rod Dreher seems to think, anyway.
quote:
I consider a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian all to be “traditional Christians.” <snip> It seems to me that “traditional Christian” is political code for “Christians who adhere to traditional teaching about sex and sexuality.” <snip> When I deploy the phrase “traditional Christians” in my writing, I’m not thinking about ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or any other thing that separates Protestantism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. What I’m thinking about — what we are all thinking about — is this: what separates “traditional Christians” from “modern Christians” (or “progressive Christians”) in our common discourse is their beliefs about sex. Nothing else, or at least nothing else meaningful.
I'm afraid he believes that. I'm afraid he means that.
Which means that I think he's replaced Holy Tradition with a "traditional teaching about sex and sexuality," and he's replaced the Eucharistic union of the Church with shared beliefs about sex and sexuality.
And I can't decide what I think about that. Other than the fact that I hope his bishop reads this, and maybe talks to him about it. Because I'm afraid what he's talking is, if not idolatry, then perhaps something worse.
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
I think it says more about him than it does about the church.
You ask most people what they think of when the word 'church' or 'Christianity' springs to mind; you'll get ''church buildings', 'Jesus', 'choirs', 'music', 'my grandfather's funeral', 'soup kitchen', 'communion', 'cross', 'fellowship', 'service', 'Bible', 'faith suppers', 'house groups', etc, etc. All these things will come to mind because of the experience of the person being asked the question.
If this gentleman can only think of sex when he thinks of traditional Christianity one wonders what his past experiences have been!
[ 02. August 2014, 06:31: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
I would suggest that you'd also get "homophobic" and a lot of other less than glowing terms from many people, most based around matters of sex and gender. Whether it's fair or not, it's the reality around here IME.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would suggest that you'd also get "homophobic" and a lot of other less than glowing terms from many people, most based around matters of sex and gender. Whether it's fair or not, it's the reality around here IME.
In which case it's about time the church started talking about other things! If your message is full of the Gospel and of practical care for the community then that's the message the people will see and hear.
The salvation Army has a very traditional view of marriage and sexuality but i never hear it mentioned - and I never preach about it either; it's just not an issue. There's too much other stuff to talk about!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I would suggest that you'd also get "homophobic" and a lot of other less than glowing terms from many people, most based around matters of sex and gender. Whether it's fair or not, it's the reality around here IME.
In which case it's about time the church started talking about other things! If your message is full of the Gospel and of practical care for the community then that's the message the people will see and hear.
The salvation Army has a very traditional view of marriage and sexuality but i never hear it mentioned - and I never preach about it either; it's just not an issue. There's too much other stuff to talk about!
Whereas I'm aware of a lot of folk who despise the SA for their homophobia and (they claim) that the SA raises funds for the homeless but requires homeless people to listen to sermons to get help. It doesn't matter how much time you spend talking about it, if your organisation has a fixed doctrine then it IS an issue you care about.
On the wider issue, if I squint I can kind of see how one might conclude that people with liberal views on sex and sexuality might also have liberal views on others bits of theology. I just don't think it's true, though. I struggle with the labels "conservative" and "liberal" because, while I have liberal views on LGBT rights and the ordination of women, I can affirm the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers, I believe in the literal resurrection and ascension, and hold orthodox views on most theology.
[ 02. August 2014, 08:15: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The comments after that article are interesting - for example, on teleology. But I noticed a comment about re-paganization, which I suppose refers to a positive view of sexuality in general, not just gay sex.
I would add to that the weakening of patriarchal values, which fundamentally subordinated women and gays to the margins, and placed men at the centre.
There is clearly something very interesting going on, and I'm not sure anybody has defined it yet. It seems like a massive shift in values and orientations to life, away from hierarchy towards autonomy, or in the New Age jargon, self-actualization, and away from masculine values towards more feminine values.
I don't think this is incompatible with Christian thinking at all, but no doubt it jars on conservative thinking. It is probably also unstoppable, because largely unconscious.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
The Bishops of the Anglican Communion in 1998 would agree with you. This is a section of one of their resolutions on human sexuality.
quote:
There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality of Christ. We must be on guard, therefore, against constructing any other ground for our identities than the redeemed humanity given to use in him.
Our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our class race or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is no such thing as "a" homosexual or "a" hetrosexual; therefore there are human beings, male and female, called to redeemed humainty in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation.[
Source
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Whereas I'm aware of a lot of folk who despise the SA for their homophobia and (they claim) that the SA raises funds for the homeless but requires homeless people to listen to sermons to get help. It doesn't matter how much time you spend talking about it, if your organisation has a fixed doctrine then it IS an issue you care about.
... while I have liberal views on LGBT rights and the ordination of women, I can affirm the Nicene Creed without crossing my fingers...
The Salvation Army is not homophobic in any way, shape or form, even if we hold to the traditional view of chastity before marriage and fidelity within it; marriage being the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others.
Firstly, not one of our community or social provisions excludes LGBT people - we will house anyone who is homeless, feed anyone who is hungry, give medical aid to anyone who comes to us. Sexuality is never, ever an issue. Ever.
Secondly we do not refuse to employ or welcome as a volunteer anyone from the LGBT community. I was the chaplain in a SA care home and one of the male carers was openly gay. I was the assistant manager in a men's hostel and the night receptionist would talk openly about his gay partner.
On a church level it is true that we can only receive in covenanted membership those who are celibate if single or in a heterosexual marriage.
But we do not debar anyone from worship - in fact I myself have encouraged gay men to come to worship in my own congregation. I know of gay, lesbian and bisexual officers who are either celibate or who are now married. Yes that's a doctrinal thing but it only applies to Christians who wish to sign that particular covenant.
There is another form of membership that would allow gay Christians to be be adherent members
alongside the many straight adherent members and take as full a part in the worship and work of the Salvation Army church as anyone.
So it's a lie that we are homophobic: we just believe what the church believe and teaches to this very day.
On your second point, why might believing the Nicene Creed stop you from accepting women priests even without crossing your fingers?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's homophobic. Within patriarchal.
[ 02. August 2014, 10:31: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's homophobic. Within patriarchal.
What, specifically, is homophobic?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Universal and incredibly confined, therefore inward extrapolation from a long dead Jewish culture.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
That's homophobic. Within patriarchal.
What, specifically, is homophobic?
Wow, this went dark fast. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Could we move out of dead horse territory?
If Traditional Christianity = Homophobic then we can clearly discuss nothing else.
I am interested in the idea that sexual views predict all other views. But the suggestion that it is really only about homosexuality may have a dampening effect on the discussion. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I don't think sexual views dictate all other views.
I'm a theological liberal but a social conservative. I believe chastity within marriage and ( to some extent - i.e. promiscuity is not good - regardless of orientation) before marriage is healthy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On your second point, why might believing the Nicene Creed stop you from accepting women priests even without crossing your fingers?
It wouldn't, that's the point. "Traditional" is used as a synonym for using religious justifications for treating women and gay people badly, but one can quite happily affirm the faith that the Church considered important enough to put in the Creed without subscribing to the elements the "traditionalists" are so keen to promote.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think sexual views dictate all other views.
I'm a theological liberal but a social conservative. I believe chastity within marriage and ( to some extent - i.e. promiscuity is not good - regardless of orientation) before marriage is healthy.
That's very interesting.
Is it really possible to be a theological liberal but a social conservative? Do you see sex before marriage as morally wrong? Do adulterers go to hell?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think that if you're going to lump together quote:
a faithful Southern Baptist, a conservative Anglican, an orthodox Roman Catholic, and an Orthodox Christian
then Dreher is pretty much right: the only thing they have in common is men in positions of power attempting to regulate the sex lives of those over whom they have power.
Why would this surprise us? To me it seems entirely logical that if you want to exercise as much power as possible over people, you start by exercising it in their bedrooms. Once you've managed that, everything else is easy.
The only question in my mind is, if this is the business that "traditional Christians" are in, in what sense is it "Christian" at all? Where's the gospel in this?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Is it really possible to be a theological liberal but a social conservative?
I believe so.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do you see sex before marriage as morally wrong?
Yes. But we don't live in an ideal world. We have to make do.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do adulterers go to hell?
I hope so. The bastards cause so much pain.
But as a theological liberal I don't have traditional views on hell. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Do adulterers go to hell?
I hope so. The bastards cause so much pain.
But as a theological liberal I don't have traditional views on hell.
Ha-ha-ha. That's great.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Chastity and fidelity aren't arbitrarily conservative. They are rational, humane, therefore faithful.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Secondly we do not refuse to employ or welcome as a volunteer anyone from the LGBT community.
I'm sorry to say that, at least either (1) in the US and/or (2) circa 2001 this wasn't completely the case... Did this change or was it more of a US branch of the SA matter?
Yes, I knew about this. You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people. I don't know anything at all about such US laws and conventions but would I be correct in believing that the married spouse of an employee would be given some kind of financial benefit?
I think the Army - and other churches I guess - were in disagreement about passing on similar rights to non-married partners - gay or straight. We don't recognise same sex marriage and so, from a Christian point of view we would be unhappy at giving spousal employment benefits to non-married partners.
This doesn't happen in the UK.
It seems to me that it's not an anti-gay-person thing, it's a disagreement over whether non married partners should be given the same financial benefits as married ones.
The fact that this case even existed shows that TSA was hiring gay people already.
Question: do other churches have to pay these benefits to gay partners? Did they complain too?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Not that traditional teaching about sex and sexuality is worse than idolatry. But thinking that's what it means to be a Christian ... that's just wrong. Wronger than a wrong thing.
As was readily apparent from the main piece, this is not what Rod Dreher is saying. At all. And so says the update he has added: "Approving the comments is frustrating, because no small number of you seem to believe that I think that defining “traditional Christianity” is all about sex. I do not — not in a theological or philosophical sense."
I would say two things to Mr Dreher though. First, "traditional Lutheran" and "traditional Catholic", are not two different ways of saying "traditional Christian". Whatever value one may attach to the Lutheran and Catholic traditions, respectively, they certainly have their significant differences. If one refers to them as one Christian tradition without further explanations, then one de facto ignores these differences and gathers them into one label by their remaining commonalities. Just like a Chihuahua and a St Bernard are both dogs, but really quite different dogs. So if one talks about what "traditional Christians" do in an inclusive sense, then one is talking about the intersection of all the various Christian traditions that are out there. And that intersection has been fairly small to begin with, it didn't drastically shrink with modernity.
Second, a war cannot be reduced to its front lines. While it is undoubtedly true that many blows are being traded over "sex" (understood widely enough), this does not mean that the clashes are all about "sex". I would say most of them are about authority and are merely "expressed" in the area of sex. I think the real issue there is that social norms proved stronger than religion. For quite some time Christianity has fallen apart internally, but the outer shell of the society it had established carried on, in a fashion at least. Now that this shell is breaking apart, the rotten core of religion is being revealed as too weak to do anything about it. What Mr Dreher is really bemoaning here are the last vestiges of Christendom going belly up. Well, frankly, it's about time that they do and we are freed from our delusions about the state of our civilisation.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Second, a war cannot be reduced to its front lines. While it is undoubtedly true that many blows are being traded over "sex" (understood widely enough), this does not mean that the clashes are all about "sex". I would say most of them are about authority and are merely "expressed" in the area of sex. I think the real issue there is that social norms proved stronger than religion.
Beautifully stated. Thank you!
I like the thought that a war cannot be reduced to its front lines. The real issue really is about authority. It's really about belief in God, and confidence in the Bible and church teachings based on the Bible.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For quite some time Christianity has fallen apart internally, but the outer shell of the society it had established carried on, in a fashion at least. Now that this shell is breaking apart, the rotten core of religion is being revealed as too weak to do anything about it. What Mr Dreher is really bemoaning here are the last vestiges of Christendom going belly up. Well, frankly, it's about time that they do and we are freed from our delusions about the state of our civilisation.
So right.
It is interesting that the role that sexual issues play is to call traditional teachings into question. The understandable, and completely natural, efforts to justify our (immoral) behavior challenge the legitimacy of long held ideas about the Bible and the authority of church teachings.
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people.
Um... no. From the article, and italics mine:
quote:
The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to engage in hiring discrimination against homosexuals, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
The White House has made a "firm commitment" to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to the Salvation Army report.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
You need to read the newspaper report very carefully because what this was actually about was not the hiring of gay people per se but about the extension of employment benefits to the partners of gay people.
Um... no. From the article, and italics mine:
quote:
The Bush administration is working with the nation's largest charity, the Salvation Army, to make it easier for government-funded religious groups to engage in hiring discrimination against homosexuals, according to an internal Salvation Army document.
The White House has made a "firm commitment" to the Salvation Army to issue a regulation protecting such charities from state and city efforts to prevent discrimination against gays in hiring and domestic-partner benefits, according to the Salvation Army report.
Yes, both of those comments are the newspaper's own comment on what was happening. As I said, it was basically about employee spouse benefits. If they didn't have gay employees, why would there be an argument about benefits?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Could we move out of dead horse territory?
You are quite right, but leave it to the hosts, please.
Discussions about what defines "traditional Christianity" are fine for Purgatory, but the question of whether a given denomination or teaching is "homophobic" does not belong here. Similarly, if you want to discuss whether any church group is right or wrong in its views of homosexuality or sex before marriage, then Dead Horses is where to do it.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
Well when the Bible is immoral, yes.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For quite some time Christianity has fallen apart internally, but the outer shell of the society it had established carried on, in a fashion at least. Now that this shell is breaking apart, the rotten core of religion is being revealed as too weak to do anything about it. What Mr Dreher is really bemoaning here are the last vestiges of Christendom going belly up. Well, frankly, it's about time that they do and we are freed from our delusions about the state of our civilisation.
This doesn't sound like you.
Are you being sarcastic?
Or are you saying its best we rid ourselves of the delusion that western civilisation is still Christian?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes, both of those comments are the newspaper's own comment on what was happening.
No, both of those are the newspaper's summary of what was happening. This wasn't an editorial--this was basic news.
quote:
As I said, it was basically about employee spouse benefits.
Except it wasn't--the article mentions those alongside the basic matter of discriminating against gay people in hiring practices:
quote:
George Hood, a senior official with the Salvation Army, said the group never discriminates in services, but on the question of hiring gays, "it really begins to chew away at the theological fabric of who we are."
"Hiring gays," not "giving benefits to spouses of gays."
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Except it wasn't--the article mentions those alongside the basic matter of discriminating against gay people in hiring practices:
I'm assuming that's a cross post.
Discussion of homophobia/discrimination against gays/whether anti-gay church policies exist or are unjust BELONGS IN DEAD HORSES. There should be no more discussion of these issues on this thread.
Eliab
Purgatory host
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This doesn't sound like you. Are you being sarcastic? Or are you saying its best we rid ourselves of the delusion that western civilisation is still Christian?
The latter. Our civilisation has been running on that pretence for centuries. If there ever was a good reason for that, its due by date has now long passed.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
Well when the Bible is immoral, yes.
I think that this is Ingo's point. We can best rid ourselves of the strictures of biblical Christianity only by convincing ourselves that the Bible itself is immoral.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I think I would want to say - very much in keeping with the theme of this thread - is that whilst a church like ours might have particular views on sex, it's not actually us that are doing all the talking about it; it's others! I guess that, being English, we don't talk about sex any way!! and most churches will only talk about sex when we are made to do so when we are attacked, questioned or confronted with it.
What TSA actually believes about sex isn't really relevant to this discussion - it being a recognised DH - but the truth is that we cannot be defined by our views on sex quite simply because it's not an issue for us and we never talk about it proactively.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The basic message of the Old testament and the laws it espouses is this: Be different.
Israel was called to be different to the nations, the tribes, the people around them. Different in religion, culture, morality.
The Church is the same - we are called to be different - for that is the root meaning of the word 'holy'.
When the church decides what is right and wrong by asking what the world thinks it should do, then it has lost its way.
we are not called to ask the world for permission to hold certain beliefs. We are not called to reconcile our traditions with the way a godless world thinks; we are not called to modify what we are so as not to upset those who have invented their own morality and ideology.
The church is different. You might disagree. Worldly philosophy might disagree. But that's been the lot of Israel and the church all along - as Jesus said, the world will hate us but hey, that's nothing new.
We do not conform to the pattern of this world.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
A robust faith should have no trouble demonstrating the difference between moral and immoral behavior. Instead these challenges have shown that there are plenty of ways to dismiss the Bible if that's what we want to do.
BRAVO!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
We actually think we have something society, Western civilization, lacks? Can any one point to that in 'us'. Where we're better? More effective? Can it be quantified? What do we have that 'they' don't? Where is Christianity more Christ-like than non-Christian society? More ethical? More 'righteous' - whatever that means? How does one differentiate Christian from non to start with? What have we got that they need? We have NOTHING 'they' want.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Chastity and fidelity aren't arbitrarily conservative. They are rational, humane, therefore faithful.
BRAVO!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
Are you saying it's unbiblical to have money?
Biblical Christianity is essentially a religion of the poor and oppressed. Quetzalcoatl's example shows Christians being rich and oppressors. Seems to be very un-Biblical and conforming to the world to me.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There may be some Christians who do not conform to the world, but I think there are plenty who do. Some of the Christians who live near me, seem to have a sort of gentrified Christian faith, which presumably accords with their Lexus, their private schools, their use of banks loans and so on. Is this all Biblical?
That seems a perculiarly rural England thing to me, "More tea Vicar?" and all that kind of stuff.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The basic message of the Old testament and the laws it espouses is this: Be different.
Israel was called to be different to the nations, the tribes, the people around them. Different in religion, culture, morality.
The Church is the same - we are called to be different - for that is the root meaning of the word 'holy'.
When the church decides what is right and wrong by asking what the world thinks it should do, then it has lost its way.
we are not called to ask the world for permission to hold certain beliefs. We are not called to reconcile our traditions with the way a godless world thinks; we are not called to modify what we are so as not to upset those who have invented their own morality and ideology.
The church is different. You might disagree. Worldly philosophy might disagree. But that's been the lot of Israel and the church all along - as Jesus said, the world will hate us but hey, that's nothing new.
We do not conform to the pattern of this world.
I agree, but sometimes things are accepted norms in the world because they're right. It makes no sense for things that are right to be eschewed by Christians just because they're 'of the world'.
I would also say that living a standard neo-liberal capitalism-friendly life but with unpopular DH views does not make one separate and holy - it makes one just like the world. The world couldn't give a shit about your theological concerns over DH issues, it cares about your wealth and your power (general you). If you talk so much about being 'different', actually be different. Care about permaculture/permaforestry, sustainability and lessening the human footprint on the environment, building mutual and sustainable communities etc - much more separate and holy and different than caring about strangers' sex lives.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Again, I fail to see any meaningful difference, 'holiness', between 'us' and 'them'. Is it me? What am I failing to see about 'us'? Or are there grades of 'us'? Am I not seeing the 'us' trees for the wood? But surely 'we' would stand out somehow?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
