|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Evangelicals / Catholics Theological Method and Gender / Sexuality
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But isn't that the nature of living in a democracy? The votes of the majority carry and have an impact on the minority. Believe me, there are a lot of times (hmmm - possibly most of the time) where the vote doesn't go the way I'd have liked; I'm not sure why that should be any different with this issue than, say, who is president or senator or governor, etc.?
As for fighting to change the attitude toward divorce, I do that within my church but I don't think we're likely to undo the "no fault" divorce laws which have been so very destructive.
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
One of the key principles of a liberal democracy is that the law should apply equally to all citizens, and if the state wishes to discriminate it should have darned good practical reason for doing so. ("God said so" is not a good practical reason in a religiously pluralistic secular state.) So if the state wishes to discriminate as to who can participate in legal arrangement like marriage based on the gender of the parties involved, it should have to explain why on better grounds than 'tradition'.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I echo Matt on this one. It may appear to be self-serving (and, in some cases, it may actually BE self-serving) but appearances are often deceiving. It takes two people in agreement to marry and, in much of the "civilized" world, it only takes one to divorce.
A more straightforward way of looking at this is to say that it takes to people in agreement to marry and that losing the agreement of one of the parties allows the marriage to be disolved. I'm not sure what's to be gained by forcing people to stay in marriages (possibly abusive marriages) against their will.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
Hmmm, you've radically suggested . . . the exact system already in place in the U.S. A religiously ordained marriage is not considered legally binding unless also registered with the state government. For example, despite what a Catholic priest might say a remarried divorcée is legally married in the eyes of the state.
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?
There are certainly a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, many of whom did on an allegedly theological basis, especially the intellectually dishonest "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.
The problem is that the practical steps usually taken "against redefining marriage" just coincidentally happen to also involve "denying said benefits" (e.g. DOMA). This happens so consistently that dismissing it as coincidence is almost as unbelievable as various clergy not understanding the law relating to their profession enough to believe the "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" lie.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I think it means the following:
1. If you discover your wife is having an affair, you have a duty to divorce her, otherwise you are complicit in her adultery.
2. However, you are not free to remarry and must have her back if she repents.
I think...
Deuteronomy 24 forbids a husband to take his wife back if she has been married and divorced in the interim; it "pollutes the land." This is also referenced in Jeremiah 3. No bearing on what your quoted passage actually means other than to note the dissonance with Mosaic law.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates ![[Frown]](frown.gif) But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Oh, totally. I've argued for that (not on this thread but IRL): make all religious marriages just that and if a couple wants whatever civil benefits might accrue from marriage (depending on the tax code, marriage may actually be more expensive; this changes from time to time) then get the civil marriage license and do that, too. I don't think it's optimal but I think it may be the most workable solution, at least as long as it would protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage.
Hmmm, you've radically suggested . . . the exact system already in place in the U.S. A religiously ordained marriage is not considered legally binding unless also registered with the state government. For example, despite what a Catholic priest might say a remarried divorcée is legally married in the eyes of the state.
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Does anybody on this thread oppose offering those benefits to partners in civil unions?
There are certainly a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, many of whom did on an allegedly theological basis, especially the intellectually dishonest "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't have a theological basis for denying said benefits; I don't argue against said benefits. I argue against redefining marriage.
The problem is that the practical steps usually taken "against redefining marriage" just coincidentally happen to also involve "denying said benefits" (e.g. DOMA). This happens so consistently that dismissing it as coincidence is almost as unbelievable as various clergy not understanding the law relating to their profession enough to believe the "they'll arrest Pastor Joe" lie.
I don't know "Pastor Joe" and I doubt if he'll get arrested - but he may well be sued, at least according to this. Do you know if this situation has been reversed? Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
Wow-- this is an interesting dilemma!
But I don't think there's any basis for thinking that changing the definition of marriage won't have long term significant impact:
quote:
But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.
So the good news is that we're discussing it.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
As far as pastors being sued, there is a simple solution, long in place in France: clergy have no authority to perform legally binding marriages. The legal aspect of marriage is a state function, performed by a magistrate. If the couple wishes to consecrate the marriage in a religious sense, that can be done later, by a priest, minister, rabbi, or imam.
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Hello LC. I agree with you, but think that the bullet point list probably runs as follows:
- ye bible sayeth
erm
so there
I think that a problem, however, is that there is a risk of throwing out the biblical baby out with the undesirable bits bathwater. We might say that the biblical understanding isn't right and that experience should outweigh scripture, but I it's probably the conservatives' best argument, as advanced by Lynn.
I'm not v. comfortable with the don't ask don't tell, and don't be an out leader, position of many churches, or the comparison with divorce. I don't think it's very fair on people like you. While closetedness was normal in society, that was how things were anyway. Now it's not, it's rather exposed.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.
I have also studied cultural anthropology and I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female. Age of consent varies, how many marriages a man (and occasionally a woman) might have simultaneously varies, who is authorized to give consent to a marriage (father, church, state, bride or groom) - the consistent part has been male + female. Lots of cultures in which same-sex relationships are tolerated and even approved - but they weren't considered marriage.
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The idea that there is a single traditional definition of marriage is so ludicrous (to anyone who has studied cultural anthropology, at least) that it's hard to respond to it succinctly. So I won't bother.
I have also studied cultural anthropology and I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female. Age of consent varies, how many marriages a man (and occasionally a woman) might have simultaneously varies, who is authorized to give consent to a marriage (father, church, state, bride or groom) - the consistent part has been male + female. Lots of cultures in which same-sex relationships are tolerated and even approved - but they weren't considered marriage.
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
Is this an anthropology issue or a linguistics one?
Genuine question.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.
Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.
How is forbidding these things making Jesus happy?
Oh...it's just making you happy.
Understood. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, the "liberal" part of "liberal democracy" means that there are certain liberties which are not up for a vote. For example, despite the fact that Segregation was voted into place in the U.S. jurisdictions where it held sway, it was still contrary to the American Constitution. In fact, if the U.S. were to adopt your position that there are no limits at all on the ability of the majority to enact its will most of the Constitution (the bits limiting the power of government or providing checks from other branches or listing the rights of citizens) could be dispensed with.
No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates
I guess that's where we differ. I don't see limited government or respect for individual liberty as "flaws". I see those things as the primary advantages of the system.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I think it's a bit disingenuous if you argue that the state has to rely on something other than "tradition" when holding to marriage as defined through human history; it is very much the pro-same-sex-marriage side that is pushing to change the fundamental definition of an institution. I realize it works well for those who wish to push the change to be aggressive and try to make the status quo defend the status quo instead of presenting a compelling argument for the change.
The problem here is that you're not defending "marriage as defined through human history", which was a hierarchical institution with the husband in a superior position, legally and socially, to that of his wife/wives. Marriage has been radically redefined over the past century (at least in the West) as an equal partnership, something that had never existed before and runs counter to Biblical ordinance. I'll believe Christians are serious about "traditional marriage" when they start agitating to reinstate coverture laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
People who argue about the need to "protect priests or ministers who cannot in good conscience officiate for a same-sex marriage" are usually arguing in bad faith or trying to spin fantastical scenarios to muddy the issue. All they have to ask is "how many Roman Catholic priests have been punished by the state in the last decade for refusing to marry someone with a divorced spouse still living?" The correct answer (zero) is well known enough that horror stories of the state punishing non-conforming clergy (at least in the U.S.) are so implausible that they can't be taken as seriously offered.
I don't know "Pastor Joe" and I doubt if he'll get arrested - but he may well be sued, at least according to this.
No, that link offers no actual information, just a bunch of fearmongering JAQing off.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Do you know if this situation has been reversed?
No idea. Perhaps one of our Canadian shipmates might have a clue. Of course, such hate speech laws would be unconstitutional in the U.S. (Hate crimes laws, on the other hand, are perfectly Constitutional.)
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
Except that Canadian marriage commissioners are agents of the state, not private religious actors like a priest or rabbi. Their job is to provide a specific government service (civil marriage) to anyone who qualifies and requests it. Importing their own private religious beliefs into the operations of the state seems dangerously unworkable, like refusing to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or the marriages of the previously divorced on religious grounds. You're allowed to do that if you're a religious celebrant, but not if you're representing the government.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But I don't think there's any basis for thinking that changing the definition of marriage won't have long term significant impact:
quote:
But, as a sociologist I can propose a hypothesis, and as a concerned citizen a recommendation. Hypothesis: There will be cultural and political compromises in the area of sexual behavior. Recommendation: In a democracy these matters should be openly and extensively discussed.
So the good news is that we're discussing it.
Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you. As I noted previously, the same argument could be (and was) made against repealing the coverture laws, and yet I don't think very many people today would regard that as anything other than a positive development, despite the fact that it was radical, new, and unBiblical.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
So it's the "slippery slope" argument here at base, then. But let me point out a couple of problems in re: the blog post linked above:
- Polyamory is not analogous to same-sex marriage; gay people want to marry only one person. (And "polyamory" is not a legal arrangement in any case; it's merely an idea. I'm not sure what "legal problems" the writer is referring to, and he doesn't offer any - but it's not the same thing as polygamy, so it's a bit hard to understand how these problems can be as extensive as he claims they are.
- There's no same-sex marriage in Germany anyway! So quite obviously it does not "cause" polyamory. (Nor does same-sex marriage -> polygamy; polygamy is an ancient - and Biblical - arrangement.)
And since we've already "re-defined marriage" - by eliminating polygamy, for instance - what's so hard about "re-defining" it again? We'll keep the prohibition against polygamy in place, if you like - but allow two adults to marry one another (because, after all, this would apply to people who would prefer to marry multiple partners, too: they can get married to one, at least, while gay people can't get married at all).
As, for instance, the legal state in which two unrelated adults are made related by law? At the moment, the legal definition is just about as unpoetic and unromantic: "an unrelated man and woman are made related by law," so I don't think there's a whole lot of change there.
And the fact that same-sex couples - about 2.5% of any given population - are added to the rolls of who's eligible for this legal status will not change the resonances of "marriage" much, either; mostly it'll still be an overwhelmingly heterosexual institution and will be treated that way. I mean, heterosexuals who have no intent of having sex with each can get married today - as can those who have no intention of being faithful to one another. I'm sure this happens, too - but marriage hasn't crumbled on account of it.
Have a little more faith in heterosexuality, folks!
[ 29. January 2011, 15:14: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
Everyone always quotes early-modern Albania where there were some circumstances in which a woman could legally count as a man, or (probably much more rarely) the other way round but its more complex than that - it was really about property rights and (being Albania) family revenge rather than sex. It seems that the people who did it mostly lived as celibates, although there were circumstances in which they could be legally married.
But I think you are right. Basically marriage in some form or other has existed in every human society ad a legal status in which any child a woman has is assumed also to be the child of the man (or very, very, very, rarely men) she is married to. So the idea of two men marrying each other would have seemed to pretty much everybody in human history somewhere between meaningless and pointless.
I think there have been societies in which one of the reasons exclusively homosexual men were disapproved of was precisely that they didn't get married and so evaded their social duty to support women and children.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
Nope. There's a thread somewhere about this case. Bottom line is that obeying the law trumps breaking the law, and that public servants paid to administer the law either do their jobs or get out. No-one's freedom of religion is being infringed in this case.
You've got this dead wrong.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.
And yet the Religious Right in the United States has made punitive legislation against same-sex couples' attempts to obtain these simple protections part of their assault against the gay community.
So it must be important; right? There must be some connection between my being able to make medical decisions for my partner if she's incapacitated, or being able to share her health benefits, and the will of God in the world; right? Or else the Religious Right wouldn't be targeting these sorts of extra-marital legal rights/protections; right?
Still waiting patiently for the godly to explain this to me.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.
That's because we all agree that the shits that object to that are atavistic bigots. There's no real argument here on those issues.
Just to bring in a ray of sunshine, if we can belive this report here (via iGeek of ths parish) even the US Navy are coming on the side of the angels.
But that's got nothing to do with stuff like who churches will or won't ordain. OK, not quite nothing, but not as much as it might.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I know quite a few in our evo congo who would like to see adultery outlawed! And my Exclusive Brethren in-laws were most reluctant to let a divorced man (moi) marry their daughter; I had to persuade them I was OK by pointing out my first wife had left me for another man and thus I fell within the exception of Matt 19. Even now I doubt whether they would let me break bread with them ie: be admitted to communion. And I don't know any evos, particularly those at the fundie end of the spectrum, who would be happy with a divorced-and-remarried minister/pastor (and, as Ken says, that's really where the issue becomes critical). So, people here may not agree with the stance, but there is at least consistency there.
Maybe so - but are they using their opposition to adultery and/or divorce to enact laws against them?
Because that's what's happening here; people are enacting laws against allowing gay people to get married, here - and on the basis of their "religious beliefs," they claim.
I imagine the logic, cynically, might be "pick your battles." These days it'd be laughable (as you observe) to try to get a law passed against divorce. Gay marriage has probably seemed more winnable, especially since there isn't a tradition in this country (yet) of understanding the idea of gay marriage, where divorce has been around since Leviticus.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Still waiting to see a general connection between granting same-sex partners things like employee insurance benefits/hospital visitation and hospital privileges -- things that can and have been granted without getting into marriage/civil union issues -- is acting in opposition to God's will. So far not one person -- not ONE -- has been able or willing to directly address my question.
And yet the Religious Right in the United States has made punitive legislation against same-sex couples' attempts to obtain these simple protections part of their assault against the gay community.
So it must be important; right? There must be some connection between my being able to make medical decisions for my partner if she's incapacitated, or being able to share her health benefits, and the will of God in the world; right? Or else the Religious Right wouldn't be targeting these sorts of extra-marital legal rights/protections; right?
Still waiting patiently for the godly to explain this to me.
I wouldn't pretend to be godly, but my guess is it's a "slippery slope" argument that any legitimation given to the relationship will eventually lead, as precedent piles upon precedent, to recognition of marriage or something very like a marriage. It says that being gay is socially acceptable, which is the one thing I think that conservatives are afraid of.
As has been observed (perhaps conceded) there really isn't a good case outside of a particular biblical interpretation against gay marriage, as moderns understand marriage to be (thanks to Croesus for bringing that up.)
Somewhere in the back of the mind, I think conservatives realize this. The arguments are all tautological unless you assume the Bible as a certain kind of authority. If you assume the Bible as an inerrant guide of a certain type, then it's obvious that gays are immoral because Paul said it was "unnatural" or that Christians weren't supposed to be "man-screwers and male prostitutes," etc.*
And one can live in such an hermeneutic, and when there was respected secular thinkers (Freud) who agreed that homosexuality was pathological, then they could be somewhat more comfortable.** Nowadays, while there are certainly homophobic atheists,*** there aren't any well known or respected people who try to argue that homosexuality is wrong from a scientific or non-religious POV. As a result, Christians who believe in this particular expression of inerrant sola scriptura are increasingly trapped in one of several cultural backwaters. And for the older folks, this is fine, but the younger folks are not nearly as able to walk in the ways of their parents and are taught by all manner of media and social institutions that gay is ok. And they are then forced to choose between the ways of the old folks and the ways of the new folks. Being young, my money is on the new folks, as seems to be the case among younger evangelicals. Even the ones who might want to say that homosexuality is sinful are forced to admit that these teachings have been used in all manner of abominations.
I think, for older conservative Christians who have in a sense staked their soul on this Christian teaching, it must hurt like hell. The church that you grew up with, the social boundaries by which you recognized yourself as saved, and your families as saved, is dissolving before your eyes. Even for a comparatively humble person, it's something to see; and if you're even slightly proud, it's a huge pill to swallow. In a sense it's the fall of Dixie all over again, and I think that analogy still resonates with a lot of people.
To me, socially liberal Christian, the whole obsession is very illogical, but logically I think I can discern some of the social and psychological reasons that drive people to be so frightened. Back to my previous post (and sorry for dredging something up from so far back) divorce is a lost cause. Abortion is a losing battle in many areas. But you have to hang onto what you can.
I suppose I'm thinking more of conservative evangelicals than Catholics here, though since the 1980s I think the two have maintained an awkward alliance as the "Christian Right."
* Assuming for simplicity (as I do) that arguments straight from the Torah without NT contextualization aren't Christian.
** Hence the truly awkward position of "ex-gay ministries" that try to mix Freud with Paul to disastrous results.
*** For various definitions of "homophobic," and perhaps "atheist."
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
IF I'm missing a culture which included same-sex couples within that culture's definition of marriage, please specify - because I don't remember any.
Everyone always quotes early-modern Albania where there were some circumstances in which a woman could legally count as a man, or (probably much more rarely) the other way round but its more complex than that - it was really about property rights and (being Albania) family revenge rather than sex. It seems that the people who did it mostly lived as celibates, although there were circumstances in which they could be legally married.
But I think you are right. Basically marriage in some form or other has existed in every human society ad a legal status in which any child a woman has is assumed also to be the child of the man (or very, very, very, rarely men) she is married to. So the idea of two men marrying each other would have seemed to pretty much everybody in human history somewhere between meaningless and pointless.
I think there have been societies in which one of the reasons exclusively homosexual men were disapproved of was precisely that they didn't get married and so evaded their social duty to support women and children.
Some native American tribes did have marriages between people of the same biological sex, but one partner was a "berdache" ("two-spirit" is the preferred term now, but it doesn't work as well for googling), which was socially defined as a distinct gender--there couldn't be a marriage between two berdaches. However, it does take the reproductive element out of marriage.
The Nayar constitute another major challenge to Western concepts of marriage, and the anthropological attempt to define it as a cultural universal.
[ 30. January 2011, 22:55: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
The Nayar constitute another major challenge to Western concepts of marriage, and the anthropological attempt to define it as a cultural universal.
Nonexistent link. Please fix ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I've fixed it for Timothy in the original post now.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn Maudlin
No question, our representative democracy is highly flawed - consider the foolishness of elected officials committing the state of California to pay pensions at a fiscally unsustainable rates
I guess that's where we differ. I don't see limited government or respect for individual liberty as "flaws". I see those things as the primary advantages of the system.
So the individual liberty of "public servants paid to administer the law" whose religious sensibilities are *now* offended because the law has changed, those individual liberties don't matter?
quote:
The problem here is that you're not defending "marriage as defined through human history", which was a hierarchical institution with the husband in a superior position, legally and socially, to that of his wife/wives. Marriage has been radically redefined over the past century (at least in the West) as an equal partnership, something that had never existed before and runs counter to Biblical ordinance. I'll believe Christians are serious about "traditional marriage" when they start agitating to reinstate coverture laws.
My argument has been not for a particular human tradition of marriage but for the core that Jesus presents and attributes to the Father; that didn't include coverture laws any more than it included racial restrictions.
quote:
No, that link offers no actual information, just a bunch of fearmongering JAQing off.
Wow, a term I've never heard before-- cool, thanks! I hope that's the extent of it. I hear enough angry, bitter expressions to suspect that won't prove to be the case - but I will live in hope in the interim.
quote:
Except that Canadian marriage commissioners are agents of the state, not private religious actors like a priest or rabbi. Their job is to provide a specific government service (civil marriage) to anyone who qualifies and requests it. Importing their own private religious beliefs into the operations of the state seems dangerously unworkable, like refusing to perform inter-racial or inter-faith marriages or the marriages of the previously divorced on religious grounds. You're allowed to do that if you're a religious celebrant, but not if you're representing the government.
And, no matter that the rules have changed underneath you...?
quote:
Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.
I dispute the charge of legal discrimination insofar as marriage is concerned: marriage entails both sexes and actually doesn't have a bearing on sexual attraction; many homosexuals have married over the years and those were completely legal marriages.
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.
Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.
LutheranChik, has anybody on the thread argued that? I haven't. My argument is specifically with the redefinition of "marriage," not civil unions and not benefits.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Clearly in Canada gender issues trump religious freedom issues.
Nope. There's a thread somewhere about this case. Bottom line is that obeying the law trumps breaking the law, and that public servants paid to administer the law either do their jobs or get out. No-one's freedom of religion is being infringed in this case.
You've got this dead wrong.
So, when the ground rules change underneath you and the job you've held for decades is impacted by that, it's just tough? Suck it up or compromise yourself? You can make that argument; I'm just checking.
quote:
Bullfrog. said:
I think, for older conservative Christians who have in a sense staked their soul on this Christian teaching, it must hurt like hell. The church that you grew up with, the social boundaries by which you recognized yourself as saved, and your families as saved, is dissolving before your eyes. Even for a comparatively humble person, it's something to see; and if you're even slightly proud, it's a huge pill to swallow. In a sense it's the fall of Dixie all over again, and I think that analogy still resonates with a lot of people.
I suppose there are "older conservative Christians" that fit your description and dilemma, described above, and maybe it's just living and worshiping in generic 'Hollywood,' but I can't think of anyone I personally know that fits this. For me, it genuinely is concern about going in and mucking about where God has said XYZ. I recognize that not everyone thinks God said XYZ and that's fine, that's between them and God, just as my position is between me and God; there's a 'watchman on the wall' quality to it. One can argue this is all part of the appropriate separation of church and state and if the state decides to redefine marriage, so be it. I will hope that my concerns prove baseless.
Timothy the Obscure, yes please, I'd like to read your link.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Public servants have to administer the law regardless of what the law is. It's basic separation of powers. Anybody who takes public office without knowing this is a fool.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
hosting
Hi Lynnmagdalencollege,
You may have missed it but the Canadian registrar case is being discussed on the Gay Marriage and blurred boundaries thread where it belongs. Please don't derail this thread by importing that still open discussion here.
(And others - please shift your replies to Lynn on this back to the correct thread)
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
General discussion of gay marriage would be better on the other thread.
Thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
[ 31. January 2011, 01:01: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So the individual liberty of "public servants paid to administer the law" whose religious sensibilities are *now* offended because the law has changed, those individual liberties don't matter?
I'm sure they matter to the individual in question, but part of the rule of law is that individual officials don't get to make up laws to suit themselves or ignore laws they don't like. So no, you can't claim that you still get to teach a segregated class because the law mandated your school as "Whites Only" when you were hired, or that the bar association's new policy of permitting women to practice law violates the terms of your own admission to the bar when it was an explicitly male-only organization. In addition to making it impossible for the government to set its own employment policies, such a standard would make it incredibly cumbersome for the government to conduct business at all. Imagine bureaucratic headache of, for example, the Little Rock school district having to keep track of which teachers were hired before 1957 and, of that group, which objected to teaching mixed-race classes. Someone freshly hired in 1956 and staying on the job for forty-five years would be able to maintain Segregation through the new millennium. That seems like an awful lot of power to give individual bureaucrats to thwart the stated policy of the state.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
My argument has been not for a particular human tradition of marriage but for the core that Jesus presents and attributes to the Father; that didn't include coverture laws any more than it included racial restrictions.
I thought your argument was based on the idea of marriage as a universal human institution, not a specifically Christian one. Statements like "No society on earth has ever pretended that a homosexual relationship and a heterosexual relationship are the same thing" and "I do not remember any culture in which marriage was other than male + female" are arguments about universals rather than specifically Christian teachings. My point is that it could just as easily be argued that prior to about a century ago "no society on earth" regarded marriage as a partnership of legal equals. If those statements are pertinent to the question of same-sex marriage, aren't they also applicable to non-hierarchical marriage?
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Retaining the legal discrimination against same-sex couples will also have a "long term significant impact", it's just that the impact is a familiar one and it's borne by people who aren't you.
I dispute the charge of legal discrimination insofar as marriage is concerned: marriage entails both sexes and actually doesn't have a bearing on sexual attraction; many homosexuals have married over the years and those were completely legal marriages.
That argument was also tried (unsuccessfully) in Loving v. Virginia, the last time the U.S. significantly changed the definition of marriage. This was dealt with in footnote 11:
quote:
Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.
In other words, simply saying that a ban on inter-racial marriage is evenly applied to both whites and blacks is irrelevant under the U.S. Constitution. Such discrimination is odious on its surface. I'm willing to argue that discrimination on the basis of gender is equally repugnant to U.S. law. Are you going to argue the contrary case?
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
So no one can explain to me the theological underpinnings of the political urgency on the part of religious conservatives to deny partnered employees of state-funded organizations, or partnered employees of any organization, pension, healthcare and other protections; or to deny partners the right to make their own decisions about things like hospital visitations.
Not talking marriage. Not talking state-sanctioned civil unions. Just talking having the legal option to share one's work benefits with one's partner and to otherwise protect one's partner legally.
LutheranChik, has anybody on the thread argued that? I haven't. My argument is specifically with the redefinition of "marriage," not civil unions and not benefits.
Which is essentially arguing "I'm not in favor of discrimination, I just don't think the law should treat them the same." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As I noted previously, marriage is an arrangement under civil law in the U.S. Religious organizations can operate under whatever marital definitions or restrictions they like (e.g. the Roman Catholics can refuse to recognize re-married divorcées, the Christian Identity folks can refuse to recognize the marriages of non-whites, etc.), but that opinion has no bearing on whether or not a marriage is legal, which is what same-sex marriage proponents are advocating and what opponents are arguing against. Once again, the idea of churches being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies would be less likely than being able to force a Roman Catholic priest to marry someone previously divorced. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why the same-sex marriage threat is so real when the divorce one has never materialized.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I suppose there are "older conservative Christians" that fit your description and dilemma, described above, and maybe it's just living and worshiping in generic 'Hollywood,' but I can't think of anyone I personally know that fits this. For me, it genuinely is concern about going in and mucking about where God has said XYZ. I recognize that not everyone thinks God said XYZ and that's fine, that's between them and God, just as my position is between me and God; there's a 'watchman on the wall' quality to it. One can argue this is all part of the appropriate separation of church and state and if the state decides to redefine marriage, so be it. I will hope that my concerns prove baseless.
Why should your opinion of God's commands be reflected in U.S. law?
Isn't the Watchmen on the Walls a violent anti-gay group?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I've fixed it for Timothy in the original post now.
cheers,
L
Dead Horses Host
Thanks a bunch.
Very interesting link, Timothy. Thanks for putting it there!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
Thank you Louise. I must admit I had pretty much given up hope.
I think it stands that a more catholic theological method links sexuality and gender more intimately than an evangelical theological method.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Also please note that this thread has veered very far off course: the OP question is
quote:
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
Thank you Louise. I must admit I had pretty much given up hope.
I think it stands that a more catholic theological method links sexuality and gender more intimately than an evangelical theological method.
I can't comment on this from a Catholic point of view. But if we broaden 'evangelical' to include the classic Reformed churches, then we are simply less hung up about ontology! Apostolic Succession to us is primarily about preaching the Gospel, making ministry first and foremost about doing rather than being. There is no reason why a woman cannot do ministry, and therefore no reason why she should not be an ordained minister. Being is effectively neutral.
This emphasis of doing over being has worked well for us re. the ordination of women. Of course, it has also had to be combined with a reading of the Bible that recognises a variety of patterns of ministry in the early church, including women as leaders, elders, and apostles.
When it comes to homosexuality, debate has recognised that sexual orientation is probably intrinsic to a person, and is not a matter of choice, any more than being a woman is! There is therefore absolutely no prohibition against a gay person serving as a minister, and to be gay is no kind of sin. As I said, being is pretty much neutral, whether it is about gender or sexuality.
However, if a person is having sex with someone of the same gender, then they are doing something which the Bible seems to call sin. This means that even if that person is doing ministry, i.e., preaching the Gospel, they are at the same time doing something that the Bible says is wrong. Their sinful disobedience means that they have disqualified themselves from ministry.
In our tradition, the Bible always has the last word, trumping reason, experience, and tradition. This means that if a Reformed Christian honestly cannot see a validation of women's ministry in the scriptures, then they will not support OoW. This is the case even if they can see no other argument against their ordination, and even if they cannot understand why God would 'ban' it. They don't have to have any recourse to an ontology of male-female difference, and they don't have to disparage women as being in any way incapable of ministry. Their duty is simply to obey God's Word in the Bible even if they cannot see why God would say that.
By the same token, I know many in my tradition who are very conflicted when it comes to homosexuality. Their sensible, social brain tells them that their homosexual friends are in loving, affirming relationships, and they cannot see rationally why this should be a sin. Yet the Bible says it is. Some have done a great deal of study to see if there is any other way of interpreting the Bible, and badly wish that there was a nice clear verse saying "It's okay to be gay", but they just can't see it. So they submit to what they understand God to be saying.
I should add that the above is not my view! But it might help answer Edward's query.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
That's interesting, Cottontail. I do tend to agree that the Biblical record in re: OoW is far friendlier to it than it is to homosexuality. The Bible is not friendly at all to the latter - but then, the Bible has nothing nice to say about dogs, either.
So earlier resistance to the OoW was based purely on cultural norms, then, I'd bet? That by itself is also interesting in re: this topic.
Because if there were no Anglicanism, and all else being equal, I would far rather belong to a Catholic congregation as a gay person than an Evangelical one - because the culture of the latter seems so unforgiving. It wants to invade and to change me before accepting me as a member, while the Catholic Church at least accepts me for who I am. IOW, in the culture of Evangelicalism, it seems very important - to me at least - that everybody be the same sort of person, and go along 100% with the program. (I do have to say that I've seen some of this creep into the Catholic worldview in the last few years, so perhaps it's merely a matter of regime.)
Evangelicalism is very scary to me as a gay person. Not sure others feel that way, but it scares the living bejeezus (so to speak) out of me.
(I'd also like to point out that at least one woman priest I know considers some of the Episcopalian "low-church" types to be pretty misogynistic, even though they accept OoW - and even though she's basically "low-church" herself!)
[ 31. January 2011, 15:23: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
... the Bible has nothing nice to say about dogs, either.
We must abolish all SPCA's!
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
Tuba Mirum said
"Because if there were no Anglicanism, and all else being equal, I would far rather belong to a Catholic congregation as a gay person than an Evangelical one - because the culture of the latter seems so unforgiving. It wants to invade and to change me before accepting me as a member, while the Catholic Church at least accepts me for who I am"
I think that's on the whole right, although an evangelical view might be that there is forgiveness, but being a gay relationship is contrary to scriptural guidance so can't be condoned for the sorts of reasons Cottontail sets out. Maybe it's something to do with the emphasis on being born again.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Speaking as a non-RC, I also detect a kind of case-by-case fluidity and charity in pastoral care within Roman Catholicism that doesn't seem to be there in many Evangelical contexts. (I said many; not all.)
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.[tm] There just seems to be more room in RC theology for "cases" rather than blanket pronouncements regarding morality and salvation.
But that's perhaps just a sidebar observation.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking as a non-RC, I also detect a kind of case-by-case fluidity and charity in pastoral care within Roman Catholicism that doesn't seem to be there in many Evangelical contexts. (I said many; not all.)
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.[tm] There just seems to be more room in RC theology for "cases" rather than blanket pronouncements regarding morality and salvation.
But that's perhaps just a sidebar observation.
And maybe that's part of the answer to the question posed in the OP, too; "last rites" actually exist. Confession, too. The Book of Common Prayer, in fact, has a whole "Pastoral Rites" section - which means that clergypeople need to deal with their parishioners at a case-by-case level (as LC says above).
And that means listening - two-way conversation. More information about the facts of the human condition implies more sympathy or empathy.
[ 31. January 2011, 19:45: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
It's rather illuminating, too, to read scholarship on the Mosaic Code suggesting that the ritual nitpickery and draconian punishments for "sin"/"uncleanness" were not enforced that stringently; that it was more an ideal, if that is the right word, of holiness and less a workable social program. Again, more fluidity and charity than some seem to think...which may be why today even in Conservative Jewish circles there seems to be more room for discussion of sexuality issues than in some absolutist Christian circles.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMiram:
So earlier resistance to the OoW was based purely on cultural norms, then, I'd bet? That by itself is also interesting in re: this topic.
I think this is true, and always has been, right back to the early church. What is useful in my tradition is that Calvin for one recognised this. For example, he notes how Paul does not allow women to speak in public because it would cause a scandal. He then goes on to say that it would still cause a scandal in his time, and so still should be avoided.
But he also speculates that a time may come when it is not a scandal for a woman to speak out, and adds that there will also times when a woman should and must speak out. So it is a matter both of social conformity and of prophetic non-conformity, according to the demands of the times. What it is not about is ontology. Nothing is set in stone!
In other words, Calvin was far from a literal fundamentalist, but put a huge emphasis on context. Context for him meant understanding a Bible verse in terms of the argument and intention of the whole passage, and wider still, in the light of the whole Bible. It also meant taking into account cultural norms at the time of writing, as well as at the time of reading.
What this means is that there is a strong resistance in the Reformed tradition to interpretative absolutes, and a strong precedence for going back to the scripture and re-reading it in the light of new understandings, both of scripture and of wider scholarship. (We are a very scholarly crew!) And so there is permission within the tradition for a constant re-visiting of Bible teachings on same-sex relationships. Many have done so, and like myself, have found that the Bible is more open on the issue than might have been expected. Have found, in fact, that God's grace is pretty darn wide.
NS: Just to clarify: Evangelical does not equal Reformed. We have our Evangelicals, to be sure, but we also have plenty who do not so identify. It's a spectrum, just like in Anglicanism.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Going back to the OP:
quote:
originally posted by Edward Green
I was wondering why in (Anglo but not exclusively) Catholic circles those who support the OOW also tend to be affirming on sexuality, whereas in Evangelical circles (Anglo but not exclusively) those who support the OOW tend not to be.
Notwithstanding your theological points, Edward, I actually wonder how much of this, in the UK anyway, is really about tribalism and church (and specifically Anglican church) politics, rather than theology per se.
It seems to me that there is a desire by such groupings as "Fulcrum" (in leadership terms pro OOW/anti homosexual practice) not to be outflanked to the right. That is to say, they are unlikely to lose "membership" to the left, since anyone who considers the party line to be too conservative has no-where to go whilst maintaining their evangelical distinctives such as a committment to conversionism and a high view of scripture. They are, however, susceptible to attrition from the right, towards more conservative groupings such as Reform. Am I being over cynical? Well, perhaps, but personal (if, admittedly, anecdotal) experiences suggest that the positions advocated, for example, by Wood and Barnabas62 of this parish, whilst maybe not the majority view, are certainly common in moderate evangelicalism in the UK.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
hosting
Hi Lynnmagdalencollege,
You may have missed it but the Canadian registrar case is being discussed on the Gay Marriage and blurred boundaries thread where it belongs. Please don't derail this thread by importing that still open discussion here.
(And others - please shift your replies to Lynn on this back to the correct thread)
Apologies, Louise - I thought I was responding and answering questions and hadn't really thought about how far we've drifted from the OP. I'll simply reiterate my first post: I think both questions involve divine revelation.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
@ Cottontail, on one hand you are saying
"The bible trumps all"
But also
"We are very good at re-reading the bible in light of context".
I see a tension here as a theological method.
I suppose the catholic alternative is
"Making sense of the Bible trumps all"
(for example The Trinity trumps passages that could suggest adoptionism)
and
"We read the bible with those who have read it before us"
@Jolly Jape, you are probably right.
On the ground the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin probably has more in common with the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Catholic who looks to Dearmer rather than Newman than with other Evangelicals.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Edward Green
...moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin
You rang????
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
@ Cottontail, on one hand you are saying
"The bible trumps all"
But also
"We are very good at re-reading the bible in light of context".
I see a tension here as a theological method.
If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
To posit either fundamentalist literalism, or the downgrading of the Bible is a false dichotomy.
quote:
I suppose the catholic alternative is
"Making sense of the Bible trumps all"
(for example The Trinity trumps passages that could suggest adoptionism)
and
"We read the bible with those who have read it before us"
Absolutely. That is our view too. Calvin knew his church fathers inside out, for example. We are just a little more free to disagree with them, though always with the utmost respect.
Once again, beware false dichotomies. It just may be that my tradition doesn't fit neatly into your rather polarised schema.
quote:
On the ground the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Evangelical who looks to Wesley rather than Calvin probably has more in common with the moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo Catholic who looks to Dearmer rather than Newman than with other Evangelicals.
You may think so, but don't dismiss your Reformed brethern too readily. 'Moderate, sacramental, slightly po-mo' pretty much describes a vast swathe of the Calvinist tradition, including the Church of Scotland. Besides, modern Evangelicalism owes more to Arminianism than Calvinism, though I don't deny that there is overlap.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
NS: Just to clarify: Evangelical does not equal Reformed. We have our Evangelicals, to be sure, but we also have plenty who do not so identify. It's a spectrum, just like in Anglicanism.
Let me clear up some confusion I have about this, if you don't mind.
Is "Reformed" a generic word for "Protestant"? Are all Evangelicals Reformed, but it doesn't work the other way around?
Or is "Reformed" a generic word for "Protestant-and-in-the-mainstream"? And Evangelicals are their own category (if you see what I mean)?
Thanks - interesting discussion. We don't have many Evangelicals in TEC, so it's all a bit mysterious to me....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
"Reformed" is basically a broad-label term used to describe Prots who look to Calvin and Geneva for at least their soteriology (monergist) and in some cases also for their ecclesiology (presbyterian). According to the 39 Articles, for example, the Church of England is Reformed in its soteriology but episcopal in ecclesiology. "Evengelical" tends to mean those Prots who stress the need for personal conversion, penal substitutionary atonement, the supremacy (not necessarily inerrancy) of Scripture in all matters of faith and doctrine etc.* Thus there is some overlap but not all Reformed Christians are evangelical and not all evangelicals are Reformed (some, esp Penties, are Arminian).
*There are two other main meanings of the term: 'Evangelical' (big 'E') is used to describe Lutheran churches in mainland Europe and 'evangelical' is used by Catholics (and I think Orthodox too) to describe those adhering to a monastic way of life.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Thank you, Matt. The biggest surprise for me in your explanation was that Lutherans are not considered Reformed! I think I've been mixing up the terms "Reformed" and "Reformation," actually.
Things are much clearer now - oh, except I have to look up "monergist" and "arminian," and all that stuff. You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Invictus_88
Shipmate
# 15352
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Invictus_88:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I have another question of the anti-gay respondents here.
We all know your arguments for opposing same-sex marriage.
What is your moral opposition to gay partners having the right to share partner benefits?
In my state legislators have tried to punish state-funded organizations like state universities who have offered health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners.
What is your theological justification for thinking that this is a good and righteous act on the part of these legislators? We're not talking the M word or even the CU word -- we're talking about employees being able to share their benefits, pensions and other work benefits with their partners? Why is Jesus smiling at this, in your view? Remember -- I want theological justification.
Those benefits are approved by the State, it's the business of the State. Civil partnerships, tax breaks, healthcare considerations (etc etc) for same-sex, trans, poly, zoo (etc etc) unions are granted or denied by the authority of the State.
The Church can counsel the faithful, but State-sanctioned sin will always be just that. Correspondingly, there is no Sacramental Reconciliation for a government, but only for individuals.
I suppose you might have a point, but there is - thankfully - enough wriggle space for people to apply the rule in an even-handed manner.
Certainly a ruling less liable to being misconstrued would help to bring clarity to the matter.
Posts: 206 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
/Tangent/
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Thank you, Matt. The biggest surprise for me in your explanation was that Lutherans are not considered Reformed! I think I've been mixing up the terms "Reformed" and "Reformation," actually.
Things are much clearer now - oh, except I have to look up "monergist" and "arminian," and all that stuff. You can't tell the players without a scorecard....
That's okay, we are used to not being understood. The effort is appreciated.
I guess it's like the word 'catholic' - there are little-c catholics and big-C Catholics. All Protestant churches are little-r reformed, but big-R Reformed Churches denotes those who are descended from Geneva, as Matt said.
It's a handy catch-all term for what is a variety of church set-ups, some Presbyterian, some Congregationalist, and some even Episcopal. Wikipedia suggests that there are 746 ( ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ) Reformed denominations world wide, but that's because we don't do any denominational thing bigger than a single country, and because we like splitting so much. But we are all family nevertheless.
//end Tangent//
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I've often told people that if I were hit by a bus and were in extremis on the curbside, I'd much rather be given last rites by an RC priest than spend my final moments on this mortal coil with some Bible-banging Evangelical demanding to know if I'd finally accepted Jesus as my Personal Savior.
I so agree with that.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
If it's a tension, then it's a creative tension, and not a contradiction! We take out Bible very seriously, but that does not mean that it yields its meaning without struggle. God is not that transparent. Rather, our high view of scripture obliges us study it seriously for context, original meaning, etc. Who do you think invented Higher Criticism anyway?
To posit either fundamentalist literalism, or the downgrading of the Bible is a false dichotomy.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
One of the things that frustrates me the most about conversations on homosexuality is the assumption, by SOME people that I have the conversation with, that I must have 'downgraded the Bible' to suit myself in order to reach the conclusion I have now reached, that homosexuality is okay.
I find it quite hard to cope with that assumption, because it's so horribly far from the truth. I didn't downgrade the Bible one iota. I wrestled with it. More than anything I respected it. And I eventually came to a sincere conclusion about what I think it really, truly says.
To have that conclusion slapped away just because it doesn't match another person's views, often quite unthinking views maintained without any real thought, is a difficult thing to bear.
So thank you for articulating a view of Scripture that matches my own experience and which allows for struggle.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Reformed" is basically a broad-label term used to describe Prots who look to Calvin and Geneva for at least their soteriology (monergist) and in some cases also for their ecclesiology (presbyterian). According to the 39 Articles, for example, the Church of England is Reformed in its soteriology but episcopal in ecclesiology.
Yep, exactly!
And "Reformed" (in this context) might or might not be the same as "Evangelical".
Almost all Pentecostalists and charismatic Churches count as "Evangelical", but most aren't "Reformed" in this sense, (though NFI are). Presbyterians and URC are by definition "Reformed" but most aren't "Evangelical" - though some are. Methodists are have a foot in both camps, but most Methodists are neither Evangelical nor Reformed.
The largest Evangelican denominational groups in Britain are Anglicans and Baptists. Perhaps a third of the CofE and almost all of the baptists would count as Evangelical. But rather fewer of either could broadly described as "Reformed".
In the Church of England effectively all the Reformed party would also be evangelicals. But among the independents in the Baptists and perhaps also URC the most strongly "Reformed" might often be the less obviously "Evangelical".
Its all good fun. And it all changes depending on context. If you go over the channel, or if you talking about the 16th century, the same words mean different things.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"Evangelical" tends to mean those Prots who stress the need for personal conversion, penal substitutionary atonement, the supremacy (not necessarily inerrancy) of Scripture in all matters of faith and doctrine etc.* Thus there is some overlap but not all Reformed Christians are evangelical and not all evangelicals are Reformed (some, esp Penties, are Arminian).
Historically at least plenty of Evangelicals would not tick the PSA box - especially in the Arminian stream.
There is something uniquely cultural about Evangelicalism which I think is related to it being confessional.
Like others I found myself outside the fold when I discovered sacramental Christianity. Having left a New Church for a Catholic(ish) Anglican church, and having questioned some of the culture of Evangelicalism (especially its approach to leadership, ministry, media and merchandise) I suddenly found myself no longer considered Evangelical by other Evangelicals. Most of my theology had not changed at that point. Once my theology did change I was clearly no longer a sound Evangelical.
Catholicism in its various forms somehow feels more diverse. Yes there are those who would consider others 'not real Catholics' because of theology or church they worship in and there is a culture (although I try to avoid it!), but the shibboleths of sacramental Christianity are of a different order. A respect for and continuity with the Tradition, a universal understanding of the church militant, expectant and triumphant, and the presence of Christ in the sacraments.
I can't quite put my finger on why one set of identities seem to include a much wider range of theology and practice, and have a looser identity.
In may be because the Catholic Revival is on the wane in the CofE whilst the Evangelical Revival, especially in Charismatic form is on the increase.
Or it could come back to the way modern Catholic theology deals with practice.
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TubaMirum
Shipmate
# 8282
|
Posted
Edward Green, you might be interested in reading this article by James Alison. It speaks to some of the questions it seems you have on this topic; Alison is sort of charting his own history in moving from Evangelicalism to Catholicism. And, of course, he's gay himself.
Here's an interesting part I thought:
quote:
Then again, one of the reliefs about coming into the Church was precisely that it was not ethics-obsessed. I remember, a year or so after becoming a Catholic, realising that one of the first things I had to learn about being a Catholic – bizarrely – was how to sin. In the world of my formation, being good was obligatory and boring. And sinning, being bad, was a terrible letting down of the side. A sort of failure of English gentlemanliness. This meant, in fact, a constant struggle to live up to “being good”, whatever that meant. Curiously, a strong belief in “Justification by faith alone” seemed to have as its psychological counterpart an extreme need to justify oneself. As a Catholic I had to learn that sin is boringly normal, and that what is exciting is being pulled into learning new things, called virtues, which are ways in which a goodness which is not ours becomes connatural with us, and that this is something of an adventure. I had to learn how not to be so concerned with whether I was getting things right or wrong, but to learn instead to relax into the given-ness of things. I can scarcely tell you how strange it sounds in retrospect, but I was discovering that it is part of the mercy of the Catholic faith that those of us who are infected by spiritual haughtiness find ourselves being lowered slowly and gently into the mud, the slime, of being one of ordinary humanity, and learning that it is this ordinary humanity which is loved as it is. If there are to be any diamonds, they will be found amidst the clay, and as the outworking of the pressures in the clay, not perched on high, on stalks, trying to avoid being infected by so much common carbon.
[ 02. February 2011, 12:14: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
Posts: 4719 | From: Right Coast USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
One of the things that frustrates me the most about conversations on homosexuality is the assumption, by SOME people that I have the conversation with, that I must have 'downgraded the Bible' to suit myself in order to reach the conclusion I have now reached, that homosexuality is okay.
Conversely, opponents would have us believe that they were raised as feral children where societal prejudices could have no bearing on their conclusions, wandered out of the forest, opened a Bible, and it just happened conveniently to back up conventional ideas of morality and proscribe certain relationships of which they honestly had no opinion before and how dare anyone suggest that the Bible confirmed their views already instilled by parents and preachers rather than the other way around. They have no great wish to cause us harm, and if only the Bible didn't say what they think it does they'd leave us alone - but then, when we take them up on that and furnish them with ample room for doubt that it does in fact say that they suddenly become curiously invested in countering that doubt for someone who supposedly doesn't have an agenda one way or another.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
