Thread: One third of young people who abandon Christianity cite anti-gay policies Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030729
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
There is an interesting new survey released yesterday (Huff Post article, Original research) that of people under 34 years of age ("millennials") in the US:
- 70% of them agreed that religious groups are "alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues."
- of those who had left the religion they grew up with, one third cited anti-gay teachings of that religion as being a motivating factor in that decision. (Since it's a US survey, the "religion they grew up with" is Christianity ~95% of the time)
I imagine everyone here is pretty well aware that the Church in the western world is experiencing demographics issues, with young people in the Western world showing increasingly less interest in Christianity, and the average age of many local congregations is steadily increasing as a result. And anecdotally, its fairly well-known that a lot of young people are particularly upset by the anti-gay views espoused in their churches. However, this is the first survey I've seen that quantifies it.
I am a bit surprised, really, that Christian leaders haven't been paying more attention to this fact, as they do seem to often express worry about young people leaving their congregations. Perhaps knowing that a third of those leaving are doing so because of their anti-gay stance will lead them to rethink that stance...?
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
I doubt it. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
With very few exceptions, the under 35s I know who still go to church are pretty embarrassed by the party line, want to see it changed. So there will be ongoing pressure to change.
Traditionalists will call it revisionism, I suppose. Others will say that there is a moral imperative behind such revisions; i.e. that character should not be assessed by looking at just one aspect of human diversity.
I hope the outcome will be decided on the basis of the moral argument, rather than some kind of pragmatic numbers game. My neck has been stuck out on this issue for years, both here and in RL, so I know what I'd like to see. A peaceful transition to an "all, all, all" approach (with thanks to Desmond Tutu for that). At 71, I'm no longer sure this will happen in my lifetime. But I hope and pray that it will.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
It's not just the under 35s this applies to ~ I've gone because I'm not prepared to be part of an organisation that continues to discriminate.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With very few exceptions, the under 35s I know who still go to church are pretty embarrassed by the party line, want to see it changed. So there will be ongoing pressure to change.
I think it's pretty much under 50s, but ISTM people of my/your generation are much less likely to speak out. While we would thnk it regrettable taht someone gets thrown out of church for being gay, my kids would probably have a sit-down protest in the chancel.
They just don't get the whole "gays=evil" thing...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's been one factor in pushing me out. In various discussions, such as on the Arizona proposed law, Christians often come across as the cruelest and nastiest people, (not all of them of course).
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God. Argue all you like about that, but why assume that doctrine should be responsive to public sentiment? That's not the faith.
Personally I would avoid like the work of the Evil One any 'Church' which changed its teachings to try and attract me...
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Vade Mecum,
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
Doctrine can't just be ignored because it is inconvenient: it is either Right or Wrong. If teh former, it must be taught, if the latter, truth must be taught in its stead, but truth must be taught. What do you do then, to "minimise" a teaching you feel might stand in people's way? Ignore it? How? How do you ignore doctrine without de facto teaching its opposite (Error)?
Christianity isn't about "getting across" a "core message", it's about bringing people to Christ: to the fulness of Christ, and therefore the fulness of the faith. To baptise people into anything less is robbery of the holy ones of God, and deserves millstones.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Personally I would avoid like the work of the Evil One any 'Church' which changed its teachings to try and attract me...
Surely this depends on the teachings in question?
Some church take an extreme view - that families must put a gay teen into conversion therapy, or that families should disown gay relatives. Some churches teach that it's a sin to even participate in someone else's gay wedding (e.g. the florists/bakers who refuse services), or that it's a sin to vote for a candidate who backs marriage equality.
Dropping teachings like these, would not even come close to saying that gay marriage is acceptable for Christians. But it would reduce the hatred and intolerance towards gay people that many perceive from parts of the Christian church.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Vade Mecum
The reason there is a church is because back in the day young Jews thought the unthinkable and deliberately went against the teachings of the Bible.
Worse, they went further and actively promoted their non-adherence to others; they even went so far as to try to bring into the religion people not descended from the 12 tribes.
They were persecuted and accused of apostasy until at last what had been predicted came true: they DID break away from the religion of their fathers and founded a new one.
Sound familiar?
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Doctrine can't just be ignored because it is inconvenient...
What do you do then, to "minimise" a teaching you feel might stand in people's way? Ignore it? How?
It's incredibly easy to ignore things. The bible is big and there are lots of other things to focus on. Of necessity due to the large size of the bible, Christians have to be selective about which passages are preached on, taught, read regularly and focused on.
I've never heard a sermon on the passage about not wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, but it's in the bible (Lev 19:19), it just gets ignored. I've never heard a sermon about the virtues of bashing little children against rocks, but it's in the bible (Psa 137:9), it just gets ignored. I've been repeatedly amazed over the years at just how truly astonishingly good Christians are at skipping over passages in their bibles they find uncomfortable or theologically disagreeable. Passages endorsing morally questionable things like genocide, slavery, the killing of children etc simply get skipped over. Doctrinal teachings that the particular denomination doesn't agree with simply get read past without a second thought if they are ever read at all, while those passages teaching things that it does agree with get repeated on a daily basis or preached on weekly or printed out and stuck on a wall. People focus on the stories and teachings they find edifying and helpful.
And focusing on some bits and ignoring others works fine because the church has lots of doctrines and you can't focus on all of them equally all of the time. The Roman Catholic Catechism, for example, has about 600 pages worth of nearly 3000 individual doctrinal statements. If one of those fell out, the church would still have plenty of stuff to teach.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
VM: it is exactly this kind of public speech ("To Hell with them if they don't do exactly what someone else says") that keeps people from coming to the church.
Who are you to judge? Once you (generic) have eliminated the divorcees and their children, the GLBTs and their children, the gluttons and their children, the gossipers and their children, those who dance and their children, those who drink and their children, etc., you have a church of One which will cease to exist on Earth at your death.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
There are also cultural and philosophical shifts going on all the time in society. OK, some Christians argue that they should be immune to these, but that is a joke, of course, they are affected by them.
One reason that homophobia has become an issue is because of the depathologizing of homosexuality, and also of course, decriminalization. 100 years ago probably homophobia was accepted by many people, but not today. I suppose the same is true of racism and misogyny.
The churches seem to usually be the last to give up these prejudices!
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
Um, no. Just, no. You're either being pointlessly facetious, or... well, no, that's it, really.
Mixed fibres: Old Covenant, not New.
Super flumina: It's a Psalm. They're not commandments. But you knew that.
Whatever examples you care to append, the point is that there (almost universally) exists Church teaching on the matter, which probably clarifies the perplexities of a first-glance trawl.
The contents of the Roman catechism, for instance, are to be believed by all Catholics (I'm simplifying to save time). That doesn't mean they have to be thinking about it constantly, or even that they need to know it all, but it contains the things which they must believe in order to believe with the Church. If we depart from the substance of the faith, we must submit to correction based on the Church's definitive teachings.
The idea that you might just hush this or that bit up (and thereby allow or encourage people to persist in sin) is frankly monstrous. I refuse to believe that you believe this in good faith to be a good thing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Do you think that people could indicate which post they are replying to, as I thought at first that that last post was to me, but it's not.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
My bad: I paused whilst writing to look at something, and missed the later posts.
quetzalcoatl I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
Horseman Bree That is not what I am saying at all, and I weep if that is how it is read: my point was that the Faith is not reducible to anything less than itself without suffering loss and ceasing to be the fulness of the faith which Christ calls us to. My quibble was not with those who fail to practise that fulness: which of us does? but with those who would deliberately sell the children of God less than that fulness as part of some (cynical?) branding exercise. Theirs are the millstones, not the sinners.
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
L'Organist No. Not really. "Jesus subverted his culture, and Jesus was right. I subvert my culture, therefore I'm right" is a false syllogism.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Vade Mecum wrote:
I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
I suppose logically, that would mean still living in a feudal-type culture, or pre-feudal, come to that? It just sounds unreal to me, as if Christians can levitate above society and culture.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
I'm not sure how that squares up with your post, in which you said:
quote:
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God.
A policy is a prescription for practice, not doctrine. Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
doctrine: God created marriage to be shared between one man and one woman
policy: Members of Ship of Fools Community Church must not participate in any activities that promote forms of "marriage" proscribed by doctrine
Based on the survey, it's the latter that's alienating younger people, not the former. And it's unclear that God has ordained any of the variety of anti-gay policies that churches and their media mouthpieces have been promoting.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
seekingsister There is a difference between teaching (doctrine) and prescriptions for practice. I'm talking about the former: the latter are of course more malleable, though not to the point where they fail to reflect the underlying dogmata.
I'm not sure how that squares up with your post, in which you said:
quote:
False reasoning: the churches which have what you describe as "anti-gay" "policies" don't do so because they think them attractive to people, but because they think them right, ordained by God.
A policy is a prescription for practice, not doctrine. Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing:
doctrine: God created marriage to be shared between one man and one woman
policy: Members of Ship of Fools Community Church must not participate in any activities that promote forms of "marriage" proscribed by doctrine
Based on the survey, it's the latter that's alienating younger people, not the former. And it's unclear that God has ordained any of the variety of anti-gay policies that churches and their media mouthpieces have been promoting.
The point of my using scare quotes around "policies" was that usually what people mean when they say this is "doctrines".
However, the example you give is interesting: if the Church believes X, why would it allow/encourage its members to give public credence to non-X? The faith isn't an individual's private concern: here the praxis would be in contempt (as it were) of the doctrine.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Vade Mecum wrote:
I don't think that society's shifts in "understandind" are right, or from God, and therefore the Church is usually but not always right to resist them. We have our own Law, and it is not the Law of public opinion.
I suppose logically, that would mean still living in a feudal-type culture, or pre-feudal, come to that? It just sounds unreal to me, as if Christians can levitate above society and culture.
So the phrase "usually but not always" means nothing to you?
Living in the world does not mean living as the world. If you really believed that escaping one's culture was impossible, why be a Christian at all?
Having said that, I admire feudal Europe's piety.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
While I agree that the Church shouldn't just accept every new 'understanding' that comes along about societal values, it should most definitely accept new science that comes along.
Otherwise you get rather infamous cases like that trouble with Galileo.
And when it comes to the question of homosexuality, what at least some churches have to wrestle with is the basic question of whether homosexuality is innate for 'affected' individuals. Because it's clear that at least some conservative Christian positions are based on the proposition that homosexuality is a choice, and that the right thing to do is to 'unchoose' it.
As more and more scientific indications appear that homosexuality is not a choice, does it make sense to reject the science on the grounds that it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion of the truth? I would suggest not.
That doesn't totally resolve the issue, because it is certainly possible, as a matter of logic, to accept that homosexuality is innate but that homosexuals should not, for some reason of morality, express their sexuality in the ways that heterosexuals do. Which points towards more philosophical questions about whether God clearly laid down such a rule and what that would say about the character of God.
My own view, as of course many of you know, is that it's far more likely that God didn't actually say that and the Church has been reading him wrong. As judged by the fruits of telling homosexuals they must be celibate for their entire lives compared to the fruits of telling them they ought to embrace the same kinds of principles of sexual morality that heterosexuals are called to embrace (you know, I'm fairly sure that God has a bit of a problem with heterosexual orgies in worship of pagan gods as well, but no-one ever concludes that his problem is with the fact that they're heterosexual).
[ 28. February 2014, 12:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
There's also the issue of Jesus's alleged ~three years of public ministry, during which he declaimed loudly and at length against homosexuality . . . oh, wait.
If you believe (some) churches' teachings against homosexuality form part of eternal Christian truth, it does seem odd that the Divine One who "sent his only begotten son" to save humanity would have that son, during that limited time, focus heavily on the issues of poverty, charity, social justice, compassion, forgiveness, etc. almost to the exclusion of speaking on sexual behaviors.
Even odder is the fact that, influential as the Church has been for some 1600 years of its existence, what the general public imagination seems to have absorbed as the result of the Church's teaching is that sin is pretty much synonymous with human sexuality.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
Vade Mecum
Jesus didn't subvert his culture - he was born and died an observant Jew.
It was those who claimed to follow him who 'subverted' the religion.
It is not Christianity that preaches against homosexuality, it is the churches.
Jesus - remember, the person who the churches claim as their 'founder' - said nothing about homosexuality.
Your quoting what 'the church' says about something is irrelevant beyond a point: Christ didn't mention homosexuality, therefore we have no idea whether he was for, against or ambivalent.
And in this context its interesting to note that none of the original disciples mention it either. The person who (briefly) mentions it is Paul - who never met Christ, yet who quickly managed an effective takeover of the awkward new sect and gave it the sort of baggage that we know would likely have made Christ, from his reported behaviour, uncomfortable at the very least.
You can quote 'doctrine' and 'church' all you like - doctrine is just various formulae invented by people who never met Christ or any of his disciples.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There are also cultural and philosophical shifts going on all the time in society. OK, some Christians argue that they should be immune to these, but that is a joke, of course, they are affected by them.
One reason that homophobia has become an issue is because of the depathologizing of homosexuality, and also of course, decriminalization. 100 years ago probably homophobia was accepted by many people, but not today. I suppose the same is true of racism and misogyny.
The churches seem to usually be the last to give up these prejudices!
To be honest it varies. The Catholic Church was never much troubled by anti-black racism and was ferociously opposed to eugenics whilst progressive opinion generally favoured it. On the other hand Christians were reluctant to abandon anti-semitism until Der Fuhrer took it to it's reductio ad absurdum.
The depressing thing about homosexuality, at least in the C of E, is that in the 1980s the C of E was ahead of the societal curve with regard to homosexuality. I remember a cartoon in the Daily Express in the 1980s with Robert Runcie and John Hapgood being attacked in a jungle by demonic figures labelled "homosexuality" with them complaining that they were lost and couldn't find the route with "The Bible" conveniently discarded at their feet. Nowadays, no daily newspaper would attack homosexuality in quite those Julius Streicheresque terms. Equally no Julius Streicheresque newspaper would feel it necessary to denounce the current Church of England's bishops. One feels a little like St. Dominic. "Peter can no longer say silver and gold have I none". "Indeed, neither can he say, rise up and walk". The days when we had bishops who, whatever the right wing press said, were touchstones of decency and humanity has passed. I don't walk away because this is my church and our church and the bigots have no business telling us to go away but I won't deny that I am occasionally tempted.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Gildas
Very interesting post. I wonder why the church has fallen behind the curve in recent years? I have no idea really; is it the influence of evangelical thinking? I suppose in the US, there is a massive right wing movement in Christianity, less so in the UK?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Caught by the guillotine, but I have walked away, and homophobia is one reason, but there are others.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
If those problems are within your own denomination that's an issue, but different denominations aren't obliged to stick to any ecumenical party line on this or any other topic. Denominations that claim to be able to include everyone are going to find it hard to speak with one voice, but unfortunately you can't really please all the people all the time.
On the positive side, if young people in the church disapprove of current church teachings, then they need to get themselves into positions of power (lay or ordained) then eventually things will change.
[ 28. February 2014, 18:00: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
On the positive side, if young people in the church disapprove of current church teachings, then they need to get themselves into positions of power (lay or ordained) then eventually things will change.
or walk away from an institution that seems of little value to them and not worth the effort to fix.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
If the institution is of little value to them then it's already too late, isn't it?
Once upon a time, people who disapproved of what their churches were teaching started their own churches. The drive for unity (or some other reason) seems to have made this an unacceptable option, which is a shame because it means that people who find no suitable alternatives have no choice but to give up on the life of the church altogether.
Basically, I'm a keen believer in people creating the churches they want. This may be achievable in an existing church, or it may not. Power to the people!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
I think rather that the difference today is that young people have the guts to admit that the church (whichever they were raised in, if they were) and the whole religious thing is utterly irrelevent. They're not going to start a new sect not because of the desire for Christian unity but because the basic concept of Christian unity or diversity is meaningless to them. In their parents generation some who felt this way kept going to church, if they did, out of habit and -- in England only, I think, because it was part of being English. Before that, people who felt this way just kept quiet and attended, if they did, because it was what one did.
One simply can't talk about how young people (under 35?) behave and think today as if there's a smooth continuum of assumptions with how things were in "the past", as we've always assumed there was in the past. That continuum is broken, partly because of what the church(es) have said and done, and partly for other reasons as well.
The glass is broken, the water's run out of it, and all we can hope for is that someone, somewhere, will find a new vessel to hold the water.
John
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think one thing that has happened, is that church and religion have begun to separate. I mean that people who are interested in religious/spiritual issues, don't automatically think of going to church.
Some of them may do, but I know a ton of people who would not dream of it, who are not atheists. I suppose they are an absolute rag-bag of people, vaguely interested in Buddhism, shamanism, New Age stuff, Sufism, uncle Tom Cobley and all. Nobody can predict what might develop from this. I would think that there is a revulsion against monolithic institutions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not disagreeing with you, quetzalcoatl, but for some I think it less revulsion than dissatisfaction, possibly a bit of ennui. ISTM that those with a dislike of one philosophy, but a still with a passion, would gravitate to one rather than a mix.
Just throwing thoughts about, though.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I think you get both people who like a mix, and sort of have a swishy vague contact with different kinds of spiritual stuff, and also people who adhere to one mode. I have friends who go to Quakers, Buddhist meditation, Sufi music and dance, and probably chanting as well. I call them Swiss Army knives - lots of different bits you can play with. Actually, my friend who died recently was an arch Swiss Army Knife, and at his memorial were a large array of people from different traditions, very nice spectacle. I suppose it's all a bit cafeteria-esque, but so what.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
I think rather that the difference today is that young people have the guts to admit that the church (whichever they were raised in, if they were) and the whole religious thing is utterly irrelevent. They're not going to start a new sect not because of the desire for Christian unity but because the basic concept of Christian unity or diversity is meaningless to them.
I wouldn't disagree with you. But if all this is the case, then it hardly matters about the church's 'anti-gay policies'.
In a sense, this is liberating both for the church and for young (or old) people who want nothing to do with it. Christians perhaps need not feel so anguished about what other people think of their various doctrines because no one cares anyway, and everyone else can go about their search for a pick 'n' mix spirituality without regard for Christian orthodoxy.
However, I suppose Christianity needs to continue to exist in some recognisable fashion simply to be able to feed into this pot pourri of choices. There can be no hybridity unless there's a range of recognisably coherent systems of belief to start off with.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
If a church doesn't keep children, then it is unlikely to prosper; e.g. The Shakers.
There are many possible sources for a mélange of spirituality if that's what is happening. No one system is indispensable. If a religion fails to remain viable then the name of the religion is more likely to become a label for an imagined recreation, like modern Druidism then a continuation of the existing religion.
It is hard to tell where those leaving the institutional churches end up. Some go to more liberal denominations, others simply stop doing group worship of any sort.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
I actually agree with Vade Mecum that if, IF, homosexuality is a sin then the church should not conform its teachings to the world. I just don't think it is a sin. All sins have their basis in things that are damaging to us or to our relationship with God. It is evident that homophobia does far more damage to people's relationship with God than homosexuality ever could do, and there is no evidence at all that it is intrinsically damaging. The church must change because it is right to change, not because it's worried about losing young people. That is, however, the reason it must change fast.
Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on
:
I focus on adultery, myself. The commandments say, do not commit adultery. Jesus said, clearly, anyone who married a divorced woman commits adultery, and anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. Clear sin, Jesus says.
So why do I, as a woman who divorced her husband and married another, feel no shame or censure from my church, or any church? Because the church leaves it to God now. I may be in deep shit with God, but there's nothing I can do about it, and no one in their right mind would suggest I should leave my current husband and the children I had with him.
This change of attitude towards divorce has happened in the lifetime of all the people who still cling to 'principles'.
The church changes more slowly now, because it's afraid of alienating the only people it has?
[ 01. March 2014, 07:51: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
It continually hurts to remain part of the Anglican Church. But where would I go?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Doctrine changes all the time. If it's Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, the church creates a backstory and says "We've always believed it this way. Now we're making it official." If it's Protestant doctrine, they say "Those people don't believe the Bible correctly, so we'll start a new sect that gets it right."
[ 01. March 2014, 14:04: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If a church doesn't keep children, then it is unlikely to prosper; e.g. The Shakers.
There are many possible sources for a mélange of spirituality if that's what is happening. No one system is indispensable. If a religion fails to remain viable then the name of the religion is more likely to become a label for an imagined recreation, like modern Druidism then a continuation of the existing religion.
So, maybe it's simply time for Christianity to begin to die, at least in some parts of the world. The struggle over anti-gay policies in churches might simply be one step on the road in that direction.
The only thing left to argue over is whether this apparently inevitable sociological reality is God's will or not.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
I suspect that some churches may wither or recast themselves. In the United States you can see this with inter racial issues (See Southern Baptists) or anti-Semitism. There are already some denominations that support gay clergy and same sex marriage. To be fair, the general drop in Church Attendance is not only due to issues about gays.
I can't imagine why one would want to argue about if it is God's will that the churches are emptying out. How does that change anything? You have scenarios ranging from "Keep doing what we're doing and ignore the consequences" to "God wants me to become an atheist". None seem very productive.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
An atheist would have no interest in arguing about whether or not it's God's will for for Christianity to die out, but it seems like a reasonable topic for Christians to debate among themselves. Seeking God's will is something that Christians supposedly try to do!
As for what's 'productive' or not, if we agree that Christianity may possibly be on its way out then there isn't much for Christians to be productive about, is there? What would you suggest??
Having said that, though, some would argue that managing decline can be a positive thing. Christians used to talk about 'dying well', and this concept could presumably be transferred from individuals to churches, denominations and even a whole religion. And those of a premillenialist cast might see the death of Western Christianity as a sign that Jesus was likely to return to earth. Not a topic of interest to atheists, obviously, but a source of reflection to Christians.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Some of those atheists are going to be people who left the church while you are discussing God's will. Others may leave the church but think of themselves as relating to God directly instead of through an institution. It will bee interesting to see if there are looser networks of like minded people. This is not to suggest that the Ship is a substitute for church. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
With some of the British mainstream denominations predicted to disappear or shrink rapidly in the next few decades the number of churchgoers in loose informal fellowships might increase. However, the growth will probably be small, because many churchgoing Christians are simply dying off rather than leaving to pursue informal church fellowships. And among the majority of non-churchgoing British Christians religion has been heavily privatised, and there's little desire to get into huddles with other Christians, whether formally or informally.
Getting back to the topic, it's hard to imagine that 'anti-gay policies' will still be exercising the minds of churchgoing Christians in 30-odd years' time. They'll have more important things to worry about. My guess is that by then Christians will have migrated to churches where they can they agree with (or heavily influence) the party line, which means no more anguished arguments. If the CofE is disestablished during this time it'll probably split, which means the pro and anti people won't have to put up with each other any more.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
None of the above arguments have dealt with what I see as the major cause of young people leaving the Church.
There are TWO Great Commandments, according to someone who should know.
If you love God, then there are a large number of activities that you will not be tempted to do.
If you love your neighbour, the list gets larger, because loving your neighbour implies not doing to him/her things that harm or hurt him/her.
The church has said that divorce is a sin; Jesus Himself said that divorce is a sin, with the underlying reason being the harm that this action does to all concerned. But we (and most churches) accept it anyway, because of the more serious harm that not getting divorced would cause. Better publicity of some of these harms, following the invention of mass media, helped to shift the general opinion, including among the church leaders.
Similarly, better publicity has allowed many people to realise that GLBTs are just people, not some weird bogeypersons. The Church leaders haven't got there yet.
But the Church leaders preach "loving your neighbour" while also preaching wrath, condemnation and sometimes physical violence upon this minority group.
Why should young people brought up on "Love Your Neighbour" accept NOT loving your neighbour?
We don't ban divorcees or alcoholics or gossips or those "evil" blacks from being in church. Why single out this other group? Is having the "wrong kind" of sex that much more significant having adulterous sex?
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Anti-queer (forgive me for preferring this to a now very long initialism) policies/doctrine has a very real effect on people. People are harmed by it. Some people even die because of it, whether killing themselves or being killed by others. When people die because of one's doctrinal position, it is perhaps time to re-examine that position.
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
Oh, and anti-gay churches still have gay people for members. Why do those people get treated as if they don't exist? And there are gay conservative evangelicals as well as traditionalists/RCs.
[ 02. March 2014, 17:24: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I find it a bit disturbing that two thirds of young people who abandon Christianity don't cite anti-gay policies.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Jade Constable
Christians disagree with each other over all sorts of theological matters - some of which seem quite major - without allowing those differences to ruin their lives. But we seem to have reached the point where disagreement over sexuality has become massively more significant than disagreement over the virgin birth, or the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead, or the Prosperity Gospel, etc. This is rather shocking when you think about it. It suggests that Christianity really has hollowed itself out. The clergy spend years studying theology, but the thing that really matters is the certificate; theological content itself has become less and less important.
Indeed, it seems to be less theologically problematic for a young person from a Christian family to become an atheist than it is for a young Christian to come out as gay. To put it bluntly, the former don't (as far as I know) kill themselves, they just leave the church, become autonomous beings, and carry on with their lives. Obviously, no one should kill themselves, but what's the theological message here? That it's worse to be gay than to be an atheist??
Nah. I'd like different theological perspectives on sexuality or sexual behaviour to be treated as just that: different theological perspectives. No one's psychological equilibrium is shattered because they disagree with their church family about the Creeds. They either tolerate each other peaceably, or else the person with the less orthodox views leaves their strict church and finds a more amenable church to attend, and everyone will be happy. This is how it should be, IMO.
[ 02. March 2014, 19:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
There was a piece in the "Sunday" programme today with an interview with one of the Americans behind the Ugandan law - I put it here because his rationale (not sure that is the right word) is based in religion. And it is a religion in a world which is wholly alien to me. I couldn't be associated with a church thinking like that. If I were a young person, and that was the world I were required to live in to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one.
Part the way through.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
There is an interesting new survey released yesterday (Huff Post article, Original research) that of people under 34 years of age ("millennials") in the US:
- 70% of them agreed that religious groups are "alienating young adults by being too judgmental on gay and lesbian issues."
What did the other 30% think? Or were they made up of people who think that being gay is evil and who cares about spreading anything that resembles good news?
quote:
- of those who had left the religion they grew up with, one third cited anti-gay teachings of that religion as being a motivating factor in that decision. (Since it's a US survey, the "religion they grew up with" is Christianity ~95% of the time)
Alas the report doesn't give the other reasons. Although to answer Dafyd my reason for leaving the Church in the mid 90s was I simply thought it was full of codswallop. Millenials aren't all recent leavers and the Church's homophobia wasn't as out of step then as it is now. Or I think as strong as it is now - I've said in the past that homophobia is the defining moral principle on which British Christians are visibly out of step with the rest of society, and that leads to feedback loops.
quote:
I am a bit surprised, really, that Christian leaders haven't been paying more attention to this fact, as they do seem to often express worry about young people leaving their congregations. Perhaps knowing that a third of those leaving are doing so because of their anti-gay stance will lead them to rethink that stance...?
That would mean they had to change. And to light a candle rather than curse the darkness.
And apparently the old are out of touch with the young with less than half the Silent Generation realising homophobia drives people away.
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vulpior:
It continually hurts to remain part of the Anglican Church. But where would I go?
Indeed, mutatis mutandis.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
To be frank, if someone asked me a few years ago when I was in my thirties I would probably have said "because of the discrimination against the LGBT community". This wouldn't be because I cared all that much about LGBT people but because I would have wanted to say something that I could actually argue and I knew some of the arguments about that particular issue from even my sketchy knowledge of current affairs. The real reason I dropped out of churchgoing was because I couldn't be bothered but that just makes me sound like a lazy, self-centred git. It is always better to sound like someone with principles rather than someone with no interest whatsoever.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
This still comes off as a false dichotomy to me. There's a huge amount of space between anti-gay preaching, and affirmation of gay relationships.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
seekingsister
There may be some space between preaching against and affirmation of gay relationships, but the churches (CofE, RC and Orthodox) aren't affirming anything: at best they're saying 'we know you're wrong, we disapprove of you, but we'll officially say you're welcome to be a member, so long as you don't ask to be married; oh, and we might discriminate against your off-spring as well'.
And that's the BEST bit - the Orthodox, certainly in Greece and Russia - are a lot less welcoming than that.
Posted by bad man (# 17449) on
:
Phil Groom's Heaven is Weeping: an open letter to the House of Bishops is very good, I think.
It states very powerfully the reasons why even a straight, bible-believing Christian finds the official line on gay relationships absolutely abhorrent.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
This still comes off as a false dichotomy to me. There's a huge amount of space between anti-gay preaching, and affirmation of gay relationships.
Just to be clear, I was commenting on Jade Constable's question, and those were the terms in which she posed it. She seemed to me to be assuming that those doing the anti-gay stuff really, at heart, at the most basic level, must somehow know that the Holy Spirit was with those they are oppressing: I was just pointing out that the anti-gay lot are quite sure, really, at heart, at the most basic level, that those they are oppressing are wrong, sinful, and going against the will of the HOly SPirit.
John
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Also, has it not occurred to anti-gay churches that it is them that's ignoring the Holy Spirit, and that affirmation of queer people is not just a trend but part of being a true Church family?
No.
They absolutely believe that they are following the guidance of the Holy SPirit, and that affirmation of queer people is directly contrary to true christianity and being part of a true Church family.
John
I was asking a rhetorical question - sorry for any confusion. I am well-aware of the views of anti-LGBTQ+ churches.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just rereading the Barna-research-based book "Unchristian" which spells out the various negative views of evangelical Americans, the most salient point on this issue was that the young people nowadays know some self-proclaimed GLBTs, who have usually turned out to be the kind of people one wants for friends.
This, in turn, means that the church preaching about the evil monsters who are going to steal our children don't appear to exist.
And, as a result, the church preaching about LOVE is seen as wrong, because the church actions are not seen as loving. So they walk away as soon as they have the chance.
Plus, once they are known as gay-friendly, their church often pushes them away befor4e the kids have a chance to run, and sends their parents along with them.
Hatred is easy to breed in closed communities.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There was a piece in the "Sunday" programme today with an interview with one of the Americans behind the Ugandan law - I put it here because his rationale (not sure that is the right word) is based in religion. And it is a religion in a world which is wholly alien to me. I couldn't be associated with a church thinking like that. If I were a young person, and that was the world I were required to live in to be a Christian, I wouldn't be one.
Part the way through.
I was astounded when i listened to that yesterday morning. LGBTs, he reckons, are responsible for divorce.
I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
It s a bit of a jaw dropper, isn't it? I often, despite my best endeavours, sleep fitfully through Sunday - I blame them shifting the time of transmission , but this one woke me up in disbelief. And I bet he is also a YEC, since the style of argument and the manner of "discussion" is very similar. But YECishness doesn't end up with dead people.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... Christians disagree with each other over all sorts of theological matters - some of which seem quite major - without allowing those differences to ruin their lives. But we seem to have reached the point where disagreement over sexuality has become massively more significant than disagreement over the virgin birth, or the Trinity, or the resurrection of the dead, or the Prosperity Gospel, etc. This is rather shocking when you think about it. ...
The reason that issues of sexuality - divorce is a horse that has left the barn, but there's still sex before marriage, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality - have been so divisive is because Christians haven't been content to merely disagree with each other. They haven't let it ruin their lives because they're too busy ruining other people's lives. They've tried to win the debate by having their governments impose their ideas on Christians they disagree with, as well as non-Christians.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
seekingsister
There may be some space between preaching against and affirmation of gay relationships, but the churches (CofE, RC and Orthodox) aren't affirming anything: at best they're saying 'we know you're wrong, we disapprove of you, but we'll officially say you're welcome to be a member, so long as you don't ask to be married; oh, and we might discriminate against your off-spring as well'.
The problem is that we have one side saying, "If we make any move even vaguely suggesting that homosexuality is not an extremely evil sin, then we are tacitly endorsing it."
And we have another side saying, "If you're not going to marry us and ordain us and publicly state that our relationships are 100% OK within your church, you are homophobic."
Most Christians (I believe anyway) are in the middle. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her. I got married in a Unitarian church by a lesbian minister - because that church was welcoming of a mixed race interfaith couple that had lived together before marriage, and no one else really was. There are lots of relationships that the Christian church doesn't affirm - not just gay ones.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
seekingsister
One of the nicest gay couples I know isn't asking to be married, or blessed, or prayed over - and certainly neither of them wants to be ordained.
What they would like is for their child to be baptised: but the grandmother of the infant (who is a priest) not only refuses either to baptise it herself or to be present at a baptism, but she has written to their parish priest where they live, the rural dean, archdeacon, etc, etc, etc more or demanding that no one else baptise the child either.
This lovely (and loving) couple aren't asking to whistles and bells, just for their baby to be baptised in the middle of the community where they live and where, apart from the church, belong.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Upon what basis can baptism be refused?
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
What they would like is for their child to be baptised: but the grandmother of the infant (who is a priest) not only refuses either to baptise it herself or to be present at a baptism, but she has written to their parish priest where they live, the rural dean, archdeacon, etc, etc, etc more or demanding that no one else baptise the child either.
So the grandmother is refusing to do the baptism or attend, but the parish priest et. al. are having to be persuaded by her, and possibly (probably?) unsuccessfully.
This doesn't read like a case of the Church of England refusing to baptize the child, but more like a family conflict.
Is there any CofE policy that says children of gay couples cannot be baptized?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
...what exactly is an American doing behind a Ugandan law, anyway?
I'm sure I can find something in the Paraguayan civil code that isn't to my taste...
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The Americans are working in Uganda because their efforts aren't getting anywhere against the attitude shift in the US. A whole bunch of condescension about how those ignorant blacks can be talked into what we good white upstanding Christians tell them,
plus the shrill whine of "nobody at home likes us and our hate-filled policy"
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The reason that issues of sexuality - divorce is a horse that has left the barn, but there's still sex before marriage, birth control, abortion, and homosexuality - have been so divisive is because Christians haven't been content to merely disagree with each other. They haven't let it ruin their lives because they're too busy ruining other people's lives. They've tried to win the debate by having their governments impose their ideas on Christians they disagree with, as well as non-Christians.
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'. In secularising countries like ours purely religious arguments are likely to lose, sooner or later.
In a country like Uganda, I'm surprised that such an anti-gay culture has only now decided that it needs an anti-gay bill. The reasons strike me as political rather than religious, because I'm sure there were gay people for the churches to get worked up about 10 or 20 years ago....
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
[...]
This lovely (and loving) couple aren't asking to whistles and bells, just for their baby to be baptised in the middle of the community where they live and where, apart from the church, belong.
This looks like a case where the parents will have to go to the Methodists or the URC. (These denominations do still have their uses as independent institutions, it seems! They shouldn't merge with the CofE just yet.)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'.
Only if we abandon the "liberal" part of liberal democracy, which assumes that there are certain rights and liberties which aren't up for debate.
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Perhaps churches that do accept and welcome gays should make it more obvious? It will be interesting to see if the under 35s then start beating a path to their doors, or whether they will then come up with another reason why they're not interested. It's where the survey results get translated into reality that interests me.
I attended a gay friendly church ~ albeit discreet in acknowledging that ~ it was talking to anyone else. And gay friendly churches have been known to have problems from other churches and congregations.
My church* was generally affirming as well, with a few notable exceptions. But once the CofE had made an official statement against SSM, claiming to speak on my behalf with its bewildering array of kneejerking, distortion and special pleading, there was no way I could remain part of that body. Once that was an "official" statement, it drew a line in the sand and I couldn't/wouldn't stay where I was.
Where these statistics may be confusing, and Bob Two-Owls has touched on something in this direction, is that it's almost never just one thing. I'd effectively given up on the church before that, but could have gone on forever as a passive presence in the pews not wanting the awkward conversations that would result from walking away.
It's entirely possible that an unpleasant and high-profile view offers an excuse for people who want to leave anyway. My reaction could be viewed in that way, although I see it more as a deeply unpleasant lifting of the veil. I left because I felt that I'd seen the truly ugly side of a church I'd always considered fairly sensible. I couldn't unsee that, and I wasn't going to be associated with those views just for the sake of somewhere to go on Sunday mornings.
Depending on what questions were asked and in what context, you could get very different answers, and in any case, they should be taken with a huge quantity of salt. It's very rare that a single thing makes the difference, and my route out of the church could be traced back about 15 years. It is significant when the same things keep coming up, but interpreting it is difficult.
* - I never know the right way of describing it - it is "my" church in the sense that it's the one I left, and the one my family still attend, but very much not my church seeing that I left it. I suppose this will have to do for now.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Croesos
What counts as liberal democratic principles changes over time, as a result of public debate and changing opinion. (E.g. there were few calls for gay marriage 30 years ago, yet we would still argue that most Western societies were liberal democracies. Times change.) Religious groups are free to make their arguments as part of such a debate, and if those arguments are deemed not to be sufficiently democratic according to wider cultural standards they can be dismissed. Religious arguments regularly fail, even in countries like the USA where the Religious Right are so noisy. Isn't that why they make so much noise - because their importance is waning?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
... What counts as liberal democratic principles changes over time, as a result of public debate and changing opinion. (E.g. there were few calls for gay marriage 30 years ago, yet we would still argue that most Western societies were liberal democracies. Times change.) ...
It's not the principles that change. What changed in Western societies is who is allowed to enjoy the benefits of those principles. Property rights haven't changed for hundreds of years, but they're now open to everyone, instead of just free men, or white people, or whatever. Laws against miscegenation fell before gays and lesbians gained equality. Women once weren't allowed to vote; now they are. And so forth. Even minor privileges are now universally enjoyed.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Americans are working in Uganda because their efforts aren't getting anywhere against the attitude shift in the US. A whole bunch of condescension about how those ignorant blacks can be talked into what we good white upstanding Christians tell them,
plus the shrill whine of "nobody at home likes us and our hate-filled policy"
One of the reasons it struck me is because the rhetoric in Uganda suggests that homosexuality is something 'Western', or European. It seems very odd, then, that anyone in Uganda would take advice from the West on this issue. It's taking advice on how to solve a problem from the people that created the problem.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her.
Not if that christian values the sacraments in the way that (some) Anglicans, (some)Lutherans and RCs do.
There's more to church, IMO, than fellowship.
John
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
Replace "values" with "has similar eucharistic theology to". There are lots of churches that value the sacraments deeply that don't go for the Real Presence.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
. And there are more than enough churches and denominations that are affirming and accepting of gay marriage, that a gay Christian can find a fellowship that works for him or her.
Not if that christian values the sacraments in the way that (some) Anglicans, (some)Lutherans and RCs do.
There's more to church, IMO, than fellowship.
John
The US Episcopal Church is affirming and sacramental.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just came across Barna Survey on Young Adults Leaving the Church
May be of some help in this thread.
Doesn't say much about homosexuality per se, but does deal with the whole approach to sexuality as being out-of-date or irrelevant.
Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
I’m sure that there are people who believe that one of the church’s basic goals is to ensure that as many people as possible enjoy salvation and inherit the Kingdom of God, and that if the church were to accept and endorse behaviour which leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God, it would have abandoned its goals and its very reason for existence.
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
... Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
It seems the one Christian value they took with them when they left the church was hypocrisy. If that is the answer to Horseman Bree's question, that's really sad.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
That's very arrogant of them given that there's a lot of gay couples who relationships last much less than 10 years and a lot of hetereosexual couples whose relationships last more than 50 years.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]I was thinking of a gay couple that I know who are celebrating 50 years of being together and wondering how it was their fault that the straights can't make their marriages last longer than 10 years.
That's very arrogant of them given that there's a lot of gay couples who relationships last much less than 10 years and a lot of hetereosexual couples whose relationships last more than 50 years.
I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral. The position of a lot of Christian homophobes seems to be that the latest Kardashian flingette is somehow more meaningful than e.g. a gay couple I know who were together for 18 years and where one of the partners nursed the other through terminal cancer. To which the only adequate response is: "for the love of Jesus, stop being such a twat".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
ISTM that making heterosexism an unyielding, unchangeable part of Christian doctrine is almost tantamount to fetishism. Of all the things that are a core, central part of our faith, surely that isn't. Many bits of doctrine have been reversed in the last 2000 years. (Just to take one instance in the Catholic Church, the immaculate conception.) If believing that homosexual marriage is okay is damning, then salvific faith is very weird and much different from what Jesus preached.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
If you love God, then there are a large number of activities that you will not be tempted to do.
Seriously? All I have to do is love God, and the temptations will cease? I smell a "No True Scotsman" fallacy here. "I'm tempted." "Ah, you just don't love God enough."
quote:
Sadly quote:
Research indicates that most young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers, even though they are more conservative in their attitudes about sexuality.
which leads to the question about "what is the point of church in the first place?"
You mean if its purpose is not to enforce sexual morality, it has no purpose?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Did you take your "I must be sour pills" today?
The point I was trying to make was that the whole upbringing-as-Christians thing didn't work, and doesn't work.
10 years ago, it was being reported that born-again Christians were no better than the rest of the general public in regards to abortion, teen-age pregnancy, divorce, murder rates, lack of tithing, etc. In most cases, these Christians were worse than the average. And they were supposed to be the Good Examples.
And the most-Christian states had the highest murder, divorce and teen-pregnancy rates, while Godless Massachusetts, that un-American Liberal place, had the least problem.
Now we see that the kids of those people are, surprise! surprise!, just as likely to do stuff that is not acceptable to the Church as anyone who has not been to church at all.
If that is the net result of church teaching all through their formative years, why would one bother going to the church?
Of course, the church may be a social center, but that is hardly a reason to go through all those years of apparently-pointless Sunday School and Sunday services.
There may be individual churches that do it well and keep their kids interested , but overall, it ain't happening.
P.S. this thread is about attitudes to sexuality, so I thought it could be mentioned. Let's do gossip or gluttony or pride if you prefer.
[ 07. March 2014, 01:18: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
To say that attending church doesn't make any difference in teen pregnancy and divorce rates understates the influence of the church. Abstinence only sex education programs advocated by the churches turn out not to be particularly good at preventing teen pregnancy. The pressure for early marriage leads to a lot of divorces. To be fair, the tendency in liberal states like Massachusetts for many people to simply live together without marrying also understates the rate of couple breakup since it doesn't show up as divorce.
[ 07. March 2014, 03:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Did you take your "I must be sour pills" today?
Are those on the same shelf as the "I forgot to be clear" pills?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Horeseman Bree and mousethief
With the recent sniping exchanges, it looks like you're starting to move into Commandment 3/4 territory. You know the guidelines; best to back off or take it to Hell.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[QUOTE]I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral.
That may be so for some but where's the proof?
I'm not convinced that "people" care that much about others' relationships at whatever level - it's a "me" world.
What doesn't add to the debate are leo's chums claiming they have something others' don't. That kind of attitude can harden resolve not to engage: to many it doesn't come across whimsically droll, just catty.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
Unfortunately this all really tends to come across as, the sin YOU do is so bad that you can't be part of my church, but the sin I do is forgivable because I'm straight.
I used to be part of a fairly fundamentalist church, and they have a lead minister who is on his third marriage. All of his ex-wives are alive, and there are lots of children and step-children involved who have been deeply hurt. He and the church have used Scripture to justify why he's been divorced so many times and asked the church to forgive his wrongdoings. According to him, he was the cause of the marital breakdowns. And yet they kick out anyone involved in homosexuality - this not only excludes one from leadership but from membership. No gay people allowed - end of story.
I am sure if you look at most anti-gay churches in the US you will find people who have committed a litany of heterosexual sins in the pews and at the pulpit.
So what's worse - the hypocrisy of only enforcing sexual morality on gay people, or allowing gay people in monogamous Christ-oriented relationships to share in the fellowship of other believes and let God decide?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I used to be part of a fairly fundamentalist church, and they have a lead minister who is on his third marriage. All of his ex-wives are alive, and there are lots of children and step-children involved who have been deeply hurt. He and the church have used Scripture to justify why he's been divorced so many times and asked the church to forgive his wrongdoings. According to him, he was the cause of the marital breakdowns. And yet they kick out anyone involved in homosexuality - this not only excludes one from leadership but from membership. No gay people allowed - end of story.
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
Generally Christians show at least some concern about not putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of people coming to the gospel (particularly young people - cf Mat 18:6). Often salvation is considered the (only) important thing, and so non-essential teachings that drive people away from Christ are generally minimised. I doubt many people think that teachings on homosexuality are a core gospel matter or essential for salvation. Do you think they are? Even people who would like to see the church remain "faithful to scripture" in terms of maintaining unwavering opposition to homosexuality, surely have to accept that at some point driving people away in large numbers is unhelpful to some of the church's basic goals, and that acceptance of homosexuality is not nearly as harmful to the church as having no members left in the congregation.
I’m sure that there are people who believe that one of the church’s basic goals is to ensure that as many people as possible enjoy salvation and inherit the Kingdom of God, and that if the church were to accept and endorse behaviour which leads to exclusion from the Kingdom of God, it would have abandoned its goals and its very reason for existence.
And I’m sure that there are people who believe that teachings on homosexuality are essential for salvation (based on 1Cor.6:9-10), and therefore that the acceptance of homosexual behaviour would indeed be harmful to the church. Better a church that has very few members which teaches the words of eternal life than a popular church that teaches the words of eternal death. That’s why this subject provokes such intense arguments –it really is considered to be a matter of (eternal) life and death.
Angus
I have personally heard Wallace Benn say such things, so certainly such attitudes exist in certain corners of the CoE.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Also more generally - please can we refrain from referring to a binary homosexual/heterosexual division of sexuality? Sexuality is much more fluid than that and bisexual erasure is a thing. Bisexual, pansexual and otherwise queer people exist so please don't ignore us.
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
I think everyone should be forgiven, but I do not think the New Testament intends for someone whose home life is in such disarray (he's divorced the second wife and married the third over the past 2 years, and remained in leadership the entire time) should be at the helm of a church.
I've seen a few cases where (usually male) church leadership is allowed to remain in position while dealing with infidelity, divorce, porn addiction, alcohol/drug addiction (not just in my old church but in others) and these are all evangelical places where homosexuality is 100% forbidden.
It sends a very nasty message to young Christians who are perhaps realizing that they are gay. It's OK to be in church or lead in church if you're up to your eyeballs in sin as long as you make a big show of repenting, but you can never, ever, be accepted if you are gay, even if you conduct your love life with the same standards that the Bible expects of straight people. It's hypocritical.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
[QUOTE]I think that the point is that relationships are seen to be judged by the church on an axis straight/ gay which people find increasingly meaningless as opposed to an axis long-lasting/ ephemeral.
That may be so for some but where's the proof?
I'm not convinced that "people" care that much about others' relationships at whatever level - it's a "me" world.
What doesn't add to the debate are leo's chums claiming they have something others' don't. That kind of attitude can harden resolve not to engage: to many it doesn't come across whimsically droll, just catty.
The point is that lots of gay relationships (certainly not all of them) offer a model of self-sacrificing fidelity which mirrors the relationship between Christ and His Church. And plenty of straight relationships (certainly not all of them) don't.
I realise that I am banging my head against a brick wall here but, in over a decade posting on these boards has no-one has ever explained to me in which part of a relationship which models the greater love hath no man than this bit between two people of the same gender is intrinsically evil. In what part of their love does the sin, the evil reside. What compromises their relationship so that it can never, despite any heights of mutual self giving or self-sacrificial love, ever be valid or meaningful? All you ever get back is an opaque fundamentalism plus some shit about how we need to be respectful of some African homophobe or other.
Why the hell shouldn't gay people get slightly snarky about people playing fast and loose with their souls and civil rights in a way we wouldn't tolerate in a moment if it were black people or Jewish people we were dealing with? Give us a credible argument or, as Malcolm Tucker would say, fuck the fuck off.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Not at all saying I agree with the policy of your former church, but I guess the difference is one of repentance. The lead minister has acknowledged mistakes on his part and sought the church's forgiveness (although, of course, one might wish to question his sincerity, but that's a separate point I think) whereas a Christian in a faithful same-gender relationship most likely believes they have nothing to seek forgiveness for. Which would be seen by the church as unacknowledged and unrepented sin.
I think everyone should be forgiven, but I do not think the New Testament intends for someone whose home life is in such disarray (he's divorced the second wife and married the third over the past 2 years, and remained in leadership the entire time) should be at the helm of a church.
I've seen a few cases where (usually male) church leadership is allowed to remain in position while dealing with infidelity, divorce, porn addiction, alcohol/drug addiction (not just in my old church but in others) and these are all evangelical places where homosexuality is 100% forbidden.
It sends a very nasty message to young Christians who are perhaps realizing that they are gay. It's OK to be in church or lead in church if you're up to your eyeballs in sin as long as you make a big show of repenting, but you can never, ever, be accepted if you are gay, even if you conduct your love life with the same standards that the Bible expects of straight people. It's hypocritical.
At least the hypocrisy was open for all to see. You certainly couldn't claim to be fooled, could you? In most churches the situation would be a lot more opaque than that.
BTW, I'm impressed that this pastor was so utterly brilliant at his job (including the begging for forgiveness part) that his disastrous personal life was considered to be of little consequence. If, as is often the case, we follow someone's example rather than listening to their words, we might all potentially be inspired by someone like him, regardless of our sexuality....
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
BTW, I'm impressed that this pastor was so utterly brilliant at his job (including the begging for forgiveness part) that his disastrous personal life was considered to be of little consequence. If, as is often the case, we follow someone's example rather than listening to their words, we might all potentially be inspired by someone like him, regardless of our sexuality....
He's a minor celebrity - former professional athlete. I think that many of his, um, merits are based on his ability to attract new members on the back of his local renown.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This sounds like a political problem to me, rather than a specifically religious one. When it comes to politics, everyone's allowed to try and 'win the debate'.
The point of a liberal democracy is that if you lose the debate it shouldn't be catastrophic. This is why liberal democracies aren't very corrupt and are incredibly stable compared to other systems. It's never winner takes all and if you lose this round you can come back the next time.
There are two exceptions to this where it is winner takes all. The first is a coup (normally a self-coup). The second is where one side is claiming that the other quite literally shouldn't be full members of the society and shouldn't have rights.
quote:
In secularising countries like ours purely religious arguments are likely to lose, sooner or later.
Indeed. And they will lose and deservedly so so for two reasons.
1: The religious argument is claiming that LBGTQ people are not full citizens and shouldn't have the rights others do. This is the one argument that is anathema to a liberal democracy.
2: Those running the purely religious argument are claiming that their religion should have a veto over the rights of others, and therefore no one who does not share their religion is a full citizen with equal rights. This is even more anathema as it is neither more nor less than an attempt to disenfranchise everyone not agreeing with their religion.
The claim that marriage is a religious and not a secular institution amounts to nothing less than an attempted religious coup (arguably self-coup by Canterbury in Britain) by giving one group of people an absolute veto over the law.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm inclined to think that the CofE, along with the other churches, should probably get out of the marriage business. The fact that the churches have a stake in who has legally-binding marriages surely adds to their confusion - they naturally think that what they say should be of importance to a post-Christian country. I think we Christians need to disabuse ourselves of this idea.
I also think we should disestablish the CofE, and then it wouldn't get ideas above its station. (Having a 'coup', indeed!) But that's for another discussion.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
I am inclined to favour the model of Germany and many other European countries - everyone gets an official civil wedding, and then you can add a religious service if you want to do so.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Horeseman Bree and mousethief
With the recent sniping exchanges, it looks like you're starting to move into Commandment 3/4 territory. You know the guidelines; best to back off or take it to Hell.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
Roger Wilco.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Similarly, I've decided to stop posting here for just that reason.
Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
[Content deleted to save space - see earlier post for full text]
I have personally heard Wallace Benn say such things, so certainly such attitudes exist in certain corners of the CoE.
It is a pleasure to hear a report of a CofE bishop promoting the teaching of Jesus: 'Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few’ (Matt.7:13-14 ESV)
--------------
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
[Content deleted to save space – see earlier post for full text]
I think everyone should be forgiven, but I do not think the New Testament intends for someone whose home life is in such disarray (he's divorced the second wife and married the third over the past 2 years, and remained in leadership the entire time) should be at the helm of a church.
I've seen a few cases where (usually male) church leadership is allowed to remain in position while dealing with infidelity, divorce, porn addiction, alcohol/drug addiction (not just in my old church but in others) and these are all evangelical places where homosexuality is 100% forbidden.
It sends a very nasty message to young Christians who are perhaps realizing that they are gay. It's OK to be in church or lead in church if you're up to your eyeballs in sin as long as you make a big show of repenting, but you can never, ever, be accepted if you are gay, even if you conduct your love life with the same standards that the Bible expects of straight people. It's hypocritical.
seekingsister, I completely agree with your reply to SCK. Selecting one form of perceived immorality for total condemnation while glossing over and excusing other forms is intolerable injustice. The whole area of the discipline of those in the church (and especially church leadership) who have done wrong is one where the church in general has major failings.
--------------
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
...
I realise that I am banging my head against a brick wall here but, in over a decade posting on these boards has no-one has ever explained to me in which part of a relationship which models the greater love hath no man than this bit between two people of the same gender is intrinsically evil. In what part of their love does the sin, the evil reside. What compromises their relationship so that it can never, despite any heights of mutual self giving or self-sacrificial love, ever be valid or meaningful? All you ever get back is an opaque fundamentalism plus some shit about how we need to be respectful of some African homophobe or other.
...
Give us a credible argument or, as Malcolm Tucker would say, fuck the fuck off.
OK, I’ll try, though I don’t know if this argument has already been proposed. Whether it is credible or not depends on the judgement of the reader, and it relates to an area of theology that has been debated intensely for centuries.
In the account of the creation of mankind in Genesis 1 we read: (vv.26,27): ‘Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion ...”. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them’ (ESV)
or, in the translation by Robert Alter (Genesis, translation and commentary. Norton, 1996):
‘And God said, “Let us make a human in our image, by our likeness, to hold sway over ...”. And God created the human in his image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them’.
(I’ll avoid the tangent of discussing the various translations of the Hebrew ’adam in a generic context – whether it should be man/mankind/human etc.)
In v.27, the image of God is said to be represented in the human/man (subsequently referred to as ‘him’) before the following phrase explaining the differentiation into male and female. So while both male and female in their separate being represent an image of God by derivation from the human/man, they also re-create the image of God in their re-uniting into one being.
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’ – the latter not just being a coy way of referring to physical sexual congress, but also to the ontological re-creation of the human/man made in God’s image. So the closest representation of God’s image that we have in human existence is in the heteroerotic union of male and female.
I particularly favour the very high status that this understanding gives to sex, in total contradiction of the Augustinian view of sex as dirty, which has pervaded and polluted the church for centuries – to much detrimental effect. Two other factors appear to me to support such a high view of sexual relations. Firstly, a usual – though not necessary – consequence is the creation of new life, an act closely demonstrating God’s nature. Secondly, sex is the one aspect of human nature that the Enemy loves to degrade and spoil above all others, and there’s plenty of evidence of that in the world. The Enemy loves to spoil anything godly in God’s creation. (And I’m intrigued to throw into the mix the insight from anthropology that, in humans, sex is primarily about pair-bonding and secondarily about procreation. This matches my view that in spiritual terms, sex is about the re-creation of the image of God in the physical union of becoming ‘one flesh’, and then secondarily about imaging God by the creation of new life.)
So I suggest that it is because of the exceptionally high value, status, and associations of heteroerotic relations that God regards various forms of sexual immorality with such disfavour. Therefore, along with other unacceptable sexual acts, the homoerotic union of male with male is a mockery (maybe even a desecration) of the image of God. That’s why God regards it as so unacceptable. And in case readers haven’t picked it up yet, what I represent as unacceptable to God is homoerotic behaviour, not homosexual desires as such.
It would be remiss of me to post this theoretical discussion without any acknowledgement of the pastoral implications. But, as I have gone on for long enough already, I just want to point out that I am far from ignorant of or insensitive to the feelings of people for whom it has great relevance. I really do feel the tension between showing compassion to people, and attempting to represent accurately what God has revealed.
Angus
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
A Pilgrim
I'm astonished to read of the thoughts of Wallace Benn on moral issues are being quoted favourably.
So we take as our moral guide someone who knew of a predatory, active paedophile but didn't think to report him to the police?
Unbelievable.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
It is a pleasure to hear a report of a CofE bishop promoting the teaching of Jesus: 'Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few’ (Matt.7:13-14 ESV)
So why is the gate narrow for gay people and wider for straights?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
There was a time when the CofE was regarded with mild micky-taking affection by the media: All Gas and Gaiters; The Vicar of Dibley; to an extent Rev. The attittude to women and gays will turn the attitude from seeing the church as being benign, or mildly and kindly ineffectual, to being seen as toxic.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
And yet there are probably more women and gay clergy than ever before.
PR is (almost) everything, but churches tend to be extraordinarily bad at it.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
More women yes, but gay? Probably about the same percentage wise- or a smaller amount as the clergy is smaller.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
Meant to add - in the Hebrew text, the term for God alters between singular and dual throughout - Walter Bruegemann suggests that this is 'playfully' teasing us to consider that there is more to God's 'image' than appears on the surface.
Also, in terms of our calling, we are called to imitate Christ, the second Adam, not the first one, so Genesis 1 - 3 have nothing to say about discipleship through sexuality for Christians.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
sebby
I was reading a while back that gay men are overrepresented in church in general. There's the stereotype that a disproportionate number of the clergy are gay, but of course, this could be mostly because kiss-and-tell stories on this topic are very appealing to the media rather than because of actual numbers. Still, I have come across a number of fictional and true-life accounts that seem to emphasise rather than undermine the broad presence of gay clergy.
The paradox of both high participation and potential exclusion seems not to be noted by most commentators, and the judgmental general public don't connect the dots at all. Mind you, if it were discussed it would probably be rather like black slaves and their descendants in the Americas being criticised for taking on their white oppressors' religion.
[ 08. March 2014, 14:10: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The paradox of both high participation and potential exclusion seems not to be noted by most commentators, and the judgmental general public don't connect the dots at all.
It's not a paradox, it's the logic of the closet. If you're gay and a member of an anti-gay organization the usual tactic is to be even more anti-gay than the organizational baseline. How many stories have we come across recently where some anti-gay clergyman or activist turns up cruising gay bars or hiring prostitutes of the same sex?
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Croesos - that's really not true in the CofE - there are churches that are very gay-friendly and open, where the clergy are openly gay. There are other churches where the anti-gay groups hold sway - some of the local Reform aligned churches come to mind. There are dioceses where the bishop had an annual get together of the gay clergy and their partners - that bishop was a patron of Changing Attitudes.
But, there is enough anti-gay sentiment within the CofE, particularly now, that I'm not naming names or putting churches in jeopardy where I know they are led by partnered gay clergy.
And Wallace Benn was reported to be homophobic in the linked story, but I have heard worse comments bandied about.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
1) the term is intersex, not hermaphrodite
2) intersex and bisexual are not mutually-exclusive categories
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos - that's really not true in the CofE - there are churches that are very gay-friendly and open, where the clergy are openly gay. There are other churches where the anti-gay groups hold sway - some of the local Reform aligned churches come to mind. There are dioceses where the bishop had an annual get together of the gay clergy and their partners - that bishop was a patron of Changing Attitudes.
But, there is enough anti-gay sentiment within the CofE, particularly now, that I'm not naming names or putting churches in jeopardy where I know they are led by partnered gay clergy.
And Wallace Benn was reported to be homophobic in the linked story, but I have heard worse comments bandied about.
I can't comment on Wallace Benn's homophobia or lack of it (although as I said, I have personally heard him say that endorsing/affirming 'practicing homosexuality' puts salvation at risk which is getting pretty close to the mark), but I spent many years in his diocesan area (not sure of the precise term for the area covered by a suffragan bishop?) and there is deep homophobia in many churches there. None of this was challenged by him.
The context, by the way, was a talk discussing the issues of homosexuality and women's ordination in the CoE. He was talking to differentiate between the issues - that endorsing non-celibacy amongst gay people puts salvation at risk, but endorsing the ordination of women doesn't. Maybe about 6 years ago now.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But, there is enough anti-gay sentiment within the CofE, particularly now, that I'm not naming names or putting churches in jeopardy where I know they are led by partnered gay clergy.
I don't know how 'chummy' CofE clergy are normally expected to be with their congregations, but find it hard to believe that churches can flourish and thrive when the clergy and laity aren't on the same page theologically, and when there's a lack of warmth and openness between them.
In the long term perhaps the problems sort themselves out naturally as mismatched clergy-laity pairings result in some churches becoming less appealing and so less viable.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
1) the term is intersex, not hermaphrodite
2) intersex and bisexual are not mutually-exclusive categories
Fair enough and thank you. I have more work to do on this issue but my substantial point still stands that you can't use Genesis 1-3 to bash LGBTQIs.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
Very rarely do I agree with Leo, or find much value in what he says, but this comment struck a chord with me.
I think its a rather tenuous interpretation of that particular scripture, but nevertheless the sentiment is one I can relate to, indeed one upon which I am now living my life.
For yes, I do prefer someone of my own sex to be my partner. I believe this is the way God made me. Its messy because formerly I was in a heterosexual marriage, so there is fall-out. But I believe I have more integrity now than when I was 'pretending' to be straight, and I hope it is not too bold to say that I think God understands. Thankfully I am in a church where some people seem to understand as well.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But, there is enough anti-gay sentiment within the CofE, particularly now, that I'm not naming names or putting churches in jeopardy where I know they are led by partnered gay clergy.
I don't know how 'chummy' CofE clergy are normally expected to be with their congregations, but find it hard to believe that churches can flourish and thrive when the clergy and laity aren't on the same page theologically, and when there's a lack of warmth and openness between them.
In the long term perhaps the problems sort themselves out naturally as mismatched clergy-laity pairings result in some churches becoming less appealing and so less viable.
I think (but please correct me if I am wrong) that Curiosity was talking about gay partnered clergy being at risk of harassment from other clergy, not their congregations.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
1) the term is intersex, not hermaphrodite
2) intersex and bisexual are not mutually-exclusive categories
Fair enough and thank you. I have more work to do on this issue but my substantial point still stands that you can't use Genesis 1-3 to bash LGBTQIs.
Oh definitely agreed on your main point, I just knew that you would want to know the right terms. Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Also it's worth pointing out that gender and sex are different and that many (probably most) genderqueer/genderfluid/non-binary people are not intersex. So I'm not sure which would be the best description of Adam here - possibly non-binary since that can cover both sex and gender here.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Where do you get that interpretation from?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’
The story also describes how God gave Adam a choice - God offered him various animals. It was only when Adam rejected those that he created isha-woman. That creation was from his 'side' (Rib in Hebrew also means hillside) and Adam became ish-man.
Two thing, therefore:
God created Adam as some sort of hermaphrodite or bisexual
God intended humans to choose - so if a person prefers someone of their own sex to be their partner, then that is in accordance with god's original plan.
1) the term is intersex, not hermaphrodite
2) intersex and bisexual are not mutually-exclusive categories
Fair enough and thank you. I have more work to do on this issue but my substantial point still stands that you can't use Genesis 1-3 to bash LGBTQIs.
Oh definitely agreed on your main point, I just knew that you would want to know the right terms. Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Also it's worth pointing out that gender and sex are different and that many (probably most) genderqueer/genderfluid/non-binary people are not intersex. So I'm not sure which would be the best description of Adam here - possibly non-binary since that can cover both sex and gender here.
Spectrum - definitely - not just of humans but of God if the Hebrew is taken seriously (the translators never understood so translated according to their blinkered view.) A linguist takes the whole thing apart: Kjeld Renato Lings - A fresh approach to Homosexuality and the Bible
Re- binary and the difference between sex and gender, I am still trying desperately to catch up - currently, my brain and my guts tell me different things.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Kjeld Renato Lings - A fresh approach to Homosexuality and the Bible
To update - that was a paper - it became a huge book: Love Lost in Translation: Homosexuality and the Bible
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Where do you get that interpretation from?
From that being the actual meaning of the Hebrew used.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Leo - re the difference between sex and gender, that is the experience of trans, non-binary and other gender-variant people. Gender-abolitionist perspectives have done immense harm to those people. Whatever your brain and gut tell you, the most important thing is to listen to those who have experienced the differences between sex and gender.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I find it a bit disturbing that two thirds of young people who abandon Christianity don't cite anti-gay policies.
I imagine the current rate is much higher than one-third, because that statistic averages across a group of people who have abandoned Christianity in the last ~20 years, and in many areas gay-rights have only become a serious issue of contention very recently. So I agree with the answer Justinian gave: "Although to answer Dafyd my reason for leaving the Church in the mid 90s was I simply thought it was full of codswallop. Millenials aren't all recent leavers and the Church's homophobia wasn't as out of step then as it is now."
A lot of churches particularly take the view that same-sex love is Not A Fit Subject For Talking About And Particularly Not For The Ears Of Our Children, and take some pains to hide discussion of it (and consequently their own ongoing discrimination against it) from the ears of their young people.
I think the one big thing that has saved the church thus far is that millennials are largely unaware of the extent of the church's anti-gay policies. Most young people simply have absolutely no idea of the extent to which (a) their current church has discriminatory policies; (b) the extent to which Christians over the last 100 years in the Western world have institutionalised, maintained, and defended discriminatory laws; and (c) the extent to which Christians over the last 2000 years have persecuted and executed gay people in the name of Christianity.
If the church is feeling suicidal, the best thing it could do would be to advertise its anti-gay policies to its young people. Go on bishops, tell your young people what you really think: I dare you! [Warning: Don't actually do this. If you preach an anti-gay sermon in a youth service you may be assaulted.]
To share my own view on the subject, as a millennial:
I spent the first 25 years of my life in and around various churches and Christian groups without ever hearing anything much in the way of a position or teaching on homosexuality. In hindsight this was not because those groups lacked strong anti-homosexuality views among the older people in leadership positions, it is simply because they never shared those views with me. Being rather over-educated and also interested in theology and biblical interpretation, I happened to be aware that there were differing views on the interpretation of biblical passages that touched on homosexuality, but I held extremely misguided assumptions about the comparative popularity of different views and what church policies were in practice.
I took it for granted that Christianity was fundamentally about love, compassion, and helping those oppressed and in need, and to stand up for those who were being persecuted and discriminated against. So I took it for granted that the Christian attitude toward homosexuals would be affirming and supportive of them and their rights. On the extremely rare occasion that discussion ever ventured onto the topic of homosexuality, my dozen closest Christian friends of my own age made it clear to me that they shared my views, and thus I completely assumed that those same views were shared by all Christians and the church in general. On those occasions on which I saw any news articles informing me of an ongoing fight for gay rights, I simply assumed and took it for granted that the vast majority of Christians would be the ones fighting for rights for gays, just as they would fight for any oppressed minority group, and that any Christians who happened to be persecuting gays would be a tiny minority of Christians.
My generation, probably far more than any before it, has grown up hearing continuously just how wrong discrimination against minority groups is. We learned in schools of how in colonial days the native peoples were disenfranchised, and we think "that was wrong, but they didn't seem to know any better centuries ago." We learned of how they thought some races were inferior to others and made them slaves, and we think "that was wrong, but they didn't seem to know any better centuries ago." We learned of how they didn't use to let women vote, or be properly educated, or get proper jobs, and we think "that was wrong, but they didn't seem to know any better back then" and though we know in our heads that equality for women was something that happened in the last century, it was a fight largely over before we were born and so it might as well have been centuries ago as far as we are concerned. We learned of how people never used to like interracial marriage and we think "that was wrong, but they didn't seem to know any better back then" and again are glad to see such evil behind us. Or we look at the Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan and shake our head at the utter stupidity and evil of those who lived in the past, and again feel thanks that we live in a society that has equal rights for all and is free from prejudice and persecution.
We tell ourselves that had we lived in the time of slavery we would have put a stop to it, because denying people rights is totally unacceptable. We tell ourselves that we wouldn't have stood by and done nothing when women were denied the right to vote, when blacks or Jews were persecuted. We would have acted to stop it! And so we congratulate ourselves for being morally better than the previous generations and living in a world where human rights have been given to all, and prejudice has been eradicated. I think a lot of people don't fully realise the vast extent to which that narrative and pattern of thinking permeates my generation. We really do assume a status of moral superiority, have been trained to have loathing and contempt for discrimination and prejudice, and sincerely believe that had we lived in the bad old days of evil that we would have acted to fix it. Those millennials who are Christians also take it for granted that this type of viewpoint and thinking represents the ultimate achievement of Christianity - there is a pervasive view that Christianity has been at work through all these things over the last 2000 years, with its teachings of love and equality fighting to overcome human rights abuses and discrimination - the lack of discrimination and prejudice in the present is assumed by many Christian young people to be due to Christianity being against such things.
Now I think the older generations have a right to scoff and say "those young people were born into a world of our creating, who are they to be self-righteous and take any sort of credit for living in a world that respects human rights and equality?" And I think that is a fair point, and suspect that on the whole that millennials have a unjustifiable tendency towards congratulating themselves on how good the world is compared to the past, when its a world that is not of their making. But I think the older generations often make a serious mistake and misjudge how millennials would actually react if they were sent into the past to live in a situation where injustice was occurring. The older generations see millennials saying "well if we had lived in those times, we wouldn't have tolerated slavery for a second" and the older generations laugh up their sleeves at such statements and say "of course you wouldn't dear, of course you wouldn't" while actually thinking that of course millennials would have fallen just as much a victim to the evils of ancient times as the people living in those times did. And I am completely convinced the older generation is very wrong about this. Older generations were taught to respect authority, to accept the status quo, to not speak out, to accept that it was okay for some people to suffer for the greater good of society, and were not at all as thoroughly trained to seek out and destroy discrimination and prejudice. When people imagine how they would act in a certain situation over and over and over and over again, then it becomes a habit, and when you put them in that situation they almost inevitably act exactly how they'd planned because they've rehearsed it and so the behaviour comes naturally. The stories people tell themselves about how they will act become reality. And so millennials are a generation which greatly values equal rights and who have utterly convinced themselves that if they themselves ever had lived in a time of any discrimination or prejudice they would have attacked it with a vehemence until it was absolutely and completely eradicated.
Against that background of thought, we then have the modern church, who comes along and tells millennials: "hey, there is this minority group, called gays. They are bad. They should be publicly discriminated against to prevent people wanting to be gay. Their human rights should be restricted. They shouldn't be allowed the right to marry. They shouldn't be allowed the right to have or adopt children. They should be fired from their jobs. Ideally they should be put in prison."
And the general millennial response to that is to assume the church isn't serious. It is treated as a joke. Because millennials know they live in a society where there are human rights for all and that discrimination is decades and centuries behind us, and that what little vestigates of racism still remain are something to be embarrassed about when it comes out of the mouth of senile grandma. So millennials will literally laugh or snigger when they first hear churches spout anti-gay stuff because they simply really and truly assume it's a joke, because they really don't believe it could be meant seriously.
Then if the church keeps at it and make it clear that they are serious and that they really are going to try and engage in real and actual discrimination in the modern world, then the millennials will go into shock. There is a feeling of unreality, of disconnection, that the world isn't what we all assumed it was. The millennial may simply absolutely refuse to budge and say "nope, there's no way you can do that! Unfire that gay person right this instant, and I'm going to occupy your church/school in protest until you do! This is not a subject for discussion, you'll do it and you'll do it now." At this stage of the process a lot of millennials simply discontinue membership of the Christian organisation spouting the hate, or all Christian organisations. This helps solve the cognitive dissonance, and to some extent allows the millennial to hide from the fact that the world isn't at all the way they thought it was. Either the process may end there with the young person having left the church and being a bit confused about the state of the world, or it can continue with the young person engaging in active research about what the church is actually doing to gay people.
If the church is stupid enough to continue to parade its anti-gay discriminatory teachings in front of the shocked millennial, or the young person does their own research to find out what the church is actually doing and has done on the subject... then the next stage is rage. Pure utter, white hot rage. How dare they.
Telling a millennial that it's a good idea to discriminate against a particular minority group is basically a red rag to a bull. The millennial has been trained all their life to find discrimination morally reprehensible, has told themselves all their lives that they would never stand for it, has utterly convinced themselves that they would never rest until such evils were stamped out if they had lived in such a society... and then they are shown an ongoing instance of serious discrimination in their own city... I think the older generation really has absolutely no idea of the level of sheer rage that will result from poking millennials with the cattle-prod of anti-gay discrimination. People know that waving a red flag in front of a bull puts one in serious physical danger, but they don't actually seem to realise how millennials react to discrimination.
I think all that is standing between the church and an utterly enraged generation is that millennials are largely unaware of the church's anti-gay policies. Also, the church is currently benefiting from the fact that the vast majority of millennials are not yet old enough and powerful enough to do anything about it. But there is a generation about to mature that has been trained to absolutely loathe discrimination and to exterminate and eradicate it wherever they find it by any and all means necessary. I am surprised that there have not yet been any news items of churches being burned down or anti-gay preachers assaulted or killed. If the church continues anti-gay teachings over the next two decades, it will be subjected by millennials to absolute extermination, with no more compunction than they would have for poisoning a wasp nest or eradicating the Ku Klux Klan. Laws utterly prohibiting discrimination will be enacted, people will go to prison for discrimination, and churches will be closed if necessary. As much as older generation squirms now about their religious freedoms being infringed on, it will be as nothing compared to the fire of a thousand suns when millennials mature and get into power. I don't think that is so much a prediction as an observation - I can see the tidal wave coming because I'm just at the edge of it, apparently the older generation hasn't realised it exists and has no clue about the danger they are actually in.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
OK, I’ll try, though I don’t know if this argument has already been proposed. Whether it is credible or not depends on the judgement of the reader, and it relates to an area of theology that has been debated intensely for centuries.
Not credible to the point of being utter nonsense.
With regard to Genesis, I think it is not often enough noted that the primary criteria for the creation of Eve is her similarity to Adam. All the animals were found to be not suitable companions for Adam because they were too dissimilar. Eve, however, being created out of Adam's flesh was sufficiently sufficient to be a companion for him. The implications for the validity of same-sex relationships are rather obvious, yet seem to be always ignored. The Gen 2 account lacks any sort of idea that Adam and Eve are similar but different in complementary ways, and instead it focuses solely on the similarity between the two as the defining criteria.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Where do you get that interpretation from?
From that being the actual meaning of the Hebrew used.
Which lexicon or translation? Author?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I am surprised that there have not yet been any news items of churches being burned down or anti-gay preachers assaulted or killed.
I'm not surprised at all. That's because people who see themselves as tolerant and liberal, people who are dismayed by prejudice, do not generally make a habit of committing extreme violence against other people who hold prejudiced views. People who oppose racism don't go around killing racists. Firstly because that would be wrong and secondly because they are better than that. Only fanatics think it's OK to kill, for example, doctors who perform abortions. (And why single out churches only in this hypothetical example? Wouldn't many mosques be equal targets?)
Anybody serious about fighting discrimination can hardly view violence and murder as acceptable methods of stamping out discrimination. (I'm aware even as I type that of Mandela's actions in the early 1960s ... although I can't endorse his bombing campaign, I do understand why he and his cohort felt driven to it, because of the stubborn brutality of the regime - and anyway, he himself came to a different POV over the years.)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Plus, most people, gay or otherwise, really don't care what 'churches' say most of the time, so why would they suddenly become hyper attentive when various religious spokesmen make remarks about homosexuality?
Angry western clergymen these days are all bark and no bite. They're not 'winning' anything. Politicians are interested in what the people want, not what particular church leaders want. Christians don't have a uniform view about various gay rights issues, so there's no religious 'leader' who can claim to speak for all Christians - not even the Christians in their own denominations. In the UK at least, the most united denominations are probably the smallest and the least politically powerful; but the people who make the political decisions know full well that the mighty CofE is all over the place, no matter what its officials say in public.
So, IMO the gay rights topic mostly proves how weak angry religious spokesmen are in the West nowadays. Maybe in the USA (which is an exception in the Western world) they have more influence over popular mores, but even there things aren't as they were. Is there a more highly sexualised country than the USA, for all the posturing of the Religious Right?
Every country is different, but taking a very broad view, the Western world has only been moving in one direction. Surely it isn't worth assaulting anti-gay clergymen in the face of that reality!
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
Laurelin,
I think millennials differ significantly from the previous generations on the validity of violence as a political method in certain circumstances. I would say there is an extremely strong belief among millennials that violence is an acceptable mechanism for achieving human rights. I think the typical thinking of most millennials would be that only once you have human rights in place do you have civilization, and that then you move forward into a civilized society that has purely non-violent political discussions on other issues.
By contrast, I think previous generations in the 20th century tended to place extreme value on non-violence as a political methodology. Something I see those generations emphasising time and again is their belief in the value of liberal democracies for allowing people to express different and opposing views in a way that does not result in violence. I do not think that viewpoint has been passed on fully to the millennial generation, and I think there has been a subtle shift in thinking towards the view that non-violence is the ideal, but a strong belief that it is not necessarily achievable until human rights have been properly enshrined constitutionally.
Googling for something to disprove or confirm my gut instincts on the views of millennials about the validity of violence as a political methodology yielded this summary which lists one of the values typical of millennials as "Violence is an acceptable means of communication" [!!]. (I don't think I agree that that statement worded that way is true of millenials! Though perhaps I can see why an older person writing an article about millennials might say that...)
quote:
(And why single out churches only in this hypothetical example? Wouldn't many mosques be equal targets?)
I would say there is a tendency among millennials to treat Islam, and also the Catholic church, as somewhat humorous entities in the sense that they are regarded as belonging to the Dark Ages and having neither validity nor relevance in the present. Like a household cat, or a mentally retarded child, they can cause a bit of havoc without a millennial regarding them as being particularly responsible for their own actions. They are allowed a free pass on morality because no one takes them seriously as a moral entity. Most millennials also do not have any personal experience with either one, and it is particularly easy to ignore what you never encounter.
Unlike Islam or Catholicism, Protestant churches seem to be typically regarded by millennials as valid actors in the sphere of morality. They don't have the built-in excuse of "wow, look at their Dark-Ages-equse, historically quaint teachings, aren't they funny?!" (Well okay, the Amish do, they go in the Islam category) So protestant churches typically get held up by millennials to normal standards of moral conduct and measured against them - and of course they are typically found severely wanting. The situation is dramatically worsened by the fact that these same churches are preaching that they are an amazing source of love and morality - because moral hypocrisy tends to anger millenials in and of itself.
So despite the fact that Islam and Catholicism may be far worse offenders they typically do not receive such intense criticism from millennials because they are less well known and viewed as just plain crazy. That's my take on it anyway.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Also I'm sure you know about 'created them male and female' having a meaning more like 'from male to female inclusive', ie supporting a spectrum of gender rather than a binary.
Where do you get that interpretation from?
From that being the actual meaning of the Hebrew used.
Which lexicon or translation? Author?
From the theology department of Manchester University, sorry. But Leo said a similar thing and listed the author, so presumably my ideas are intrinsically suspect because I am not a middle-aged man.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Starlight - I think Islam and Catholicism are also (accurately) seen as cultural as much as religious. I'm a Millenial and we're well-aware that liberal and cafeteria Catholics and Muslims are the majority in the West.
And you know, there aren't special roles for RC bishops or the Muslim equivalent in the House of Lords...
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Starlight, I think you are overlooking the radicalisation of a signficant segment of American youth and young adults of the "Boomer" generation coming of age during the Viet Nam War and the Civil Rights struggles. Many of us approved the use of violence if necessary to achieve our political ends, and a relative few actually implemented programmes of violence.
[ 09. March 2014, 12:13: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
In v.27, the image of God is said to be represented in the human/man (subsequently referred to as ‘him’) before the following phrase explaining the differentiation into male and female. So while both male and female in their separate being represent an image of God by derivation from the human/man, they also re-create the image of God in their re-uniting into one being.
I think (sincerely) this is an interesting allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1-2, but I'd have some reservations about the conclusions you're drawing from it.
a. Firstly ISTM dangerous to assume that because the Bible uses X as a metaphor for God in some passages, therefore X has to be totally immutable so as not to destroy the metaphor. The Psalms use images of God with sword and bow. That doesn't mean our armed forces are perpetually committed to fighting only with swords and bows.
b. Your argument, AIUI, supposes that the fusion of male and female reflects the image of God more closely than either maleness alone or femaleness alone. But that obviously invites the response: What about monks and nuns or celibate clergy? What about people who never find a partner for one reason or another? Are they less in the image of God?
c. Likewise I think you need to show what about the Godhead is more perfectly reflected in the union of a man and a woman than in maleness alone (or femaleness alone). One could say that the union of a man and a woman reflects the Trinity, which also consists of a union of distinct Persons. However the point of the Trinity is that the Persons are the same in their essence. So for a male-female union to reflect the Trinity, then either there must be no essential difference between male and female - in which case, why is there an essential difference between male-male love and male-female love? - or else one must deny that the Persons of the Trinity are of one essence.
d. I don't think that one can hold together the beliefs that i.) the Godhead is best represented as a fusion between male and female, and ii.) it is of more than grammatical significance that the Bible predominantly refers to God in masculine terms. Granted, you haven't espoused view (ii) as far as I'm aware, but a lot of conservatives do.
e. I'd also question whether this is a common interpretation of the passage - it sounds reminiscent of a rather odd book on Hermeticism I once read, rather than classical Christian theology, but I may be wrong.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
sebby
I was reading a while back that gay men are overrepresented in church in general. There's the stereotype that a disproportionate number of the clergy are gay, but of course, this could be mostly because kiss-and-tell stories on this topic are very appealing to the media rather than because of actual numbers. Still, I have come across a number of fictional and true-life accounts that seem to emphasise rather than undermine the broad presence of gay clergy.
The paradox of both high participation and potential exclusion seems not to be noted by most commentators, and the judgmental general public don't connect the dots at all. Mind you, if it were discussed it would probably be rather like black slaves and their descendants in the Americas being criticised for taking on their white oppressors' religion.
That is interesting. 'Judgemental' general public presumably refers to those of a certain age.
I spend my life with the 18-30 age group, most of whom don't have a problem with gay issues in the sightest, and who would regard the church's preoccupation with sex and gender as an incomprehendible bore (if they were ever bothered to think about it at all).
But I have the honour to work with young colleagues of all social classes who take E and D seriously, are not hampered with the absurd
hermenutic of ancient texts, nor have an unpleasant viral puritan gene.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
In this case, the 'judgmental public' are those who criticise the churches for being anti-gay. In British society that probably covers quite a broad age-range.
Startlight's analysis suggests, ironically, that he lives in a fairly 'religious' society. Otherwise, why would the young people there care what 'Protestants' think? I'm reminded of what Nietzsche apparently said about the influence of religion living on for far longer than the 'death of God'.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Whatever your brain and gut tell you, the most important thing is to listen to those who have experienced the differences between sex and gender.
Completely agree and I try to get the opportunity to do so - because it's right to do so and not because the 'church' urges itself to listen and usually fails to do.
BTW am I the 'middle-aged man' referred to above?
If so, that's flattering as i am 62!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Starlight, I think you are overlooking the radicalisation of a signficant segment of American youth and young adults of the "Boomer" generation coming of age during the Viet Nam War and the Civil Rights struggles. Many of us approved the use of violence if necessary to achieve our political ends, and a relative few actually implemented programmes of violence.
Yes, I am nearly 70, and my cohort, well at least some of us, were shouting for the NLF in London in the 60s; in relation to other policies, I thought that we fired up anti-homophobia and feminist campaigns.
Maybe the churches are full of 70 year old homophobes and misogynists, I don't know.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Startlight's analysis suggests, ironically, that he lives in a fairly 'religious' society. Otherwise, why would the young people there care what 'Protestants' think?
Speaking as another Kiwi, I didn't particularly agree with Starlight's analysis. I think if young people think about the church at all, they lump all denominations of Christianity together and tar them all with the same brush. I have not yet met a non-churched person under 25 who would be clear on the differences between being RC and Baptist, for example. They might notice that some ministers/priests wear robes and others wear suits, but beyond that? Zippo.
NZ is a very secular country generally.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Startlight's analysis suggests, ironically, that he lives in a fairly 'religious' society. Otherwise, why would the young people there care what 'Protestants' think? I'm reminded of what Nietzsche apparently said about the influence of religion living on for far longer than the 'death of God'.
I live in New Zealand. Religious rates according to the last census: ~50% No Religion, ~30% Protestant, ~12% Catholic. Though those reporting a religious identity in the census do not necessarily ever attend church. I grew up in a protestant (Baptist) family, so arguably that somewhat biases my own analysis.
I would emphasize, however, that I never said millennials in general regard protestant churches as moral authorities - they certainly don't. I merely said they tend to regard protestant churches as moral actors - ie entities whose standard of conduct can be judged. One of the traits very typical of millennials is an almost complete lack of respect for authority. As this summary puts it, one of the core values typically shared by millennials is that: "Respect must be earned; it is not freely granted based on age, authority or title." In the past the church has laid claim to moral authority and past generations have given respect to the church and taken it for granted that the church is a valid source of moral authority. Millennials tend to find that kind of thing incomprehensible, and tend to find the idea of self-appointed "authorities" humorous. So there is certainly no general thought of "I'm interested in hearing what the church has to say about this moral issue, because I view the church as a moral authority"!
However if a millennial reads a newspaper article and sees person X saying Y about some moral issue Z, then the millennial may judge that person negatively or positively depending on what that person is saying. And that is what I'm thinking of when I say protestant churches are often regarded as valid actors in the sphere of morality - namely that when a millennial reads a statement by them the particular statement may be subjected to moral judgment by the millennial resulting in a more positive or more negative view of the protestant church giving the statement.
As I mentioned, and as I discuss further below, Islam and Catholicism are typically not even considered subjects for moral judgment because they are viewed as entities that are just too silly and/or too vague to render judgment upon and/or too unknown. Because of the low rate of Catholicism in my country, and the high percentage of Catholics who are nominal, most millennials probably know no-one who is an actually-church-attending Catholic (I don't, for example), whereas most millennials do have at least some friends who have attended protestant churches at some point. I also suspect that the majority of millennials in NZ if asked "what does 'the Pope' mean?" wouldn't know the answer. Obviously the situation would be very different in countries which are predominantly Catholic, though most English-speaking Western democracies are not (Ireland being the major exception perhaps?).
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think Islam and Catholicism are also (accurately) seen as cultural as much as religious.
Agreed. Thus comparing Protestantism with Catholicism and Islam is a little tricky because they are not really the same type of entity. More often than not I suspect that if someone identifies as "Catholic" that what they mean is "my parents call themselves Catholic" rather than anything along the lines of "I attend a Catholic church regularly" or "I hold personal beliefs distinctive of Catholics". So it tends to be somewhat of a cultural / family-history designation. That's another reason I think millennials would (justifiably) tend to regard "Islam" and "Catholicism" as not being subject to moral judgments - because you're talking about a cultural entity that is far too vague to say anything too specific about it. And, by contrast, while nominal Christianity is perhaps fairly widespread for the older generations particularly among some denominations (eg Anglican), in my experience most millennials who identify with a specified protestant faith are actually religious and not just nominal Christians.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
I have not yet met a non-churched person under 25 who would be clear on the differences between being RC and Baptist, for example. They might notice that some ministers/priests wear robes and others wear suits, but beyond that? Zippo.
Definitely. Also I suspect that the majority of churched people under 25 would not know the answer beyond "the RCs have funny services and their priests dress up."
I agree with your suggestions that non-churched people in NZ are likely to treat any statements by RC and Baptist leaders the same. However, I think churched people in NZ are likely to dismiss out of hand anything and everything the RC says because they are well aware it spouts nonsense on a continuous basis on sexual and social issues (eg no contraception), while they will actually read statements by other mainline denominations and treat them as legitimate statements of opinion. In my personal case, a year ago I was reading an article about the same-sex marriage legislation and there was a quote from the Catholic leader saying they opposed it and I sniggered at the stupidity of Catholicism in general, and then there was a quote from the Baptist leader against it and I thought "WTF?! YOU SAID WHAT?!"... two very different reactions.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. From the theology department of Manchester University, sorry. But Leo said a similar thing and listed the author, so presumably my ideas are intrinsically suspect because I am not a middle-aged man.
1. That's hardly grounds for overturning two millenia of specific understanding and interpretation.
2. Your ideas aren't suspect at all: I welcome them and actually enjoy them as they make me think. Ideas, though, are ideas and therefore personal opinion. But you didn't express your understanding as an idea, you expressed it as fact.
Even that isn't suspect per se, but it can be if not supported by evidence and source. If it isn't supported it remains an opinion which you, of course, have a right to hold. Equally I'm able to question what you present as fact and request evidence - a useful check, don't you agree, otherwise this site would become another internet hub for urban myths.
3. The ideas of middle aged men are necessarily ok are they? So untouchable that they can't be questioned? Not in my book nor IME. Perhaps you imagine me as a middle aged man and you're trying to have a sarcastic pop at me? If that's true please say so and I can then reply accordingly.
[ 10. March 2014, 07:56: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]
1. From the theology department of Manchester University, sorry. But Leo said a similar thing and listed the author, so presumably my ideas are intrinsically suspect because I am not a middle-aged man.
1. That's hardly grounds for overturning two millenia of specific understanding and interpretation.
Well, yes, it might.
For most of the past 2,000 years:
The New Testament authors used the Greek Septuagint
After 400 years, people used Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
It isn't until the reformation that people start going to the Hebrew - BUT they've been conditioned by 1600 years of tradition based on a translation of a translation - so when they translated the Hebrew, these assumptions coloured much of their guesswork when it came to obscure passages, of which Genesis 1-3 and the H code in Leviticus are prime examples.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
However, I think churched people in NZ are likely to dismiss out of hand anything and everything the RC says because they are well aware it spouts nonsense on a continuous basis on sexual and social issues (eg no contraception), while they will actually read statements by other mainline denominations and treat them as legitimate statements of opinion.
Actually, the Catholics are rather good on social issues outside sexual ethics. I listen to them quite enthusiastically on issues of child poverty, education and social welfare generally. And they're out there doing something about it.
I have a lot of respect for the nuns I know (and to be honest, they get pissed off about the nonsense spouted about sexuality as well). I have met one really obnoxious priest who preached a furiously anti-gay sermon at a heterosexual wedding and nearly caused a walk out by the choir and their gay director (the couple looked a bit sick as well, so I'm guessing they had no idea he was going to vomit in public). Most of the priests I know are cautiously supportive of gay and lesbian people.
I don't have a dog in the fight, given I am no longer a church goer (was Presbyterian), but I've found protestant ministers much nastier in person than Catholic priests and nuns. If you're talking about the public pronouncements, there's not much to pick between them.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The New Testament authors used the Greek Septuagint
After 400 years, people used Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
It isn't until the reformation that people start going to the Hebrew
That's blatantly false. NT uses a variety of OT sources. Some looks like what later became Septuagint. Some seems to be direct from Hebrew. Some is distinctly obscure. Maybe it is quoted from memory, maybe now-lost Aramaic versions.
Of course as Temple-worshipping Synagogue-attending Jews, Jesus and the disciples would have used the Hebrew. Jews of the diaspora may have used Greek. As is clear from the NT depictions of synagogue services (which, for what its worth, are our oldest extant eyewitnesses to synagogue life).
Jerome translated direct from Hebrew and added bits from Greek later. So the Vulgate is intermediate between a modern translation from Hebrew and the Septuagint tradition.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I never said millennials in general regard protestant churches as moral authorities - they certainly don't. I merely said they tend to regard protestant churches as moral actors - ie entities whose standard of conduct can be judged. One of the traits very typical of millennials is an almost complete lack of respect for authority. As this summary puts it, one of the core values typically shared by millennials is that: "Respect must be earned; it is not freely granted based on age, authority or title." In the past the church has laid claim to moral authority and past generations have given respect to the church and taken it for granted that the church is a valid source of moral authority. Millennials tend to find that kind of thing incomprehensible, and tend to find the idea of self-appointed "authorities" humorous. So there is certainly no general thought of "I'm interested in hearing what the church has to say about this moral issue, because I view the church as a moral authority"!
I agree with you here.
quote:
However if a millennial reads a newspaper article and sees person X saying Y about some moral issue Z, then the millennial may judge that person negatively or positively depending on what that person is saying. And that is what I'm thinking of when I say protestant churches are often regarded as valid actors in the sphere of morality - namely that when a millennial reads a statement by them the particular statement may be subjected to moral judgment by the millennial resulting in a more positive or more negative view of the protestant church giving the statement.
As I mentioned, and as I discuss further below, Islam and Catholicism are typically not even considered subjects for moral judgment because they are viewed as entities that are just too silly and/or too vague to render judgment upon and/or too unknown. Because of the low rate of Catholicism in my country, and the high percentage of Catholics who are nominal, most millennials probably know no-one who is an actually-church-attending Catholic (I don't, for example), whereas most millennials do have at least some friends who have attended protestant churches at some point.v
This is perhaps where your experience in NZ might differ from that of someone in Great Britain. I don't get any particular sense that young British people are likely to view the RCC as lesser than Protestantism. IMO the main PR problem for the RCC at the moment is the stream of stories about child-abusing priests, but in terms of church allegiance more people attend RC Mass every Sunday than attend CofE churches. (This figure is boosted by immigration, but the same could be said for other churches as well.)
The age profile in independent evangelical Protestantism is lower than either the RCC or the CofE, but the main reality is that few young people in England, Wales or Scotland are likely to have significant awareness of or connection to any form of church, and if they do, it could involve any of them. Some young people get their knowledge from having attended church schools, which are mostly RC or CofE.
Regarding Islam, the UK is likely to be very different from NZ. Many of our large cities have considerable numbers of Muslims (mostly of Asian or African origins), with a lower age profile than Christians. Some estimates suggest that in a few decades there will be more practising Muslims than churchgoing Christians here, but this will be more due to natural increase rather than to conversions. I don't know what non-Muslim youngsters think of Islam. There's hostility borne of the poor job prospects in some multicultural areas, but OTOH people often just accept the cultural differences they see as they're growing up. People in all-white areas might be more wary.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[QUOTE]Well, yes, it might.
For most of the past 2,000 years:
The New Testament authors used the Greek Septuagint
After 400 years, people used Jerome's Latin Vulgate.
It isn't until the reformation that people start going to the Hebrew - BUT they've been conditioned by 1600 years of tradition based on a translation of a translation - so when they translated the Hebrew, these assumptions coloured much of their guesswork when it came to obscure passages, of which Genesis 1-3 and the H code in Leviticus are prime examples.
So we can throw tradition out at this point but we can't do so when it demands, for example, that priests dress in such bizarre ways?
People went back to the Hebrew way before the Reformation. Leo you are practicing eisegesis on this text: you're coming it at it looking for the meaning you want instead of allowing it to speak for itself. The so called obscure passages are only obscure if you find the translation difficulty in terms of its demands on you personally.
Perhaps you ought to revisit your hermeneutics training ....
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
But they had the mindset of centuries of teaching from the translation of a translation of a translation (Latin - Greek - Hebrew.)
What do you make of Leviticus 18:22
אִשָּׁ֑ה מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י וְאֶ֨ת־ זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב
+ With male* not lie the lyings woman
* male –not man – so maybe referring to male children
Every other use of אִשָּׁ֑ה in Leviticus refers to incest. When Paul writes about this verse in1 Corinthians, it follows a condemnation of incest.
Is it not obscure?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
1. But they had the mindset of centuries of teaching from the translation of a translation of a translation (Latin - Greek - Hebrew.)
2.* male –not man – so maybe referring to male children
3. Is it not obscure?
1. They had access to the original Hebrew
2. May be isn't does. It's possible but very unlikely given that no reputable scholars translate it thus.
3. No - clear as day
[ 11. March 2014, 21:29: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
And like I said the Vulgate was translated direct, not via Latin.
Doesn't mean its a good translation - I have little Latin and no Hebrew so how could I tell? - but its not true to say that it neccesarily inherited mistakes which may or may not have been made in the Greek.
Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
What do you make of Leviticus 18:22
+ With male* not lie the lyings woman
* male –not man – so maybe referring to male children
Every other use of אִשָּׁ֑ה in Leviticus refers to incest. When Paul writes about this verse in1 Corinthians, it follows a condemnation of incest.
Is it not obscure?
The alternative translation I've most commonly seen suggested for this passage is "A man should not lie with a man in a woman's bed", thus prohibiting a particular location, not the act itself. That rule would fit well within the overall context of purity concerns in Leviticus - one of the problems with the traditional reading of the passage is that scholars have struggled to come up with coherent rationale to explain why Leviticus has the particular sexual-conduct rules that it does (and only those). In particular: Why only ban male-male homosexuality and not female-female?
But in my observation, translation in general is certainly by far the most problematic part of biblical interpretation, and it seems that over the millennia of Christianity that mistranslations have been a pretty endless source of biblical misinterpretations. Very short and densely packed passages like this one are particularly prone to it.
I am persuaded recently, however, to a slightly different interpretation of this passage. Most scholars take the view that Leviticus, like Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history books (1&2 Kings etc), reached its final form towards the end of the exile in Babylon or shortly after the return to Israel from that exile. The books of Kings repeatedly complain about what the RSV translates as "male cult prostitutes", and Deuteronomy itself contains explicit bans on the participation in this.
The origin of this can easily be traced by exposure to known Babylonian customs: 'Ancient Babylon had male temple prostitutes "whose manhood Ishtar had changed into womanhood." These devotees of Ishtar... were usually castrated and gave lifelong devotion to the goddess. As a third gender, these men-women sexually service other men in their worship of Ishtar. Union with these "dogs" was regarded as union with Ishtar herself.'
Given that background, it's relatively understandable why biblical books from that time period show an intense dislike to these cultic prostitutes and the high-places in which they practice. Given Leviticus hails from around the same time period, it is generally thought that it was this practice which motivates the Levitical ban. That, in itself, doesn't necessarily undermine the standard reading - a lot of people have just assumed that against this background of transgender prostitution being used in the worship of other gods that the writer of Deuteronomy responded by banning that specific practice, and that the writer of Leviticus responded by banning the any occurrence of male-male sexual relations. (This also provides a somewhat nice explanation of why female-female sexual relations aren't banned in Leviticus! But it then implies that the reason for the ban is worship of foreign gods, meaning the ban in Leviticus is thus irrelevant to the modern world.)
However, I now question whether it is right to accept the general assumption that the text in Leviticus was intended by the author to be a more general ban on male-male sex than was the author of Deuteronomy's ban. The more I look at the Levitical text, the more the general style of the wording looks reminiscent to me of the law we discussed in the other thread that the Romans passed in the 4th century to prohibit marriages in which a man dressed up as a woman. In the Roman instance what was being attacked was not the gay sex (which was common and tolerated in the Roman world), but the transgender nature of a man publicly acting the part of a woman (which was hugely offensive to Roman masculinity). So instead following the traditional reading by adding more words to the Levitical text in order to read it as a ban on male homosexuality so that it says something along the lines of "Don't lie with a man as you would lie with a woman"; I would instead suggest leaving it in the short-form in which it is actually written, as an apparent ban on male sex with a transgendered person, "Don't lie with a man-as-woman". That would explain why it is phrased so compactly and why translators trying to interpret it as a ban on homosexuality need to add extra words to get it to become a coherent sentence. It would also bring the Levitical ban much more into line with Deuteronomy and explain the historical origin nicely. (Not that I'm at all suggesting from the perspective of modern morality that being anti-transgender is any less evil than being anti-gay)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And like I said the Vulgate was translated direct, not via Latin.
Doesn't mean its a good translation - I have little Latin and no Hebrew so how could I tell? - but its not true to say that it neccesarily inherited mistakes which may or may not have been made in the Greek.
Thanks for putting me right.
I am the opposite - I only have schoolboy Latin but degree level Hebrew.
Dr. Phillip Budd is a friend of mine and used to teach at our local (evangelical theological college). He wrote what is considered to be the latest 'definitive' commentary of Leviticus (Hebrew text) and believes it isn't against gay sex as currently understood.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
The more I look at the Levitical text, the more the general style of the wording looks reminiscent to me of the law we discussed in the other thread that the Romans passed in the 4th century to prohibit marriages in which a man dressed up as a woman. In the Roman instance what was being attacked was not the gay sex (which was common and tolerated in the Roman world), but the transgender nature of a man publicly acting the part of a woman (which was hugely offensive to Roman masculinity).
That is very interesting to me because I was doing a bit of homework to respond to Ken, above. It turns out that no Christian interpreted Lev 18 in an anti-gay sense until - wait for it! - the 4th Century. In Apostolic constitutions.
Posted by Gildas (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by A. Pilgrim:
quote:
While not referring to God’s image, the second account of the creation of mankind (Gen.2:5-25) also describes the formation of male and female as a process of differentiation from a human/man, and the reuniting and reintegration of the two into ‘one flesh’ – the latter not just being a coy way of referring to physical sexual congress, but also to the ontological re-creation of the human/man made in God’s image. So the closest representation of God’s image that we have in human existence is in the heteroerotic union of male and female.
I particularly favour the very high status that this understanding gives to sex, in total contradiction of the Augustinian view of sex as dirty, which has pervaded and polluted the church for centuries – to much detrimental effect. Two other factors appear to me to support such a high view of sexual relations. Firstly, a usual – though not necessary – consequence is the creation of new life, an act closely demonstrating God’s nature. Secondly, sex is the one aspect of human nature that the Enemy loves to degrade and spoil above all others, and there’s plenty of evidence of that in the world. The Enemy loves to spoil anything godly in God’s creation. (And I’m intrigued to throw into the mix the insight from anthropology that, in humans, sex is primarily about pair-bonding and secondarily about procreation. This matches my view that in spiritual terms, sex is about the re-creation of the image of God in the physical union of becoming ‘one flesh’, and then secondarily about imaging God by the creation of new life.)
So I suggest that it is because of the exceptionally high value, status, and associations of heteroerotic relations that God regards various forms of sexual immorality with such disfavour. Therefore, along with other unacceptable sexual acts, the homoerotic union of male with male is a mockery (maybe even a desecration) of the image of God. That’s why God regards it as so unacceptable. And in case readers haven’t picked it up yet, what I represent as unacceptable to God is homoerotic behaviour, not homosexual desires as such.
Thank you, Angus, for attempting to answer my question. I acknowledge that you have made a serious attempt to make a biblical case for the position you hold. But if you want to argue that a heterosexual union is the primary embodiment of the image of God among human beings, don't you think that you ought to have something to say to not only gay people but single people, celibate people and, among other names that spring to mind off the top of my head, people like The Apostle Paul and our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? Being in a heterosexual union is not part of possessing the Imago Dei and claiming that it does is every bit as adverse to scripture and tradition as blessing gay unions, frankly.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0