Ship of Fools: A movement of the Spirit?

Thread: A movement of the Spirit? 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=030809

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Following the SCOTUS decision, the Irish referendum and the wave of other positive news on the equal marriage front, I was wondering last night about the speed at which this change has come about. I was also wondering at the number of minds that have been changed, my own included, from a position when I was at school where casual homophobia was not just accepted but expected, to a point where my church is on the way to celebrating the marriages of same-sex couples. It just seems that so much has happened so fast, faster perhaps than even the most optimistic campaigners hoped for. The change also has such a joyous "flavour" to it, an amazing exhibition of the transforming power of love.

All this leads me to think: is this the movement of the Spirit? Is this what it looks like when God sees an opportunity to promote justice and compassion and just *pushes* in millions of people and places at once? This isn't to belittle the hard work of those who campaigned on this, but it just seems so spectacular a shift and so profoundly positive.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

It's the spirit of something.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

@Arethosemyfeet: I believe it is a movement of the Spirit.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Hmmm ... I do, in fact, tend to agree with you, largely because I believe that the Holy Spirit is in the business of giving people more freedoms rather than more restrictions, and because God wants everyone to discover their full humanity and loves all people the same. The same would be/has been true in issues of race or enslavement.

Nevertheless, and speaking in general terms, may I express a note of caution. The OP clearly welcomes this change, says that it has come more quickjly than expected, and so declares it likely to be a move of the Spirit. Fair enough - but would they have said the same thing if this change had taken place in a direction opposite to the one they personally espoused?

In other words, we must be careful of welcoming a change and then endorsing it with our belief that the Spirit approves. As it happens, I do believe that the Spirit has been behind what has recently been taking place. But we must constantly be "discerning" and "testing" matters which arise, lest we too easily fall prey to either our own preferences or to the "spirit of the age". We need to follow the example of Gamaliel (not the Shipmate, but the one in the Bible!)

[ 27. June 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Agreed, BT. It's very much a question I'm asking, not an assertion I'm making.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Jung had the interesting idea that he saw the Spirit in those things which thwarted him. This is rather like the idea that your enemy is your greatest teacher, which I have found to work for me. But it does not contradict the other idea really, since the thwarting and opposition can lead to the unity and the 'flow' experience at times.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

A bit like having an idea or plan and then finding all sorts of unexpected problems arising.

Is this God "testing" you or the Devil "hindering"? (Of course, in this case it may just be that you're not very good at planning things!)

[ 27. June 2015, 09:44: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
@Arethosemyfeet: I believe it is a movement of the Spirit.

Yeah.

I am not ordinarily a signs and wonders sort of person, but dude-- a double rainbow broke out over Ireland the day the referendum passed. Someone is trying to tell us something.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It rains a lot in Ireland?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Kelly Alves: I am not ordinarily a signs and wonders sort of person, but dude-- a double rainbow broke out over Ireland the day the referendum passed. Someone is trying to tell us something.

Have you seen this one? I rather like it.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

The London Eye was rainbow coloured last night too. It was very pretty and damn difficult to photograph.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is not at all difficult to find people suggesting that these developments will only lead to Woe and Doom and Destruction. I would wait. The work of the Spirit nearly always is perfectly clear in retrospect. A very cogent commentator noted that, in 50 years, the evangelical community will be claiming credit for the whole thing.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I love the list I saw somewhere of "things to say to conservatives about the marriage equality court decision" that included the point, "Okay, if after say 5 years God hasn't rained fire and brimstone on America, will you admit you're wrong about His wrath here?"

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It rains a lot in Ireland?

Ah yes, but how often does the sun shine, too? [Devil]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Kelly Alves: I am not ordinarily a signs and wonders sort of person, but dude-- a double rainbow broke out over Ireland the day the referendum passed. Someone is trying to tell us something.
Have you seen this one? I rather like it.

And the hits just keep coming

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It happened in Scotland, too - a rainbow over the Scottish Parliament the day of the equal marriage vote.

It was widely shared on Facebook at the time.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's a statistical analysis by Nate Silver on change of opinion on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Interesting stuff. His conclusion is that the change in the polling on this issue far exceeds what can be explained through generational turnover alone.

quote:
In the next chart, I’ve estimated support for gay marriage by age based on the versions of the General Social Survey conducted in 2004 (when 31 percent of respondents supported gay marriage overall in the poll) and 2014 (when 57 percent did). The rise in support far exceeds what can be explained by generational turnover alone. For example, someone (like me) born in 1978 would have a 45 percent chance of supporting gay marriage as a 26-year-old in 2004. As a 36-year-old in 2014, they’d have a 63 percent chance of supporting it. Probably one-half to two-thirds of the rise in support for gay marriage has been a result of people changing their minds on the issue.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It happened in Scotland, too - a rainbow over the Scottish Parliament the day of the equal marriage vote.

When the URC voted to allow churches to perform Civil Partnerships at their 2012 Assembly the sun - which had not deigned to appear over an unseasonably damp and gloomy Scarborough - came out. (They haven't come to a final decision on SSM yet - that's for next year).

Having said all that, I'd be far happier to accept rainbows as a "sign" if they'd been seen in places which would normally be very dry - Scotland and Ireland don't quite cut it for me.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
All this leads me to think: is this the movement of the Spirit? Is this what it looks like when God sees an opportunity to promote justice and compassion and just *pushes* in millions of people and places at once? This isn't to belittle the hard work of those who campaigned on this, but it just seems so spectacular a shift and so profoundly positive.

Funny how the Spirit moves when it's something we want. I'll believe it's the movement of the Spirit when somewhere like Uganda makes this change in the space of 10 years.

Here's a chart from Bloomberg about the pace of social change in the US. It shows that the pattern of social change has generally been the same, but that it happens faster than it used to.

I would say that the speed of this change reflects several things: 1. there is increased communication and discussion via the internet, 2. gay people are not concentrated in one racial group or social class, so as more of them came out, more people across the board knew some out gay people, and 3. it doesn't cost anyone any money.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I would say that the speed of this change reflects several things: 1. there is increased communication and discussion via the internet, 2. gay people are not concentrated in one racial group or social class, so as more of them came out, more people across the board knew some out gay people, and 3. it doesn't cost anyone any money.

Blogger Erik Loomis has an examination of your point #2 that covers another important aspect of the demographic spread.

quote:
First, lots of gay people are wealthy white men. This is a different kind of underclass than African-Americans and women. These are people who are the overclass except that they are gay. That these are people with access to real power matters.

I'm pretty sure that by "lots", Loomis doesn't mean "most" or even "a majority", just that wealthy white gay men exist and not just as a negligible statistical anomaly.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

The whole process started in 1930 with the Anglicans allowing contraception. This decoupled sexual enjoyment from procreation. If it is licit for heterosexual couples to enjoy sexual activity that is unrelated to making babies, then why not for homosexual couples? The logic is inevitable, but has taken over eighty years to be worked out in practice. The breakthrough was of course the pill and the attending "sexual revolution", which mainstreamed the attitude that sex was for mutual enjoyment, and marriage was simply the declaration that one was going to enjoy this sexual aspect of life - and of course also others - primarily with one specific person. Once more, if this is true for heterosexual couples, then why not for homosexual ones? But it took another fifty years or so for the inevitable result.

The final push was, I think, the campaign to make people "come out of the closet". This was particularly effective where "stars" were coming out. "Stars" have somewhat the same status in our democratic societies as nobles and kings had in the olden days. They provide a weird sort of role model, at least in the sense of showing a life style that is being envied. As more and more "stars" were coming out, a gay life started to become a viable option in people's minds.

However, for better or worse, I think the first real breach was that Lambeth conference in 1930.

Posted by bad man (# 17449) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
All this leads me to think: is this the movement of the Spirit? Is this what it looks like when God sees an opportunity to promote justice and compassion and just *pushes* in millions of people and places at once?

If it is, the Spirit hasn't yet reached the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This just in from Lambeth Palace:

quote:
The Archbishop of Canterbury today expressed deep concern about the stress for the Anglican Communion following the US Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ resolution to change the definition of marriage in the canons so that any reference to marriage as between a man and a woman is removed.

While recognising the prerogative of The Episcopal Church to address issues appropriate to its own context, Archbishop Justin Welby said that its decision will cause distress for some and have ramifications for the Anglican Communion as a whole, as well as for its ecumenical and interfaith relationships.

At a time of such suffering around the world, he stated that this was a moment for the church to be looking outwards. We continue to mourn with all those who are grieving loved ones and caring for the injured from the terrorist attacks in Sousse, Kuwait and Lyons, and from the racist attacks in Charleston.

He urges prayer for the life of the Anglican Communion; for a space for the strengthening of the interdependent relationships between provinces, so that in the face of diversity and disagreement, Anglicans may be a force for peace and seek to respond to the Lord Jesus’ prayer that “they may be one so that the world may believe” (John 17: 21).

Who knew that you can't support equal marriage and deplore terrorism and racism at the same time?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

So, this particular movement of the Spirit started a century ago (give it a couple of decades for the Anglican Church to notice). With the added bonus that along the way it liberated women from being mere brood mares for the children of their husband.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The whole process started in 1930 with the Anglicans allowing contraception.

I think it goes back a little further than that, to the abolition of coverture laws and the granting of women's suffrage. Making women the legal equals of men led to a re-imagining of marriage, from an hierarchical relationship with the man as unquestioned sovereign to a loving partnership of equals. This was the real change that allowed same-sex marriage. A hierarchical relationship based on strictly defined gender roles has nothing to really offer a same sex couple. On the other hand "a loving partnership of equals" sounds to gay people a lot like the relationships they're already in.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Funny how the Spirit moves when it's something we want. I'll believe it's the movement of the Spirit when somewhere like Uganda makes this change in the space of 10 years.

Here's a chart from Bloomberg about the pace of social change in the US. It shows that the pattern of social change has generally been the same, but that it happens faster than it used to.

I would say that the speed of this change reflects several things: 1. there is increased communication and discussion via the internet, 2. gay people are not concentrated in one racial group or social class, so as more of them came out, more people across the board knew some out gay people, and 3. it doesn't cost anyone any money.

All fair points. I thinking of something akin to the first when writing the OP - it has to be something people are ready to receive, which is why I asked about when God "sees an opportunity".

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Like us, the spirit is more interested in sex than violence, war, hunger, poverty, and some other unimportant trivia. Of course, the spirit has created this great, great sexual interest within our rich western societies in the first place, and before that, made us affluent enough so we have the time and ability so we can really hear that sex is so much more important than nearly everything else.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Like us, the spirit is more interested in sex than violence, war, hunger, poverty, and some other unimportant trivia.

Actually, though the current fascination is with sex (and, I agree that actually that is trivial compared to most of the wrongs in the world), I see that as part of a very much larger movement. That is, a movement towards equality and righting the wrongs of inequality. It's part of the movement towards equal rights for women, the abolition of slavery and subsequent civil rights movement in the US, the end of apartheid in South Africa, etc. Those aren't trivial things, and the LGBT community has to an extent ridden on the tails of something far more important - not that their rights aren't very important.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I have written elsewhere (in a movie review of Ex Machina, in fact) that the concept of freedom as a good for everybody is a relatively new concept. It's certainly not in the OT, and if you look at the arts, the songs about freedom, letting my people go and so on, date back to the 1800s only. There doesn't seem to be any expression of freedom as a universally desirable quality until the big antislavery push in Victorian times.
Nowadays, it is in our culture. Ex Machina was interesting because the humanoid robots demanded their freedom. Why? In the movie the robots were created to be tools. My car, my coffee maker, these do not demand freedom. It must be that we ourselves believe that freedom is vital -- essential for anything perceived as human.
And, yes -- that's where it began. Once you allowed that black people (men) could be free, then what about women? And so on and so forth, until here we are today. Looks like the Spirit to me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Is the Spirit grieved that we have just moved a fraction of a percent further, on the trajectory toward justice, on the arc of the moral universe?

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Martin [Overused]

I think that is your best post ever.

Thank-you.

Huia

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0