|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Am I an extremist now?
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.
I think this tacitly assumes that homosexuality is about sex, which orfeo has demonstrated it is not. If homosexuality is not about sex, then your (admirable, and I'm not being facetious) discourse about not treating people as things doesn't really move the question forward as concerns whether or not homosexuality or sexual acts between persons of the same sex are "wrong" or "right."
Can gays treat other gays as things and not persons? Assuredly. But so can breeders. So that whole consideration is really off the table as far as a being useful measuring stick for the moral acceptability of homosexuality or sex between persons of the same sex.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
but why spouses are granted those rights without the hospital first checking that they've been talking recently.
I oppose this kind of argument utterly, as I also oppose the related argument that encourages the law to treat unmarried couples as though they are married.
There is a well-known and straightforward method for dissolving a legal marriage. Legal marriages are now available to all couples.
If you don't want the state to treat you as married, either don't get married, or get a divorce. Conversely, if you have chosen to not marry, the state should not second-guess you and impose extra meanings on the fact that you have chosen to share a roof and a bed with someone.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Agreed. And extending marriage to same sex couples actually strengthens that distinction between marriage and not-marriage. That's one of the reasons that I support it.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Croesos;
quote:
I'm not so sure. A group willing to practice capital punishment to keep its members in line seems to have a lot in common with the Weberian conception of the state.
You've used that suggestion before. It is not, in the passage you link to, the church which practices capital punishment, but God himself, and in an essentially exceptional and exemplary case. And as I read it, the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira will to a significant extent have been natural, the result of the stresses first of lying, conduct very much against the grain of what the church is, and secondly of being caught out in the lie. It is rare, but I have known similar examples in the modern world.
Peter and Co did not need to kill Ananias and Sapphira and if God had not decided otherwise, the church would have dealt with the matter by excommunication and similar. In such cases God is trusted for what happens - which also applies to many other situations, like when Christians risk martyrdom but do not respond by physically fighting against the government (instead they follow Paul's teaching of being 'subject to the authorities' even though they cannot fully obey the authorities).
What is NOT happening is the church using police/army type power to impose itself on those who are not voluntary members.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Croesos;
quote:
I'm not so sure. A group willing to practice capital punishment to keep its members in line seems to have a lot in common with the Weberian conception of the state.
You've used that suggestion before. It is not, in the passage you link to, the church which practices capital punishment, but God himself, and in an essentially exceptional and exemplary case.
That's your interpretation, and you are of course welcome to interpret the scriptures as you see fit. It's not the only one, nor necessarily the most natural one. Peter clearly threatened Sapphira with death, and God came through. He didn't say "God killed your husband, and it's possible you will die also." He KNEW. It's more than reasonable to think he had agency. The apostles do all sorts of wonders, and there's never any explicit indication given that they were not agents in these wonders, or were surprised by them, as if God was doing them and they had no idea the wonders were coming until they happened.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
For once, I agree with Steve Langton. I can't see anywhere where Peter threatens Ananias with death, although he is certainly stroppy with him and blatantly tells him that he's lying to God.
The implication is that Ananias has been "struck down" by God, although again the passage doesn't say so; he and his wife could indeed have died through stress and natural causes. I suspect that Peter and co. were absolutely horrified (and presumably terrified) by what happened: I don't think they saw it coming!
But I think we've got off the point of this thread.
[ 13. August 2015, 17:32: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
@ mousethief
That's a very fair point. What I need to do is to develop this notion of a Spring clean further. What I believe is that there is as much confusion over objectification in traditional Christian sexual ethics as in many expressions of modern culture. I think what comes first is the central Christian understanding of self-giving love as the touchstone for the making and maintaining of relationships. That applies whether or not the relationship has a sexual component. But I haven't thought through fully how that works through. The question I'm working through is the relationship between good sex and good relationships, and how faithfulness and promise keeping factor into that.
What I feel is wrong is any argument that homosexual people are precluded from making the journey of building a long term relationship with a partner, simply because of what they do with their bits! That seems also to be objectifying some sexual acts and activities, without proper regard to the relationship context.
Building long term relationships is challenging, regardless of our sexual orientation. But I think it is at the heart of our earliest understanding. It is not good for people to be alone - a pre-Fall principle. And yet it is also not good for people to be together if they lose the place over mutual help and support, if selfishness and self-interest create barriers between two becoming one.
These ideas need more work, as you can clearly see!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think the theocracy thing was mentioned on this thread as something that was seriously being advocated. It was simply cited as something that didn't have proof-texts attached. The point, as I understood it, was to suggest that like our attitudes towards same-sex attraction and everything else it comes down to interpretation.
So all this speculation about the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira and church / state relations isn't directly relevant to the OP it seems to me - unless we are discussing who determines what a marriage is - the church or the state or both ...
Otherwise we seem to be running the risk of an even Deader Dead Horse trajectory.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is a good deal of tacit approval in Western culture for the notion that there is nothing wrong in treating sex as a recreational activity. I think that is just rationalisation of desire and in itself it encourages this treatment of people as things.
Well, no. Not in and of itself. One can have recreational sex, sex purely for enjoyment, and still be quite respectful of one's partner(s). Sex within marriage and sex with procreation as a main goal can also treat people as things. Kind of more so, IMO.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
The implication is that Ananias has been "struck down" by God, although again the passage doesn't say so; he and his wife could indeed have died through stress and natural causes. I suspect that Peter and co. were absolutely horrified (and presumably terrified) by what happened: I don't think they saw it coming!
You can't claim you didn't see it coming if you've arranged to have a burial detail on standby.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
I agree with Gamaliel that Ananias and Sapphira is going a bit far off topic. It arose ultimately however from something very much on topic, the relationship between the OT and NT. Here are some thoughts I'd been working on in response to that aspect (a little clunky because I'm in a bit of a rush and I've detached these from a longer post)....
I don't think the rule is that “nothing in the First Testament counts unless it's explicitly endorsed in the Second”. The situation is not that abstract. The OT itself shows development and change as well as continuity, and promises the game-changing future events of a 'New Covenant' and the Davidic Messiah and his kingdom, and others.
In these changes, the OT remains valid, 'in its entirety', but some aspects of it are now seen as being preparatory and like scaffolding, able to be set aside when the building is finished. Or as Paul suggests, those aspects are like a 'schoolmaster/governess' kind of figure, to whom the child-being-taught and the adult-having been-taught have rather different relationships.
In broad terms, ceremonial and ritual laws have been 'fulfilled' in Jesus and need no longer be observed. More basic moral laws remain valid, fairly obviously of course in cases like theft or murder; and especially when they have been re-affirmed in the NT. The rule about homosexuality is one of those which certainly appears to be so re-affirmed, though as pointed out above, not one to be enforced on society outside the church.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
In broad terms, ceremonial and ritual laws have been 'fulfilled' in Jesus and need no longer be observed. More basic moral laws remain valid, fairly obviously of course in cases like theft or murder; and especially when they have been re-affirmed in the NT.
The problem is that this distinction between "ceremonial" and "moral" laws is not one which can be found in either Testament. There's no Biblical indication that that various Biblical injunctions can be sorted this way, and the fact that "ceremonial" and "moral" laws (as people who adhere to this argument classify them) are intermixed pretty randomly throughout the Torah argues against this approach.
So what makes the stuff about homosexuality a "moral" law but the stuff about menstruation is "ceremonial"? So far the only answer I've gotten seems to be along the lines of "Jesus never talked about periods", which would bring us back to "nothing in the First Testament counts unless it's explicitly endorsed in the Second".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
@ Croesos;
I did say 'in broad terms'....
But for example, there's the vision Peter has in Acts 10 before he is called to visit Cornelius - which effectively changes the 'cleanliness' rules both about 'kosher' food and about contact between Jews and Gentiles.
Or take Jesus' words in Mark 7 v14-23, contrasting the kosher and other ceremonial laws with evils like "fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness..."
Almost the whole of Hebrews is concerned with the sacrificial laws, and the way they are 'fulfilled' and superseded by Jesus' self-sacrifice.
Or read Paul about 'the Law' in Galatians.
In a sense, the NT abrogates the law in general, in the sense that the prophesied 'New Covenant' shifts the relationship to the Law for all who put faith in Jesus. But in that situation it is what I called the 'moral' law which effectively survives where the ceremonial and ritual are clearly set aside for good reason.
What your link calls the 'shrimp' rule goes out the window with the divine vision in Acts 10; but the rules about sexuality are very much re-affirmed by Jesus in Mark 10 and by Paul in Romans 1.
Sacrificial rules are no longer needed because Jesus has made the big sacrifice in the right time in history of which the OT rituals were just foreshadowings. The main function of the ritual rules was to keep Israel separate and faithful until Jesus came to do that; with "God's holy nation" expanded beyond Israel, those rules become superfluous and are also set aside.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One can have recreational sex, sex purely for enjoyment, and still be quite respectful of one's partner(s).
I've never come across a relationship where that worked. I've known a couple of marriages within which one partner thought that was OK but the other didn't. The marriages went south in both cases. I've known a lot more where the recreational sex (casual relationships) was clandestine and the pain of discovery of deception damaged the relationship long term - or irreparably. In both these categories, the major issue is the nature of the promises of commitment made. If you've promised an exclusive relationship (the standard of Christian marriage as the liturgies make clear) you can't expect to have your cake and eat it. On the other hand I can see that if both partners agree to an "open relationship" in advance that they might be able to make it work.
quote:
Sex within marriage and sex with procreation as a main goal can also treat people as things. Kind of more so, IMO.
I think you mean that one or both partners to a marriage can treat the other as a thing or in some way "theirs" i.e. a possession. I conceded that in an earlier post. Is it more or less likely in a marriage? Given that treating another as a possession or a thing is a form of selfishness, you seem to be arguing that marriage encourages selfishness, provides an environment within which it can grow. Historically, there may have been some truth in that in traditional marriages, at least so far as men were concerned. In previous ages married women were indeed, legally, property and were deprived of civil rights. That did produce a good deal of cruelty. I think that kind of legalised enslavement is, thankfully, becoming a thing of the past thanks to emancipation.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
What about Acts 15:29 and the council of Jerusalem which happens after Peter's vision? It states
You are to abstain
from food sacrificed to idols,
from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things
How many consider that binding on Christians (especially the blood bit)? This is assuming that it is historically accurate.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One can have recreational sex, sex purely for enjoyment, and still be quite respectful of one's partner(s).
I've never come across a relationship where that worked. I've known a couple of marriages within which one partner thought that was OK but the other didn't. The marriages went south in both cases. I've known a lot more where the recreational sex (casual relationships) was clandestine and the pain of discovery of deception damaged the relationship long term - or irreparably. In both these categories, the major issue is the nature of the promises of commitment made. If you've promised an exclusive relationship (the standard of Christian marriage as the liturgies make clear) you can't expect to have your cake and eat it. On the other hand I can see that if both partners agree to an "open relationship" in advance that they might be able to make it work.
I'm not at all sure that everyone in this conversation is actually working with the same definition of "recreational sex".
What exactly did you intend to mean by that term? Because it seems to me that you're reading it as "sex outside a committed relationship", and it seems that at least some other people are reading it as "sex for enjoyment". Those are actually quite different meanings, as to my mind it's perfectly possible for two people in a committed relationship to have sex for enjoyment.
[ 14. August 2015, 02:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I am confused now. When lilBuddha spoke of having recreational sex and still being respectful of ones partner, I thought (s)he was talking about the partner one is having sex with, not the partner one is potentially cheating on ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I am confused now. When lilBuddha spoke of having recreational sex and still being respectful of ones partner, I thought (s)he was talking about the partner one is having sex with, not the partner one is potentially cheating on
That was how I read it also -- "partner" means the person in the sack, not the person back at home. I was assuming there was no person back at home. The question is about people who are not married having sex, not people who are married having sex with someone they're not married to.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What about Acts 15:29 and the council of Jerusalem which happens after Peter's vision? It states
You are to abstain
from food sacrificed to idols,
from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things
How many consider that binding on Christians (especially the blood bit)? This is assuming that it is historically accurate.
Sure, but what constitutes "sexual immorality"? In English that's very vague and what counts as "immoral" will vary from person to person or church to church or what have you. In Greek isn't the word porneia? What exactly does that mean? Does it cover homosexual acts? Adultery? Cunnilingus? Blow jobs? What exactly is sexual immorality?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
it's perfectly possible for two people in a committed relationship to have sex for enjoyment.
Amen
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I thought I was fairly clear in citing your earlier assertion that you find laws penalizing religiously motivated assault, vandalism, and other crimes to be an unwelcome impediment to your interactions with Hindus
Firstly, violence and vandalism in such a context are criminal as well as immoral, and therefore don't require so-called "hate-crime" legislation.
Secondly, the hypothetical context of which I spoke was one in which Hindus were trying to stifle any legitimate, ie peaceful and reasoned, criticism of Hinduism by means of hate -crime legislation.
To suggest that this involves my approval of vandalism and violence is something you have just made up.
This is the second time you have made this dishonest slur, and I am still waiting for an apology.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"It is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate. It's a conclusion.
You don’t appear to realize that a statement such “it is wrong to treat animals with deliberate cruelty” can function perfectly legitimately as either a premise or a conclusion depending on the context.
And to say, in terms of formal logic, that an ethical premise is a “given”, does not mean that it is right, or impossible to reject, but that it can’t be either demonstrated or disproved rationally.
If you accept it, you do so either because it appears self-evident, or because it is presented by a source which you believe is sufficiently authoritative to override your own perception of its self-evidentiality or lack thereof.
If I say that as a Christian I believe homosexual behaviour to be wrong because the Bible teaches that it is, you have three options:-
1. You can argue that the Bible is not authoritative
2, You can argue that the Bible does not in fact teach that homosexual behaviour is
wrong
3. You can argue that the Bible does teach that homosexual behaviour is wrong , but that
this is because its writers were unaware of innate SSA (which involves the assumption
that had they known about SSA they would not have condemned homosexual
behaviour, an assumption for which there is no evidence whatsoever)
The position that “the Bible is authoritative, and that it condemns homosexual behaviour as such, regardless of its motivation” is one which anyone is free to reject, but it is internally consistent; can be disagreed with but not disproved; and, FWIW, has always been, and continues to be, held by the overwhelming majority of Christians.
And yes, I have returned to speaking from a theistic position.
Apologies for any clouding of the issue by not making that clear in my last post.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Now I'm confused too! Of course sex with the partner you are committed to can be mutually recreational. Apologies if I misunderstood lilBuddha's point.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Barnabas62,
I was in no way referencing cheating. I was referencing only the interaction between the people having sex. People can have sex without need of a deeper relationship and still respect each other. They needn't see each other as things.
And of course people in a committed relationship can do the same.
The reason I say treatment as a thing more likely in marriage is that this has traditionally been the case. Whilst it is changing, ISTM it is still weighted this way. So I guess we sort of agree on this bit.
[ 14. August 2015, 06:50: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess so too. I'm leery about promiscuity. But I'm probably the wrong one to talk. I've been married for 47 years, had loads of sex. The issues of singleness, and what you do with desire despite that, haven't been part of my direct experience for half a century. I feel there is a kind of relationship between attraction and objectification, but I recognise the difference between respect and just using people.
Part of my personal Spring clean is still ongoing on that one. And sorry again for the misunderstanding. I was thinking of the concept of sex within a committed relationship.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"It is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate. It's a conclusion.
You don’t appear to realize that a statement such “it is wrong to treat animals with deliberate cruelty” can function perfectly legitimately as either a premise or a conclusion depending on the context.
I do realise it. That is why I said it is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
What about Acts 15:29 and the council of Jerusalem which happens after Peter's vision? It states
You are to abstain
from food sacrificed to idols,
from blood,
from the meat of strangled animals and
from sexual immorality.
You will do well to avoid these things
How many consider that binding on Christians (especially the blood bit)? This is assuming that it is historically accurate.
I do occasionally wonder about this one.... The consensus, apart from a few fringe groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, seems to be that this was a transitional provision to ease the radical step of including Gentiles in the previously Jewish church, respecting Jewish sensitivities in the basically conciliatory spirit of Romans 14. As the church grew and this became a less acute issue, things would move on, bearing in mind, for example, Paul's comment in Romans 14 v14 that
quote:
"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself..."
In the context 'nothing' appears to mean 'no food'.
As regards 'porneia' I can't remember the details right now, but I understand this to originally refer to another point where Jewish people might be offended by Gentile practice - marriages that would be incestuous by Levitical rules or some such. The more generalised translation as 'sexual immorality' comes from the later 'Christendom' era when that original context had been forgotten.
It doesn't appear directly relevant to the DH topic. My current thinking is that I'm not restricted in what I may eat, but there might still be situations where I'd need to back off to accommodate someone else's dietary issues.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Whilst I agree that your position is logical within your (and my) own paradigm, Kaplan, it does (as you've already identified) raise some issues from the point of view of theodicy ...
If homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong, despite some people having an innate same-sex attraction - which is something you appear to accept - then on what grounds does the Almighty have for condemning them for it?
If they can't 'help' their orientation, if it is something they don't 'choose' but are born with, as it were - then how can it be right to take such people to task for expressing their sexuality in that way?
To do so, knowing that it is an innate 'condition' seems arbritary and capricious ...
On other threads where the Arminian/Calvinist issue has been discussed I seem to remember you taking a strong line against hard-line hyper-Calvinism on similar grounds - it's arbritrariness ...
'This person isn't one of the Elect and there's nothing they can do about it, it's just tough ...'
Could it not be argued that your position on the licitness or otherwise of same-sex sexual behaviour is, as it were, the sexual equivalent of full-on hyper-Calvinism?
Steve Langton, it seems to me, as someone who is more avowedly Calvinistic, also faces this same dilemma.
Steve has stated his conviction that it isn't for any theocratic state to determine how people should or should not live - and I think we'd all (or the vast majority of us) agree with him on that - but he then says that within the church, we have the right to determine these things for our own members ...
My question then, is how does this work in practice?
Are we talking about congregational discipline?
In which case, who decides whether someone should be barred from fellowship - if that's what we're advocating - until such time as they desist from certain practices?
Is our vicar 'right' to have discussed the former church-warden's sexuality with his 'leadership team' and told him that it's fine for him to participate in the life of the church - despite his orientation - until such time as he finds a boyfriend - at which point he'd be asked to step down from holding any office, from eucharistic fellowship or any meaningful participation in the life of the church?
My understanding of what would happen in an RC or Orthodox setting would be that this would remain a private and personal matter between the individual and their priest/confessor or spiritual director. They would probably still be admitted to the chalice, as it were, under the same confessional discipline as anyone else.
Which of these approaches is the best for the individual?
I know you'll start decrying the second option as 'unbiblical' and so on - but think about it for a moment ... in the long term interests of the individual I'm thinking about (the former church-warden) which is the better or 'more excellent' way?
I can envisage a time when this chap who has just recently 'come out' does find a partner. What happens then? He is asked to effectively leave the church - which would have emotional consequences both for him as an individual and those of his friends at church who know and love him.
To be honest, I think the bloke has been very brave - he could have easily simply pulled away and gone to the more liberal parish down the road - where no questions would be asked.
Instead, he's decided to stick with it - despite the leadership team and the vicar poring over his sexuality and making a big deal out of the whole thing.
He describes himself as a 'liberal evangelical' by theological conviction and wants to stay put as long as he can - he grew up in the parish, he found faith there ... it'd be a big wrench for him to leave. I suspect, deep down, that he's hoping against hope that there'll be a change of heart with the vicar and the leadership team as they currently stand.
Sure, this sort of FIFO approach (Fit In or Fuck Off) doesn't just apply to evangelical churches - it applies elsewhere just as much but probably over different issues.
But is that really what we have to offer?
'Look pal, keep your willy inside your trousers and don't put it anywhere it didn't ought to go - but rest assured, as soon as you do otherwise you can piss right off.'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I do occasionally wonder about this one.... The consensus, apart from a few fringe groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses, seems to be that this was a transitional provision to ease the radical step of including Gentiles in the previously Jewish church, respecting Jewish sensitivities in the basically conciliatory spirit of Romans 14. As the church grew and this became a less acute issue, things would move on, bearing in mind, for example, Paul's comment in Romans 14 v14 that
quote:
"I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself..."
In the context 'nothing' appears to mean 'no food'.
As regards 'porneia' I can't remember the details right now, but I understand this to originally refer to another point where Jewish people might be offended by Gentile practice - marriages that would be incestuous by Levitical rules or some such. The more generalised translation as 'sexual immorality' comes from the later 'Christendom' era when that original context had been forgotten.
It doesn't appear directly relevant to the DH topic. My current thinking is that I'm not restricted in what I may eat, but there might still be situations where I'd need to back off to accommodate someone else's dietary issues. [/QB][/QUOTE]
One could use the same argument, Steve Langton, to suggest that 'things have moved on' in our understanding of sexuality, as they have in terms of the relevance or otherwise of the Jewish dietary laws.
Indeed, I've heard it argued that way.
In which case, there seems to be an arbitrariness all ways round ... however we cut it we end up picking and choosing.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that a more 'generalised' understanding of 'sexual immorality' comes from the later 'Christendom' era - unless it's your usual propensity to park anything and everything you dislike or disagree with conveniently after the time of Constantine ...
But we won't go there ...
My point here is that we all seem to pick and choose to a certain extent - and we all agree that real life is messy.
It doesn't resolve any dilemmas we might face in normal, day-to-day life - or in the context of any congregation we find ourselves involved with - of whatever church tradition.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In which case, there seems to be an arbitrariness all ways round ... however we cut it we end up picking and choosing.
Yep, exactly this. We all hold to the plain meaning of the text, until it hits something we disagree with, in which case that was a teaching for that time only, and doesn't apply to ours.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
One could use the same argument, Steve Langton, to suggest that 'things have moved on' in our understanding of sexuality, as they have in terms of the relevance or otherwise of the Jewish dietary laws.
I kind of 'saw that one coming', as it happens! But note that my full argument distinguished between things which the NT says are 'fulfilled' or otherwise superseded, and those which it appears to rather positively re-affirm. I incline to the view that such re-affirmation happened precisely because the items in question are meant to continue and not be superseded - Jesus' reference to the creation of humanity as 'male and female', and its implications about sexual relations in general, for example.
With a view from many of the things I've learned about both psychology and human development from dealing with that nice Mr Asperger's Syndrome, I'm not sure that current 'understanding of sexuality' is actually as wonderful as it thinks it is.
Also by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not sure where you get the idea that a more 'generalised' understanding of 'sexual immorality' comes from the later 'Christendom' era - unless it's your usual propensity to park anything and everything you dislike or disagree with conveniently after the time of Constantine ...
Not a "...more 'generalised' understanding of 'sexual immorality'...", but rather a "more generalised rendering/translation of the word 'porneia'". I had in mind a later version of Acts, I think a translation into Latin, which not only 'generalised' the translation of 'porneia' but also changed the reference to 'blood' into a reference to 'murder' rather than diet. I'm afraid I don't right now have ready access to the book to check that memory but I'll try and confirm it.
I'm trying to soft-pedal the 'Christendom' issue - this particular one is less the 'fault' of Christendom, just that the circumstances had by then changed, with the intervening Jewish Wars changing the status of Jews even before Christendom, for example, so centuries later the original nuances of 'porneia' had been lost.
by mousethief;
quote:
Yep, exactly this. We all hold to the plain meaning of the text, until it hits something we disagree with, in which case that was a teaching for that time only, and doesn't apply to ours.
I am trying to not only hold to the 'plain meaning' of the controversial texts in themselves, but also to the 'plain meaning' of the Bible's own account of ideas developing and changing over the centuries. I do try to NOT deal with such things arbitrarily, but on the basis of the biblical teaching about that development.
I don't think it can be avoided that Jesus' coming changed things ; I'm trying to interpret those changes coherently and not just by what I'd like.
Gamaliel, I'll try to get back to you on the congregational discipline thing. I think it does work a bit differently for a church which is simply trying to deal with the issue pastorally - 'moral rescue' if you like - as opposed to when the church is entangled with the state and trying to do a wider 'moral police' role.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I am trying to not only hold to the 'plain meaning' of the controversial texts in themselves, but also to the 'plain meaning' of the Bible's own account of ideas developing and changing over the centuries. I do try to NOT deal with such things arbitrarily, but on the basis of the biblical teaching about that development.
Given when it was written, the Bible doesn't mention things that happened 300 years later. It doesn't teach about the development of its ideas that came after it was written. How can it? It can teach us principles, sure. But absent actually stating, "This is for the time being but will be superseded," it can't tell us that a particular teaching will be superseded 400 years later. That's the job of the Church.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok Steve - but I'm not talking about churches taking a wider moral police role and neither do I think anyone else is on this thread.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But for example, there's the vision Peter has in Acts 10 before he is called to visit Cornelius - which effectively changes the 'cleanliness' rules both about 'kosher' food and about contact between Jews and Gentiles.
That passage isn't really about shrimp, or at least it isn't only about shrimp. The unclean food of the vision is highly metaphorical. Now it's usually problematic and unclear when we try to translate Biblical metaphors across two or three thousand years as transmitted through several different cultures so I'm usually skeptical about arguments that this is really a metaphor for that. But in this specific case we don't have to guess. The metaphorical meaning of the vision is explicitly interpreted for us in the text by its recipient:
quote:
God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
Note that "anyone" is a lot more comprehensive that just "Gentiles". It includes lepers and menstruating women and even homosexuals. The interpretation you seem to favor seems to be long the lines of "God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean, except those filthy faggots". I'm not sure the interpretation that Roman centurions are kosher but that homosexuals are still treif can be supported by the text.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I thought I was fairly clear in citing your earlier assertion that you find laws penalizing religiously motivated assault, vandalism, and other crimes to be an unwelcome impediment to your interactions with Hindus
Firstly, violence and vandalism in such a context are criminal as well as immoral, and therefore don't require so-called "hate-crime" legislation.
And yet many jurisdictions have hate crime statutes on the books as an aggravating sentencing factor for crimes motivated by racial, religious, or certain other forms of hatred.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Secondly, the hypothetical context of which I spoke was one in which Hindus were trying to stifle any legitimate, ie peaceful and reasoned, criticism of Hinduism by means of hate -crime legislation.
To suggest that this involves my approval of vandalism and violence is something you have just made up.
On the one hand you seem to be describing hate speech laws ("stifle any legitimate, ie peaceful and reasoned, criticism of Hinduism"), but even after the distinction has been explained to you twice you still insist that it's really hate crime laws (i.e. laws providing aggravated sentencing for crimes motivated by racial, religious, or a few other categories of hatred) that you object to. I have to either conclude that you're incapable of grasping what is a fairly clear (and legally significant) distinction, or take you at your word when you say that it's hate crime laws, not hate speech laws, that you consider to be a form of harassment and intimidation aimed at you.
Of course, even assuming you really do mean hate speech laws doesn't really render your position any clearer. In the jurisdictions that have them (the U.K. does, the U.S. finds such speech restrictions unconstitutional) religion is almost always one of the protected categories. In other words, in jurisdictions that allow hate speech laws your Hindu context is not hypothetical at all. And yet you claim to have "a policy of live and let live with Hindus" despite the fact that they have a status under law (where such laws are allowed) you claim to be a deliberate provocation.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In which case, there seems to be an arbitrariness all ways round ... however we cut it we end up picking and choosing.
Yep, exactly this. We all hold to the plain meaning of the text, until it hits something we disagree with, in which case that was a teaching for that time only, and doesn't apply to ours.
Kind of a "sliding scale hermeneutic", a Biblical equivalent to originalism's ladder for certain schools of U.S. Constitutional interpretation. When encountering an idea we'd like to agree with, like the perniciousness of homosexuals, folk Christianity or pulpit legends ("the opinion of most Christians, past and present") are sufficient. When encountering a proposition we'd like to disagree with (e.g. Christian theocracy is okay), then that sort of thing can only be demonstrated by an unambiguous Bible verse. If the idea is truly abhorrent enough the Old Testament doesn't count. In other words it's not so much a principled hermeneutic as it is a way of fine-tuning the level of proof required to get the desired answer.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel
quote:
OK Steve - but I'm not talking about churches taking a wider moral police role and neither do I think anyone else is on this thread.
I know you're not. More that a past in which churches did is still having too much influence in all kinds of ways, and distorting how we do things and/or how others (like Croesos?) see what we do.
by Croesos;
quote:
quote:
quote:
God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean.
Note that "anyone" is a lot more comprehensive that just "Gentiles". It includes lepers and menstruating women and even homosexuals. The interpretation you seem to favor seems to be along the lines of "God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean, except those filthy faggots". I'm not sure the interpretation that Roman centurions are kosher but that homosexuals are still treif can be supported by the text.
There's a bit of a non-sequitur in there, Croesos. Remember the quote I also put in from Jesus about how it's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out - words definitely, actions by implication. No, you don't call people 'unclean' because of what they are, and I'm not doing so. But there are an awful lot of texts, from Jesus and Peter and Paul and others, making it clear that people can still do impure acts and that sinful acts should be called sinful whoever does them. And the doing of sinful acts implies a different and much less trivial kind of impurity/uncleanness.
Texts from Peter, Paul, and Jesus all make the point about the 'kosher food' issue. It can hardly be regarded as insignificant that God chose a vision relating to 'kosher food' to make the point about people. The Bible IS a unity.
To make the point where I think most people can agree about it, a person is not unclean because he is, say, German; but if as a German he has been a concentration camp guard murdering people, he is then decidedly 'unclean' and what he has done needs to be dealt with through a variety of courses including challenging the man to repent, and then a costly forgiveness of what he has done - emphasis on the 'done'.
by Croesos;
quote:
Kind of a "sliding scale hermeneutic", a Biblical equivalent to originalism's ladder for certain schools of U.S. Constitutional interpretation. When encountering an idea we'd like to agree with, like the perniciousness of homosexuals, folk Christianity or pulpit legends ("the opinion of most Christians, past and present") are sufficient. When encountering a proposition we'd like to disagree with (e.g. Christian theocracy is okay), then that sort of thing can only be demonstrated by an unambiguous Bible verse. If the idea is truly abhorrent enough the Old Testament doesn't count. In other words it's not so much a principled hermeneutic as it is a way of fine-tuning the level of proof required to get the desired answer.
No. The fact that homosexual acts are wrong (and note that I've phrased the issue differently to the strait-jacket you're trying to squeeze it into) is established by clear texts. "the opinion of most Christians, past and present" is not to be lightly disregarded, but serious interpretation tries to identify and remove stuff which is just "folk Christianity or pulpit legends" and to judge them by the Bible - and by the Bible as a whole in context, not isolated texts.
And when I deal with the still far too many people who want to tell me that "Christian theocracy is okay", I ask what the Bible says BOTH WAYS. I ask them to produce texts which prove their case (and in this particular case they haven't produced much at all and what they have is at best very ambiguous), and I set against that the texts which teach me a different answer (and BTW, which explain why that particular issue is different in the 'New Covenant').
(And yes, mt, I did notice your earlier comment relevant to this and I'll try and address it tomorrow - or by now, later today if one is being pedantic)
by Croesos;
quote:
If the idea is truly abhorrent enough the Old Testament doesn't count
Again, no. The OT does count. But the OT has also been 'fulfilled/completed/brought-to-its-true-goal' by the NT, so it doesn't have the same value as before the NT. To use Paul's analogy, the OT is like a 'schoolmaster' - and in the 'New Covenant' we have grown beyond that schoolmaster though he is still a friend. And it is the promised New Covenant and God's anointed/Messiah who establish that. Lots of stuff about school was useful - but as a grown-up, I don't have to follow rules like 'wear the uniform'. Christianity doesn't reject everything that was learnt via the OT 'school' - but it tries not to get trapped into the things which have been superseded now we're not in the school any longer.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
The fact that homosexual acts are wrong (and note that I've phrased the issue differently to the strait-jacket you're trying to squeeze it into) is established by clear texts.
An impressive feat given the non-existence of such a category as "homosexual acts."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Again, no. The OT does count. But the OT has also been 'fulfilled/completed/brought-to-its-true-goal' by the NT, so it doesn't have the same value as before the NT. To use Paul's analogy, the OT is like a 'schoolmaster' - and in the 'New Covenant' we have grown beyond that schoolmaster though he is still a friend.
Patently bullshit.
Ever teach a child something and then follow up later? You do so in a progression, not a reversal, or obscure, twisty trail. quote:
Originally posted by Knopwood:
]An impressive feat given the non-existence of such a category as "homosexual acts."
Second act in The Color Purple? And pretty much ever act in La Cage aux Folles...
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"It is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate. It's a conclusion.
You don’t appear to realize that a statement such “it is wrong to treat animals with deliberate cruelty” can function perfectly legitimately as either a premise or a conclusion depending on the context.
I do realise it. That is why I said it is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate.
There is no reason to think that.
The fact that it can be a conclusion ("Therefore.....") from a premise such as "It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to any sentient being (ie not just humans)" in one context, does not mean it can't also stand as a premise in its own right in a different context, ie "It is wrong to treat animals cruelly", from which could flow conclusions such as "It is therefore wrong to set cats on fire" (which was a mediaeval entertainment).
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In the jurisdictions that have them (the U.K. does, the U.S. finds such speech restrictions unconstitutional) religion is almost always one of the protected categories.
In practice the theoretical distinction between hate speech laws and hate crime laws is easily blurred (religious exemptions notwithstanding) if anyone decides to make enough of an uproar about having their position publicly disagreed with or criticised.
You are still trying to wriggle out of having dishonestly and gratuitously accused me of advocating vandalism and violence against those with whom I disagree.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whilst I agree that your position is logical within your (and my) own paradigm, Kaplan, it does (as you've already identified) raise some issues from the point of view of theodicy ...
If homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong, despite some people having an innate same-sex attraction - which is something you appear to accept - then on what grounds does the Almighty have for condemning them for it?
Homosexual inclination is just a subset of a whole raft of similar conumdrums.
Why does God permit people to have an inclination to adultery, or kleptomania, or pyromania, or even pride, selfishness and envy?
As I said earlier, part of the problem is the assumption which Christians have absorbed from the ambient culture which says that everyone has a right to sexual fulfilment.
It is an assumption for which I feel a great deal of sympathy , but it is not easy to see it as compatible with Christianity.
Single heterosexual Christians can't "help" their sexual desires either, but it would be a big step to conclude that therefore fornication or adultery are permissible.
At the level of pastoral care and church discipline I am happy to cut them slack at the price of perfect consistency, but that is a very different thing from pretending that the Bible doesn't teach what it fairly obviously does.
quote:
Steve has stated his conviction that it isn't for any theocratic state to determine how people should or should not live - and I think we'd all (or the vast majority of us) agree with him on that - but he then says that within the church, we have the right to determine these things for our own members ...
My question then, is how does this work in practice?
Are we talking about congregational discipline?
Protestant theology regards the exercise of discipline as the third of the three "marks" (in addition to the four "notes") of the church, and it would be very difficult to argue that the NT does not enjoin church discipline, including excommunication.
The sensitivity and flexibility with which it is carried out is another matter, of course.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
"It is wrong to impose deliberate cruelty on animals" is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate. It's a conclusion.
You don’t appear to realize that a statement such “it is wrong to treat animals with deliberate cruelty” can function perfectly legitimately as either a premise or a conclusion depending on the context.
I do realise it. That is why I said it is not a sensible premise in an ethical debate.
There is no reason to think that.
The fact that it can be a conclusion ("Therefore.....") from a premise such as "It is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering to any sentient being (ie not just humans)" in one context, does not mean it can't also stand as a premise in its own right in a different context, ie "It is wrong to treat animals cruelly", from which could flow conclusions such as "It is therefore wrong to set cats on fire" (which was a mediaeval entertainment).
Yeah. I give up.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In which case, Kaplan, it seems to me that - by and large - the older and - by your and Steve Langton's lights - more 'compromised' historic churches deal with this issue a lot more sensitively than your favoured - and apparently more 'biblical' evangelical ones.
My brother has friends who left a particular evangelical church necause they were made to feel that it was somehow their 'fault' as parents that their son turned out gay.
Sure, there are inconsistencies in all traditions - the standard response in the historic churches for many years was 'don't ask, don't tell.'
I'm not sure that is any better as a pastoral response - but it's more common across the evangelical and charismatic spectrum than might appear at first sight - particularly when there's the threat of a heavy and pastorally insensitive response either from the elders or the congregation - or whoever happens to have the whip-hand.
I'm not saying we have a 'right' to sexual fulfilment. I was celibate until I married - in my early 30s - so was my wife. We struggled for years with sexual issues to be honest - because of our inexperience and other issues. We had to work our way through that and it wasn't easy
So, no, I'm not advocating short cuts or 'imbibing the standards of the world' or whatever else ...
I'm simply saying that we can't make blanket judgements or rely on simplistic evangelical solutions that patently don't always work.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post ...
Again, Kaplan, you aren't comparing like with like ...
As a good little evangelical single lad, I was taught that sex outside marriage was wrong and sinful and that we must avoid it at all costs. I stuck to that. Would it be right, though, for me to impose that stipulation on anyone and everyone else?
As a heterosexual male, I knew that it would be fine and dandy for me to have sex once I was married. What if I had been homosexual? There would have been no alternative for me within that paradigm than a life of celibacy.
What if I was unable - for whatever reason - to steel myself to such an extent that I didn't lapse?
What would have happened to me had I transgressed?
Would I have been restored to fellowship after repentance and confession - as it were - or would I have been given the right boot of fellowship?
What if I'd found a same-sex partner? Would I even have been allowed back into fellowship or to attend meetings/services?
You know the dilemmas as well as I do.
Of course, all churches of all traditions do exercise church discipline of some form or other - I've heard it said of an Orthodox parish I know that the priest withheld communion from a co-habiting heterosexual couple until such time as they had 'tied the knot' in a legal and Christian marriage.
I have no idea what he'd do if confronted with a gay couple.
It's easy to cite chapter and verse and throw proof-texts around ... but what happens in 'real life'?
No church is perfect and all traditions make mistakes - but from what I can see the kind of independent evangelical fellowships that Steve Langton and yourself would favour are far more likely to go in for interfering, busy-body, judgemental behaviour than any of the historic Churches I've encountered ...
And if and when they do there's always the cop-out that Steve Langton applies that they've imbibed these attitudes from the bad old Constantinian days -- which is nonsense. They behave that way because they are intrinsically judgemental not because they've inherited behaviour from someone or somewhere else.
The more historic Churches have their own problems of course - it isn't a case of one group having everything sussed and the rest muddling along ...
But it strikes me that, for all the benefits that pietistic forms of evangelicalism provide in terms of a lively, personal faith and a dogged commitment to the Gospel and so on - all very commendable - the downside is almost inevitably a kind of rigid inflexibility and a 'don't do what I do but do as I say' approach ...
Unless I was some kind of celibate monk with some kind of impeccable track-record of mastering and resisting physical desires and passions, I don't see how I could possibly point the finger at anyone else and tell them what they should or should not do -- and even if I were such a paragon of sexual virtue I wouldn't be in a position to judge ... as I'm sure I'd be as guilty as anyone else of harbouring 'impure thoughts' or resorting to ... ahem ... other means as it were ...
Yes, we can draw a line in the sand and say that marriage is only for a man and a woman - a 'commodious sacrament' - and there would be good grounds for doing so -- but where does that leave people with a same-sex attraction/orientation who, for whatever reason, feel unable to live a celibate life?
'This is a hard saying, who can receive it?'
Yes - it is hard.
It's one thing as a single heterosexual to live a celibate life until such time as one enters into the married state. It'd be quite another to live with the understanding that, through no fault of your own, because of your particular orientation, you were completely denied any romantic or sexual partnership whatsoever.
Sure, some 'make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God' and there are, of course, examples of both heterosexual and homosexual people who have done so - often at great cost.
That's fine - because they've done so voluntarily and because they've found it within themselves to do so.
What if they are unable to do so - for whatever reason? And who knows - and who can judge - what those reasons are?
On the scale of things - even if we do believe homosexual sex to be wrong in and of itself - surely it is better that it takes place within a loving, stable relationship than in what we might regard as a promiscuous or profligate fashion?
We might, for theological convictions, prefer that it didn't happen at all - but that's not the real world we live in. Some people are gay - get over it.
How do we deal with that in a church context?
It seems to be dealt with in a number of ways. Churches either:
- Exercise some form of 'ekkonomeia' depending on circumstances and on the merits (or otherwise) of each instance.
- Tell people with a same sex orientation that they are only welcome provided they don't express their sexuality physically - and if they do - there's the door and here's the right boot of fellowship ...
- Turn a blind eye and pretend it's not happening or doesn't exist ... la la la la la la ... I'm not listening ...
- Try to 'exorcise' or re-orientate the individual's sexuality in some way (by whatever means is common within the particular church or tradition) - thereby opening up the possibility of abuse, manipulation and psychological damage ...
- Work things through individually between the person and a trusted 'soul-friend' or spiritual director - a priest, pastor or some other person - with outcomes and courses of action being the sole business of those directly involved.
Most commonly, in evangelical settings it seems to me, the options are:
- There's the door, piss off ...
- Quick, quick, let's lay hands on you ...
- Well, we don't mind your orientation but as soon as you do something about it in terms of expressing that physically ... ah ah ... there's the door ... piss off.
There's got to be a better way.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel
quote:
And if and when they do there's always the cop-out that Steve Langton applies that they've imbibed these attitudes from the bad old Constantinian days -- which is nonsense. They behave that way because they are intrinsically judgemental not because they've inherited behaviour from someone or somewhere else.
I think you know my approach is a good deal more nuanced than that....
But the temptation of being 'intrinsically judgmental' is not helped by the background of those church/state issues and in this particular issue that history of centuries of supposedly 'Christian' countries criminalising homosexuality, plus the fact that far too many churches haven't really engaged with the church/state issue and are therefore muddled in their approaches.
My basic approach on the SSM issue is that if the state wants to offer its citizens that option, I've no problem with that legal position any more than I have a problem with the government allowing people to have and mostly act on other religious and philosophical beliefs. SSM just becomes another thing like, for example gambling, where the government allows something I disapprove of. That's how 'pluralist' societies work; we get to disagree with each other and say so. And that applies to everybody; in a plural state you have to accept people disagreeing with you and learn to live with it.
Ideally we wouldn't have gone about this via the route of having had a 'Christian state' imposing the Christian ideal and then having to messily adapt from that situation. If one was starting from scratch it would probably be preferable that the state provide an all-purpose 'civil partnership'amounting to a kind of 'mutual adoption' between adults for a personal rather than commercial purpose.
Such partnerships/relationships need not be sexual; but the legal 'template' would be available for people of all kinds of beliefs to use as a basis for their version of 'marriage'. That is, Christians could get 'married' in a Christian sense in their church, and then register that relationship as a civil partnership for legal purposes such as inheritance rights, joint ownership of things, recognition as primary next-of-kin, tax breaks because such partnerships have benefits for society that the state wants to encourage, etc.
Unfortunately we historically didn't go that route; but that is the kind of thinking Christians should be applying in a rethought church/state relationship.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by lilBuddha;
quote:
Patently bullshit.
Ever teach a child something and then follow up later? You do so in a progression, not a reversal, or obscure, twisty trail.
Though the basic analogy remains valid, teaching a nation of stroppy sinful human beings over a long period and ensuring they survive among nations even more stroppily sinful is not as straightforward as teaching a single child. And teaching the child is not necessarily all that straightforward.
It would of course have been a great deal easier for a far more coercive God who just forced everything to work out his way and gave the humans far less choice, and just made them think right rather than letting them try things out. But I suspect you'd disapprove of that too....
And oh, yes - Knopwood, please explain what you said....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't have an issue with how you outline your 'ideal', Steve Langton, what I do have an issue with is your blaming - or excusing - the kind of judgemental attitudes that are all too prevalent in many independent evangelical churches on past precedent from the state-churches.
I'm not advocating state-churches, I'm simply pointing that the kind of practices we see exemplified in many independent evangelical and charismatic churches when it comes to dealing with gay people pastorally can't in any way be 'blamed' or accounted for that way ...
Of course, none of these things arise out of a vacuum ... but it's not the CoE's fault, say, if an independent charismatic church tries to 'exorcise' someone with a homosexual inclination or if a Brethren assembly or other independent evangelical church were to oust someone or give them the right boot of fellowship if they declared themselves to be gay ...
What would happen in your church if someone were to 'come out' as gay?
How would the matter be dealt with?
If you were in a leadership position in a congregation, how would you deal with it?
That's the issue here - not church/state relations ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Gamaliel;
quote:
I'm not advocating state-churches, I'm simply pointing that the kind of practices we see exemplified in many independent evangelical and charismatic churches when it comes to dealing with gay people pastorally can't in any way be 'blamed' or accounted for that way ...
I'm not suggesting it can be 'blamed/accounted-for' solely in that way. But the history is definitely part of how things are now, even in many independent churches.
I don't think my current church has a particularly coherent/thought-through 'policy' on gay people - apart from being sympathetic and loving. I don't think we would actually do a same-sex marriage, I don't think there'd be too much shock if such a couple turned up. I know we have generally dealt with heterosexual problems sympathetically but obviously I can't realistically go into detail examples (Yes, I know, should have used an alias instead of my real name, but wouldn't really be comfortable with that).
I'm not in leadership, which is probably a good thing for all concerned. But I think if I was, my basic contribution would be to be teaching a coherent position on the subject (which position might not be entirely what Shipmates might be expecting from the little I've said on the boards here).
A lot of how I would deal with such things would relate to the simple fact that I construe the whole situation differently from typical 'gay' or 'anti-gay' positions, and I don't really think of 'gay' as a very special case compared to all the other human problems with sinfulness. As I said, I come at issues of psychology and human development from what is actually a quite recent viewpoint related to what I've learned as an academically able 'Aspie', not from the typical 'stock' positions that grew up during the 20th Century.
Like Jesus (I hope) I aim to not compromise the biblical teaching but not to regard sexual sin as too big a thing compared to others. Hopefully if this discussion continues you'll all learn more of what I think - bear in mind that the importance may seem a bit exaggerated just because of the fact we're dealing with it in a forum somewhat focussed on controversy. I'm thinking I should maybe put out some stuff on this topic in my blog where I can be a bit more longwinded instead of being in an argument, so to speak.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Homosexual inclination is just a subset of a whole raft of similar conumdrums.
Why does God permit people to have an inclination to adultery, or kleptomania, or pyromania, or even pride, selfishness and envy?
That you link these inclinations together shows that you haver absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
Suppose you linked them with 'heterosexual inclinations towards your husband/wife?'
Maybe you might get it then - or probably not.
[ 15. August 2015, 17:01: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, Steve Langton ... I certainly don't mean to pry into actual examples in real life.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Well this thread is just a big mess of straight people (and straight men, fancy that) who have no idea what they're talking about.
Here's a tip - listen to some actual gay people and their lived experiences, given that you have never and can never experience church as a gay person.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
