|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
First of all, it is nonsense that churches are only interested in practice. <snip> It is a complete fiction that practice is what defines the anti-gay position.
In your experience, and I am very sorry that that is what your experience has been. However, it is not the case in my experience, and not in the writings of any of the theologians and ethicists I have read on the topic. This is by no means exhaustive and I have no doubt that there are legions of homophobic churches and individuals for whom the issue is not practice but sexual feelings. But they do not represent "the" anti-gay position (as if there's only one of these). I have found the church to be a place of welcome and acceptance - and this includes Christians who belong one of the most reformed, con ev churches in the UK. It saddens and disgusts me that so many people are so hurt and even like you have to be called out of the church by God because that's actually the best place for them and the best place for them to serve him. But it also saddens and disgusts me that all supposedly anti-gay Christians are tarred with the same brush when I know so many loving and accepting people who nevertheless in all integrity believe sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong.
I am glad that you have found peace outside the church and sad that it was denied you within.
quote:
You have to go outside the gospels to find the message that queers are unacceptable visitors of those who are sick or in prison, carers for the widow and orphan, feeders of the hungry, etc., etc.
Well I certainly don't think that ANY of the Bible suggests that. However you have missed or ignored my point which is that I struggle to see how I can claim to know the mind of Christ on an issue if I ignore what I think is stated elsewhere in Scripture (obviously you disagree with me on what those Scriptures actually say but in all honesty for me I can't understand them as meaning anything else). Jesus didn't mention a lot of things during his ministry. Obviously this reflects my particular theology of revelation blah blah but I don't have a lot of sympathy for the argument that Jesus was loving and accepting so wouldn't have a problem with it. Jesus was loving and accepting to the woman caught in adultery but told her not to do it anymore. His words about divorce are pretty stringent too. So I am quite wary of filling in the blanks of Jesus' teaching based on my understanding of his character because he is always confounding my expectations and jumping out of the boxes I put him into.
[ 03. March 2005, 22:08: Message edited by: Sean D ]
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anichan
Apprentice
# 9086
|
Posted
quote:
...the very painful reality is that more often than not, gay and lesbian people are not actually allowed to have a voice in this debate.
I remember quite distinctly the first time it was pointed out to me that this debate so often goes on in the absence of the people whose lives are most affected. We spent most of the rest of that workshop listening to people's stories about being gay or lesbian Christians (or parents of). It made such a difference to how I thought about these things - not necessarily to the conclusions, but to my thought processes in getting to those conclusions.
I don't think we can only "hear people's stories" but too often this element is omitted entirely.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) for your ministry, Arabella PW
Posts: 37 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sean D: quote:
But it also saddens and disgusts me that all supposedly anti-gay Christians are tarred with the same brush when I know so many loving and accepting people who nevertheless in all integrity believe sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong.
Yes, but the question is, as I said, a good few posts ago, why do they believe it's wrong? Do they believe that all sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong because the propositional teaching of the Bible, as they understand it, is that? The problem there is that I can't recall a single unitary Biblical proposition that says that all sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong. Certainly there are propositions which if you assemble them in various ways can be made to cover many of the bases - but also in various ways.
Your defence of
quote:
loving and accepting people who nevertheless in all integrity believe [all] sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong
is based on their feeling bound by a synthesis of Biblical teaching on sex - which isn't indefensible, but isn't self-evident either.
The trouble is that when you try to make such a position cover both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, it doesn't fit. Heterosexual sex is treated as a behaviour that needs regulated. Homosexual sex is just forbidden. That's the way the Biblical cookie crumbles, they say. And basically they are simultaneously asserting and hiding from an assymetry.
Homophobia, as hatred of homosexuals, essentially sees homosexual practice as "unnatural" - for which read not normatively human, for which read not fully human. As far as I know, there's no such thing as heterophobia (I'm open, as ever, to correction...) in the sense that it would be insane to argue that heterosexual sex is unnatural. (If that had been possible, surely Augustine would have gone for it, and he seems to come damned close sometimes!)
But we've already seen that the extra-scriptural arguments against the 'naturalness' of homosexuality are decidedly dodgy, and that 'natural law' is a philosophical blank cheque. I notice that nobody from the natural law camp has got back to us on that one.
The only real defence against homophobia that Christians have is a professed belief that Biblical teaching is totally contingent on the will of God, and the attitude that if God had not so willed things (if indeed it is the case that he has) they personally would have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, and the ethical problems connected with it would be in every respect analogous to those invoked by heterosexuality, i.e. issues of fidelity, honesty, etc. etc.
But I have never heard anyone advance the view that homosexual relationships are forbidden to Christians simply because forbidden in certain Biblical propositions, without at least to some degree expressing distaste.
You speak of quote:
many loving and accepting people who nevertheless in all integrity believe sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong.
Is it really insulting, rather than realistic about our human condition, to question whether any of us are completely loving and accepting, or manage to believe anything at all "in all integrity"? Whether you get that from Freud,or from Original Sin, or both?
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But I have never heard anyone advance the view that homosexual relationships are forbidden to Christians simply because forbidden in certain Biblical propositions, without at least to some degree expressing distaste.
You might have done, but found those proposing that view to some degree distasteful! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Let me oblige. I think homosexual sex is forbidden for Christians - not because of natural law, or cos of personal dislike, or any homophobia - but simply and totally because of my view that the Bible teaches this.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
FishFish: quote:
You might have done, but found those proposing that view to some degree distasteful!
Yeah, well, I did think about that - honestly! When I said quote:
Is it really insulting, rather than realistic about our human condition, to question whether any of us are completely loving and accepting, or manage to believe anything at all "in all integrity"?
I did apply it to myself too.
quote:
I think homosexual sex is forbidden for Christians - not because of natural law, or cos of personal dislike, or any homophobia - but simply and totally because of my view that the Bible teaches this.
Fair enough.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Excellent post Psyduck - thank you for engaging with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Yes, but the question is, as I said, a good few posts ago, why do they believe it's wrong? Do they believe that all sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong because the propositional teaching of the Bible, as they understand it, is that? The problem there is that I can't recall a single unitary Biblical proposition that says that all sex outside of hetero marriage is wrong. Certainly there are propositions which if you assemble them in various ways can be made to cover many of the bases - but also in various ways.
I guess I would look first to the creation narratives which present sex as being in the context of a monogamous heterosexual relationship. This order of creation is to my understanding reflected in the various prohibitions. It seems quite consistent to me although I am open to being shown otheriwse. It seems pretty self-evident to me although I respect the integrity of those who just do not believe that that is what the Bible says. Even if it's not self-evident, there are a lot of things in the Bible which I believe but which aren't self-evident. The Trinity would be the prime example: not self-evident (i.e. there's no text which says "by the way folks God is three persons but there's only one of God") but a synthesis of the whole witness of Scripture.
quote:
Heterosexual sex is treated as a behaviour that needs regulated. Homosexual sex is just forbidden. That's the way the Biblical cookie crumbles, they say. And basically they are simultaneously asserting and hiding from an assymetry.
But there's not two different kinds of sex - one of which is regulated and the other is forbidden. There is sexual intercourse per se, which is regulated.
quote:
Homophobia, as hatred of homosexuals, essentially sees homosexual practice as "unnatural" - for which read not normatively human, for which read not fully human.
Well that certainly can't be pulled from the Bible, unless you take quite a strong view of the fall and say that none of us are fully human. But those of us who experience same sex attractions are no more culpable or punished than those who don't - no more or less natural. We are all affected by the fall. Nevertheless I strongly dispute your definition of homophobia, which by sleight of hand tries to smuggle in homophobia by default into the conservative position. Surely homophobia is like arachnophobia - an irrational fear of something. Homophobes are thus those who react negatively towards people who experience same sex attraction simply because they experience those attractions.
quote:
The only real defence against homophobia that Christians have is a professed belief that Biblical teaching is totally contingent on the will of God, and the attitude that if God had not so willed things (if indeed it is the case that he has) they personally would have absolutely no problem with homosexuality, and the ethical problems connected with it would be in every respect analogous to those invoked by heterosexuality, i.e. issues of fidelity, honesty, etc. etc.
But it's not simply because God has "so willed things" as if God's will is entirely arbitrary.
quote:
But I have never heard anyone advance the view that homosexual relationships are forbidden to Christians simply because forbidden in certain Biblical propositions, without at least to some degree expressing distaste.
Well you have now.
quote:
Is it really insulting, rather than realistic about our human condition, to question whether any of us are completely loving and accepting, or manage to believe anything at all "in all integrity"? Whether you get that from Freud,or from Original Sin, or both?
Well doubtless we are not perfect anymore than you are although that argument works both ways - if I cannot claim integrity for my position than neither can you for yours. But I am not claiming perfection for these people - simply that I know them well enough to know for a FACT that their views don't proceed from homophobia but a sincere desire to submit to what they believe is the word of God. The fact that there are a number of people who themselves experience same sex attraction in this group strongly suggests to me that they are not simply out for a bit of queer-bashing.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Almost 2,000 posts on this topic over a period of more than 4 years. That in itself says to me that the issue is both controversial and divisive.
I'm a newcomer and haven't had time to review all the posts. Has there been any exploration during this time of the meaning of the word "natural" in Romans 1? (I've seen some "natural law" posts and tended to agree with the demolishers). The Greek word in Romans is PHUSIKOS which simply means "inborn". A lot seems to me to flow, in simple justice, from whether homosexual orientation is "inborn". Or even from the possibility that this is so. For example, it would be patronising prejudice to argue "how unfortunate to be born that way". If we share any common understanding about the sacredness of life it must surely extend in full to those who are born in some way different to us.
If this has all been thoroughly explored I apologise for reopening it this way. All of my instincts tell me that a closing of ranks and a closing of minds does no good at all on this issue .
--------------------
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
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sean D: quote:
Nevertheless I strongly dispute your definition of homophobia, which by sleight of hand tries to smuggle in homophobia by default into the conservative position. Surely homophobia is like arachnophobia - an irrational fear of something. Homophobes are thus those who react negatively towards people who experience same sex attraction simply because they experience those attractions.
Actually, I tend to agree with your strictures on the use of "homophobia" - but I believe that this is the way the term is used, and I also believe that the phenomenon it names really exists, even if the term of chioce is an ill-fit. (I think this has come up on this thread before, by the way - though I also firmly believe that that shouldn't be an impediment to discussion here on DH, of all places!)
Truth is, to use "homophobia" to name a phobia is really to try to discuss something that nobody else is discussing. That's why I decided not to listen to the anally-retentive philologist in me, and just use the term the way it's usually used.
(I hate the split infinitive at the beginning of Star Trek too - though I'd probably miss it if it were corrected...)
I think that the business of naming something that needs to be named is important, and overrides strict lexical accuracy. Sadly that's the way language seems to work. Maybe that's because of the Fall, too!
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Barnabas62: quote:
If this has all been thoroughly explored I apologise for reopening it this way.
This is Dead Horses, old son! Cut yourself some slack! (Hope that's not usurping a hostly prerogative, TonyK...)
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Actually, I tend to agree with your strictures on the use of "homophobia" - but I believe that this is the way the term is used, and I also believe that the phenomenon it names really exists, even if the term of chioce is an ill-fit.
Fair enough. I agree we need to name the phenomenon just as it was important to name and identify the phenomenons (or is it phenomena )of racism, sexism etc. It is saying that there is something there, that it matters, it cannot just be swept under the carpet.
My main problem with defining it as anyone who thinks same sex practices are wrong/unnatural (as opposed to someone who has an irrational fear or hatred of people who experience same sex attraction) is that it ends up categorising many gay people as homophobic!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
But I have never heard anyone advance the view that homosexual relationships are forbidden to Christians simply because forbidden in certain Biblical propositions, without at least to some degree expressing distaste.
Well you have now.
Yes, and as my own prior posts will show, this is not dissimilar to my own position, though I specify certain acts rather than all aspects of gay relationships.
Which, since I posted a lot way back when, is why I don't post on this thread much...
David
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I've thought of a thought experiment to test for homophobia among Christians who believe same-sex sexual acts to be sinful.
A gay male couple and a lesbian couple are converted and decide not to engage in sexual activity anymore, but they will carry on living as companions and share a mortgage, etc and will share affection with each other, but not long slow French kisses, etc.
If you are okay with that, then I think you are not homophobic.
If you are not okay with it, then I think you are homophobic.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Thank you Christina. I pass your test - although I would advise them to think through their decision carefully since if they genuinely wanted to remain celibate if they were anything like me they might find it extremely difficult to live at such close quarters with one another without being sorely tempted! But then not everyone is like me (phew) so I certainly don't see how I could have any objection if that is the decision they came to.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Hi Sean,
I'm glad you found it helpful. From my perspective, I think it harder to be chaste or celibate in isolation. I think loneliness is a factor in promiscuity, or some promiscuity, anyway. Human touch and affection is important, but in our societies it is largely frowned upon, especially when between 2 men.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
ChristinaMarie: quote:
I've thought of a thought experiment to test for homophobia among Christians who believe same-sex sexual acts to be sinful.
A gay male couple and a lesbian couple are converted and decide not to engage in sexual activity anymore, but they will carry on living as companions and share a mortgage, etc and will share affection with each other, but not long slow French kisses, etc.
If you are okay with that, then I think you are not homophobic.
If you are not okay with it, then I think you are homophobic.
The problem I have with that is that it effectively says that people are acceptable as long as they pretend that they are not gay.
And as the whole sad Jeffrey John business showed, for an awful lot of people, even that's not enough. But even for the people for whom it is enough, what it does - quite explicitly - is introduce the test of what's acceptable to us.
I'm afraid I don't think ChristinaMarie's test filters out homophobia at all. Even Morecambe and Wise's 'bedroom scenes' pushed the envelope with a lot of people. And what about Spongebob Squarepants? (I'm being deadly serious about this!) What ChristinaMarie's test lays down is the bounds of what's tolerable to certain Christians. For my money, I'm afraid it founders on the rock of Matthew 7:1.
My own test would be someone who knows and values the friendship of a gay couple, enjoys their company, receives and reciprocates their hospitality, admires the good things in the life they build together, is genuinely baffled as to why any of this should phase God (according to Leviticus), worries about that privately, and wrestles with the fact that there's absolutely no unhurtful way on God's green earth that he can tell them any of this, and so out of sheer love decides to keep it between him and God - and prays both for them, and for himself that he simply can't square what he sees with what the Bible tells him, and doesn't understand why.
Show me someone whose literalism puts them in that position, and I'll take it very seriously. They might just qualify as non-homophobic in my book.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
For Psyduck, with respect
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
The problem I have with that is that it effectively says that people are acceptable as long as they pretend that they are not gay.
Are you seriously suggesting that only people in same sex sexual relationships can qualify as gay? What about those who have opted for celibacy a) because they think gay sex is not right b) because they feel called to celibacy either in the religious life or not or c) just haven't found anyone to have sex with but would quite like to.
quote:
My own test would be someone who knows and values the friendship of a gay couple, enjoys their company, receives and reciprocates their hospitality, admires the good things in the life they build together, is genuinely baffled as to why any of this should phase God (according to Leviticus), worries about that privately, and wrestles with the fact that there's absolutely no unhurtful way on God's green earth that he can tell them any of this, and so out of sheer love decides to keep it between him and God - and prays both for them, and for himself that he simply can't square what he sees with what the Bible tells him, and doesn't understand why.
Well I just about qualify for this. I never or rarely discuss the issue with my practising gay friends but they all know what I think. The only time I discuss it is if they raise it. I just figure they know what I think and often they've had so many people tell them "what the Bible says". However if you mean that the only loving course of action is silence, that is rank bollocks. The most loving man in the world spent much of his time pointing out to people where they were wrong... because it was the loving thing to do. This doesn't mean it's always loving, but it is not excluded a priori.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sean D: quote:
Are you seriously suggesting that only people in same sex sexual relationships can qualify as gay? What about those who have opted for celibacy a) because they think gay sex is not right b) because they feel called to celibacy either in the religious life or not or c) just haven't found anyone to have sex with but would quite like to.
It's interesting that you've shifted the ground somewhat. I was talking about the attitudes of people who might or might not be homophobic towards other people, who are homosexual. You are talking about attitudes of homosexual people towards their own sexuality. I'm talking about how homosexual people would have to behave in order to be acceptable to certain specified others, viz. Christians who believe that homosexual relationships are wrong, and who therefore may or may not be homophobic. Maybe what I'm talking about is the phenomenology of homosexuality. And on that basis I was distinguishing between Christians who believe that homosexual relationships are wrong who find manifestations of homosexuality unacceptable and offensive to them - which is my definition of homophobic - and Christians who believe that homosexual relationships are wrong, but only on the contingent ground that there appear to them to be binding propositional teachings in Scripture to this effect, but otherwise are indifferent to manifestations of homosexuality.
You yourself answer my basic point in a manner which indicates that you accept it. I'm therefore not clear as to the relevance of what I've quoted from your last post. But if I understand it correctly, what you seem to be saying is that it's OK to approve of people who suppress their homosexuality, or whose homosexuality we don't know about or notice. In other words, you seem to be delineating a category of acceptable homosexuality which basically boils down to celibacy.
What I'm saying is that this glib business of "loving the sinner, hating the sin" (and you didn't say that, and I'm not accusing you of being glib) is a damned difficult act to pull off - because in this case it would involve loving in such a way as to be totally accepting and non-judgmental, and hating "the sin" simply because Leviticus tells you to. In fact specifically - on the criterion I've advanced, and you say you accept - it involves accepting people concretely as they are, and condemning the 'sin' abstractly, without any idea at all why it is a sin.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Sean D: quote:
However if you mean that the only loving course of action is silence, that is rank bollocks.
No, my point is that if you really believe that the only thing that makes the expression of homosexuality wrong is specific Biblical quotations - in other words, that you don't believe that it's quote:
intrinsically
unloving, destructive, and hurtful to others, you yourself don't find it odd, unpleasant, repulsive, or what have you, and the people you have to deal with know the same Biblical passages you do and don't give them the weight that you do - what more can you say? If, on the other hand, you do find homosexuality odd, unpleasant, etc. etc. then I think you have to reckon honestly with the fact that this may be behind the weight you attribute to the passages in the Bible you find significant.
quote:
The most loving man in the world spent much of his time pointing out to people where they were wrong... because it was the loving thing to do.
And he says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. But every time he does condemn a specific kind of behaviour, it is always behaviour that is either unloving and destructive towards others or destructive of self, and of one's relationship with God. I can't think of a single ground of Christly condemnation which is straightforwardly transferrable to the issue of homosexuality.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
My own test would be someone who knows and values the friendship of a gay couple, enjoys their company, receives and reciprocates their hospitality, admires the good things in the life they build together, is genuinely baffled as to why any of this should phase God (according to Leviticus), worries about that privately, and wrestles with the fact that there's absolutely no unhurtful way on God's green earth that he can tell them any of this, and so out of sheer love decides to keep it between him and God - and prays both for them, and for himself that he simply can't square what he sees with what the Bible tells him, and doesn't understand why.
Show me someone whose literalism puts them in that position, and I'll take it very seriously. They might just qualify as non-homophobic in my book.
If you change Leviticus to holy tradition, I think you'd be describing my position fairly enough. The Church simply doesn't allow same-sex marriage. I don't understand why this is so, and really wish it were not so. But, as much as I may regret it, it is so.
I have talked to the lesbian couple I know best and am closest to about the Church's teaching on homosexuality, but only because I was asked. If I hadn't been asked, I wouldn't have said anything at all.
I am a strong supporter of civil marriage for gays and lesbians, since I don't see any reason why the Church's rules for marriage should be binding on anyone who hasn't chosen to be in the Church.
Do I pass your test?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Absolutely.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
If you change Leviticus to holy tradition, I think you'd be describing my position fairly enough. The Church simply doesn't allow same-sex marriage. I don't understand why this is so, and really wish it were not so. But, as much as I may regret it, it is so.
I don't knowingly know any gay people in real life. I don't know why this is, although I know, like and respect several gay Shipmates. But apart from that, you can count me in with the above.
I firmly believe though, that no commandment of God is there arbitrarily or just because he finds something distasteful, but rather that if we've been commanded to do something, it's for our (sometimes personal, sometimes collective) benefit. This sometimes gets me labelled a liberal in spite of my belief in the literal truth of various contentious items such as the Virgin Birth, the actual non-ghostly Resurrection, the possibility that Universalism may not be true, the value of Apostolic Succession, and so on.
This particular Dead Horse is problematic because I simply cannot find an argument that supports the teaching of the Church on this matter, as in case in the case of the various takes on divorce, on greed, on adultery, on worshipping idols, on... well, anything in which the Church has ever taken an interest. I can't support it by rational argument.
So I think the only thing I can do with integrity in the unlikely event that anyone asks my opinion, is to state that it's none of my business, something between gay people and God, and leave it at that.
Incidentally I think the way forward on such issues is to submit to the teaching of the Church and, where one believes the teaching to be wrong, challenge it theologically from within. This is easy for me to say, as an Anglican layperson in a position to do largely what I like without censure.
But I regret the recent events in the Anglican Communion not only for the hurt being caused to many people, not only for advancing schism, but because a couple of years ago I saw a real hope that the theology applying to same-sex unions was being developed to the point at which perhaps I might, with my liberal head on, be able to side with the Church.
Am I homophobic?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul Mason
Shipmate
# 7562
|
Posted
I have a question for Greyface, Joesephine, Sean D and anyone else who passes Psyduck's test:
If you accept the Bible/Church's teaching on same-sex relations despite the lack of (to you) rational argument - does that mean that you believe that there is a good reason for it, i.e. that there is some inherent harm in it, and you just don't know what it is yet?
If you don't then does that means you accept that the Bible/Church prohibits some things on an arbitrary basis?
--------------------
Now posting as LatePaul
Posts: 452 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
I have a question for Greyface, Joesephine, Sean D and anyone else who passes Psyduck's test:
If you accept the Bible/Church's teaching on same-sex relations despite the lack of (to you) rational argument - does that mean that you believe that there is a good reason for it, i.e. that there is some inherent harm in it, and you just don't know what it is yet?
If you don't then does that means you accept that the Bible/Church prohibits some things on an arbitrary basis?
For me it just means that I'm torn. On the one hand I see as the twin demands of justice and compassion for the different (Bible references all over the place support this but even if they didn't this is what is actually in me.) Loving my neighbour as myself includes the possiblity that my neighbour may be gay. And how can I love him or her as myself if my love is conditional on my neighbour changing. That is the gospel the wrong way round. We love because He first loved us - and so we love first - unconditionally.
On the other hand, there is pressure from within my faith community and from traditional understandings of other parts of the bible. To say I am not influenced by these would be to lie.
Presently, and for some time, I am going with the unconditional love of my neighbour. It's a heart and a head decision and I'm doing the best I can with it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
If you accept the Bible/Church's teaching on same-sex relations despite the lack of (to you) rational argument - does that mean that you believe that there is a good reason for it, i.e. that there is some inherent harm in it, and you just don't know what it is yet?
If you don't then does that means you accept that the Bible/Church prohibits some things on an arbitrary basis?
I don't believe that the Church either commands or prohibits anything arbitrarily -- those things which we are required to do and those things that are forbidden are so for our good.
So I think that it may be true that same-sex relationships are harmful in some way that I don't know or understand.
But I'm not entirely sure that's so. At one time, the Church had no provision for remarriage, and no provision for the marriage of an Orthodox person to someone who wasn't Orthodox. So maybe same-sex relationships will eventually be brought into the Church the same way those relationships were brought in.
Or maybe those relationships could be handled in the same way as polygamous marriages. It is my understanding that, while polygamous marriages could never be brought into the Church, someone in a polygamous marriage (in a country where it is traditional and lawful) wouldn't necessarily be required to end their marriage in order to be received into the Church. That situation would be handled with pastoral discretion -- what are the needs of the people involved? What is the best thing for each of them, and for their salvation?
And maybe there are priests already handling gay relationships in such a way. I don't know, because such decisions are a private, pastoral matter, and not generally open for public comment and debate.
That is perhaps a longer answer to your question than you really wanted. But I don't have any short, simple answers.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sean D:
quote:
Homophobia, as hatred of homosexuals, essentially sees homosexual practice as "unnatural" - for which read not normatively human, for which read not fully human.
Well that certainly can't be pulled from the Bible, unless you take quite a strong view of the fall and say that none of us are fully human. But those of us who experience same sex attractions are no more culpable or punished than those who don't - no more or less natural. We are all affected by the fall.
Unfortunately, the proposition that gay and lesbian people are less than human is exactly what some Christians, a rather large number in my old denomination, believe. I have sat in an Assembly and listened while people quite seriously proposed that merely being gay or lesbian, no sex involved, put me beyond the love of God - by definition I could not display the fruits of the Spirit. That in fact, all I could display was the fruits of the flesh.
There is a Christian political party in New Zealand pretty much founded on this proposition - they do all their campaigning on the threat of homosexuals to "normal" people. The scary thing is that they have a solid following - although I doubt they will achieve the critical mass required to get them into Parliament. They preach the prosperity gospel, which has made them just a bit unattractive to too many other Christian groups.
Load of baloney, I say. I agree with Psyduck, as usual! And I have done my best to avoid the word homophobia, because I think that within the church it should be named for what it is - powermongering. Or at least, that's my experience. I know too many ministers who are perfectly OK with their queer parishioners who go into Assemblies, come over all weird, and vote against those same parishioners' right to be part of the church.
And I'm sorry, Christina, but I cannot accept your test. To avoid the anti-gay label, in my mind anyway, a person needs to regard me exactly the same way they'd regard anyone else, all things being equal. I don't much like the way some gay people behave as though only other gay people have anything to offer, either, just to be clear.
[ 10. March 2005, 07:13: Message edited by: Arabella Purity Winterbottom ]
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
ChristinaMarie: quote:
I've thought of a thought experiment to test for homophobia among Christians who believe same-sex sexual acts to be sinful.
A gay male couple and a lesbian couple are converted and decide not to engage in sexual activity anymore, but they will carry on living as companions and share a mortgage, etc and will share affection with each other, but not long slow French kisses, etc.
If you are okay with that, then I think you are not homophobic.
If you are not okay with it, then I think you are homophobic.
The problem I have with that is that it effectively says that people are acceptable as long as they pretend that they are not gay.
And as the whole sad Jeffrey John business showed, for an awful lot of people, even that's not enough.
First, I didn't write they were pretending not to have gay sex, but actually had decided not to.
Second, the test is only for people who feel certain that gay sex is wrong, which doesn't apply to you.
Third, the Jeffrey John case proves my point. Those people opposed to him were homophobic, as my test shows. They proclaim they only think gay sex activity to be wrong, not being gay itself, then they prove to be liars in the Jeffrey John case.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Third, the Jeffrey John case proves my point. Those people opposed to him were homophobic, as my test shows. They proclaim they only think gay sex activity to be wrong, not being gay itself, then they prove to be liars in the Jeffrey John case.
Christina
The Archbishop of Canterbury called the issues that many evangelicals were concerned about, in the case of the Jeffrey John appointment, theologically intelligible and serious. Furthermore these two theologians set out the the case which was being made at the time. I'd be very surprised if people can seriously view it as homophobic - then again I don't have much confidence in how the word is used.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Spawn: quote:
Furthermore these two theologians set out the the case which was being made at the time. I'd be very surprised if people can seriously view it as homophobic...
I am sure that you won't be surprised that I am about to surprise you. From the quoted article:
quote:
As for his pattern of life, Jeffrey is in the sort of 'permanent, faithful and stable' same-sex partnership his writings commend. This, too, is a radical novelty.
Because, of course, we all know that homosexuals... Spawn, doesn't that strike you as snidely homophobic? (In the usual sense, in which we both 'lack confidence', of course...)
quote:
Those who consistently disobey other teaching on sexual ethics are not normally 'starred' candidates for preferment!
And what would these analogous "other teachings" be?
quote:
The fact the relationship is now abstinent is important but does not nullify this key point. In fact, on his own account and terminology, Jeffrey John remains in a same-sex covenanted union.
Well, this lot crash and burn on ChristinaMarie's test, let alone mine!
quote:
In Oxford’s ivory towers an interesting case may be made that - unlike marriage - such a permanent union somehow dissolves after sexual activity has ceased for a certain length of time. In this country and abroad, however, such niceties will be overlooked.
As in: How deeply regrettable, albeit understandable, that the plebs will say "Let's just toss a rope over that tree-branch..."
quote:
Regrettably, Bishop Richard's nomination places the spotlight onto this one intimate relationship and highlights its most problematic aspects rather than its more Christ-like features.
And these, in the estimation of the authors, would be...? (Some indication would have been charitable, and headed off the nasty suspicion that this is just self-justifying ecclesiastical rhetoric.)
quote:
When appointments are used to short-circuit proper church discussion that discussion risks becoming unhelpfully personalised rather than addressing important theological issues.
So it was all their fault anyway. They were clearly asking for it...
Surprise, surprise. I think it stinks of 'homophobia'.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Mason:
If you accept the Bible/Church's teaching on same-sex relations despite the lack of (to you) rational argument - does that mean that you believe that there is a good reason for it, i.e. that there is some inherent harm in it, and you just don't know what it is yet?
If you don't then does that means you accept that the Bible/Church prohibits some things on an arbitrary basis?
I believe the Church may make temporary mistakes through the misinterpretation of Tradition, so in that sense, perhaps. I wouldn't say it was arbitrary, though, rather based on mistaken assumptions and interpretations.
My reading of history shows that the way contentious issues are resolved is in the discernment of the whole Church through councils of bishops and the later largely informal ratification of the outcomes (or not) by the laity.
I do not see the Church attempting to address the issue of a relationship that in every way other than the sex of the participants is intended to be a marriage, until recent history and so it may be that the blanket ban on such unions to which most sections of the Church currently subscribe, is a misapplication of Tradition and up for grabs through such a process of discernment.
I believe the outcome of such discernment would be a rationally acceptable body of evidence that would allow us to decide, and interpret Scripture one way or the other, in the same way as we now interpret slavery to be wrong yet there are reasonable Biblical, rational, traditional and experiential arguments for both sides. In first century Rome I'd guess the rational arguments would be stacked in favour of it.
The problem is (it seems to me) that this process hasn't happened and events such as the potential fracture in the Anglican Communion, such as the atmosphere of rejection that cause people such as Arabella to leave her church, make such a process far less likely to happen. This is why I'm frankly well upset with ECUSA for ignoring the warnings - not for wanting to ordain a gay bishop, but for cutting the ground out from under those who want the question debated and discerned throughout the Church.
Hope this makes sense.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Spawn: quote:
Furthermore these two theologians set out the the case which was being made at the time. I'd be very surprised if people can seriously view it as homophobic...
I am sure that you won't be surprised that I am about to surprise you...
...Surprise, surprise. I think it stinks of 'homophobia'.
Which is why I don't have any confidence in the term. However the debate on the use of 'homophobic' has been rehashed so many times that I've ceased to care. If you want to label me 'homophobic' because I agree with Goddard and Walker's essay then so be it. ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I never implied that you were homophobic. I stated my opinion that a text to which you directed me was homophobic.
And since you have given yourself a second bite at the stale old cherry of Homophobia: Definition Of™ allow me to repeat what I said above, that I am not content with ther relationship between the conventional usage of the word and the meaning of other -ophobia terms. I simply use the word in what I take (subject to correction) is the current accepted sense. In accordance with that sense, I have given (minimally!) argued examples of what I think is "homophobic" in the text you refer to. I had hoped you might have engaged with the points that I make. Perhaps even offered your own, non-homophobic reading of them. Hey ho.
--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
I think one of the main problems with the essay, is that it appeals to historic Church teaching. So, when it comes to the ordination of women Priests, that is okay, although it is against historical Church teaching, but homosexual considerations can be argued against on historical Church teachings.
If that isn't inconsistent, please explain why.
Also, same-sex covenanted unions (not for sexual purposes) are part of Tradition. There is a recognition of such partnerships, based on David and Jonathan, within Tradition.
If it is wrong to ordain Jeffrey John as Bishop, because he will teach that same-sex unions are okay, which is against the historical Church teaching, then surely, Bishops who teach that women can be Priests have a problem? The ordination of women Priests is against historical Church teaching.
As an outsider to the C of E (though confirmed, but no intention to go back), it looks like certain people want to go against historical Church teaching, when it suits them, but then appeal to it, when it suits them.
I think this is one of the major probs for the C of E, inconsistency.
I take back my homophobic charge based on the argument that he will teach differently, but what Psyduck pointed out, does concern me. Especially as the historical Church has had such non-sexual covenants between people of the same sex. Celibate people.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
I take back my homophobic charge based on the argument that he will teach differently, but what Psyduck pointed out, does concern me. Especially as the historical Church has had such non-sexual covenants between people of the same sex. Celibate people.
I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again. In practice, if you are a gay or lesbian person, whether you are having sex or not, you will be regarded with suspicion. You will not be trusted. A very few churches will behave differently - in NZ, there are only eight parishes, of any denomination, who openly state that they welcome gay and lesbian people. A few others treat their queer parishioners well, but are reluctant to state a welcome. And when push comes to shove, those parishes will often not stand up and be counted in national gatherings.
I realise that some of you will say that I am overstating the case. But even in my old parish, which is probably one of the pro-gay in the country, there were still questions and suspicions. At the very least, a queer person is always being questioned about their motives - by both church people and queer people. It is not enough to try and follow a calling, like any other person - the number of times I was told that I was doing it for political reasons was mind-numbing huge. I wasn't, but dear God, do you think anyone would believe me? I knew it would have political ramifications, but my motivations were those of a calling, not a personal power trip. I think it says rather more about the people asking than it does about me.
It is not true that celibacy fixes everything in the minds of those who would exclude. My own ex-denomination made that very clear in a case about 6 years ago - an ordination candidate who had been celibate, remained celibate and intended to remain celibate, was hounded out of the church for simply acknowledging that she was a lesbian.
Lying, now that is a solution that the church likes. Another (celibate) lesbian kept her sexuality secret for the three years she was in a lay pastor position. She came out when my story was in the news, because her parish was planning to make a rabidly anti-gay press release in reaction. Her job was terminated the next week and not one person from the parish thanked her for the work she had done in the previous three years. So - her work was OK while no one knew? But suddenly became unacceptable when they did know? Celibacy certainly didn't help her.
I know five working clergypersons (women and men) who are keeping their homosexuality secret from their parishes. The damage this secrecy is doing them (and in three cases, their partners) is immeasurable. They believe that their ministries are more important than being honest, and I can't really argue with them, since their ministries are well-received and at least two of them would immediately lose their jobs were the secret to be released. If you are forever keeping a secret, though, it defines your life, who you can interact with, who you can trust to keep your secret, how you treat your family, and most particularly, your partner. Some of my friends have lost sight of what is important - the secret is a terror and a crushing weight. They have condemned me in public, in order to keep their own lives safe, they have refused to be seen in public with me. And yet, in secret, they want me to support them. It is hard. It is the weight of the Cross and the pain of the nails hammered into Christ's hands.
I have heard too many stories of this nature, from all around the world, to ever believe that celibacy is actually a solution in real terms. For straight people this topic may well be a dead horse, but for those of us who have laid or are laying our bodies on the line it feels altogether too alive.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shareman
Shipmate
# 2871
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
This sometimes gets me labelled a liberal in spite of my belief in the literal truth of various contentious items such as the Virgin Birth, the actual non-ghostly Resurrection, the possibility that Universalism may not be true, the value of Apostolic Succession, and so on.
Just curious, and not wanting to spark a derailment, but why do you assume that to be a Liberal is to deny any or all of these things? Some do, but in my experience, the most "Liberal" have very Orthodox beliefs concerning all of these. Indeed, it is this Orthodoxy, especially with regard to the Incarnation, that is the source of their "liberalism". As far as I can see, it is only the rare loud loonies who would fit your above given definition of "Liberal".
--------------------
Israel also came into Egypt, and Jacob was a stranger in the land of Ham.
Posts: 516 | From: on a rock AND a hard place | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
quote:
Indeed, it is this Orthodoxy, especially with regard to the Incarnation, that is the source of their "liberalism".
Indeed it is, Shareman, indeed it is.
Many Christian people are scared of homsexuality. This fear is masked by loathing and rationalised by self serving exegesis. It is almost impossible to have a rational conversation without the slogans (on both sides of the debate) getting in the way. The religious context is not getting any easier. These are probably some reasons ...
(1) Increasing scientific illiteracy in the general population. Human behaviour might as well belong to the realm of magick.
(2) Pervasive post 9/11 fear leading to a hunt for something to blame and weapons of defence. This propels religion in a world denying anti-incarnational direction.
Not everyone is thus afflicted. A polarisation is growing and deepening within the churches between those who live by fear and closure and those who live by openness and love. We should perhaps move the theological emphasis toward Sophia. A creative relationship could be established between human and divine wisdom as reflecting the Divine Mind. I must go off and read a bit of Bulgakov! ....
[ 18. March 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Many Christian people are scared of homsexuality. This fear is masked by loathing and rationalised by self serving exegesis. It is almost impossible to have a rational conversation without the slogans (on both sides of the debate) getting in the way. The religious context is not getting any easier. These are probably some reasons ...
(1) Increasing scientific illiteracy in the general population. Human behaviour might as well belong to the realm of magick.
(2) Pervasive post 9/11 fear leading to a hunt for something to blame and weapons of defence. This propels religion in a world denying anti-incarnational direction.
Not everyone is thus afflicted. A polarisation is growing and deepening within the churches between those who live by fear and closure and those who live by openness and love.
Thanks Father Gregory - you've just articulated for me not just the polarisation over homosexuality but over many, many issues. I think your posting resonates with Romans 8 v 15, the idea of "falling back into fear". But it just resonates anyway.
--------------------
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
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng way the hell up in Purgatory:
A number of posters on this thread would resist the idea that homsexuality is a sin, as you can see, and their advice will reflect this presupposition.
Per Ruth's instruction to take it to DH, here I am. I have just one simple, yes or no question for Gordon: Do you believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself is a sin?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng way the hell up in Purgatory:
A number of posters on this thread would resist the idea that homsexuality is a sin, as you can see, and their advice will reflect this presupposition.
Per Ruth's instruction to take it to DH, here I am. I have just one simple, yes or no question for Gordon: Do you believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself is a sin?
No.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
If that isn't inconsistent, please explain why.
Its not inconsistent because the people who believe such things think that having sex with someone of the same sex (or anyone outside marriage) is actually a sin. But they do not think that it is a sin for a woman to preach or lead a congregation.
Ohhh this horse is SO dead by now.
So from their point of view a church can choose to change its mind of whether women can be ordained - that's just a matter of church government - but not over whether men can marry men, or women marry women - because that's about sin.
quote:
If it is wrong to ordain Jeffrey John as Bishop, because he will teach that same-sex unions are okay, which is against the historical Church teaching, then surely, Bishops who teach that women can be Priests have a problem?
NO, from their POV (I am being the Devil's Advocate here) because one teaching would be claiming that a sin is not a sin, the other merely proposing changes to church government.
quote:
Especially as the historical Church has had such non-sexual covenants between people of the same sex. Celibate people.
No-one was complaining about that though. OK, not no-one, but few people.
Which was (one of the reasons) why most people I came across in church at the time seemed to think it was OK for Jeffrey John to be a bishop, but not for Gene Robinson.
"Most" is a stupid word there, because most people never mentioned it of course. This is an issue that I have heard talked about far, far, more in the press or on the radio, than I have at church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng way the hell up in Purgatory:
A number of posters on this thread would resist the idea that homsexuality is a sin, as you can see, and their advice will reflect this presupposition.
Per Ruth's instruction to take it to DH, here I am. I have just one simple, yes or no question for Gordon: Do you believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself is a sin?
No.
Then what was the point of the final comment?
--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.
Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng:
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gordon Cheng way the hell up in Purgatory:
A number of posters on this thread would resist the idea that homsexuality is a sin, as you can see, and their advice will reflect this presupposition.
Per Ruth's instruction to take it to DH, here I am. I have just one simple, yes or no question for Gordon: Do you believe that homosexual orientation in and of itself is a sin?
No.
Oops; I had meant to add to this post that I apologise for any ambiguity in what I said on the Purg thread, and thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shareman:
Just curious, and not wanting to spark a derailment, but why do you assume that to be a Liberal is to deny any or all of these things?
I don't, but they're strong positive indicators in the sense that if you find a Universalist Christian who denies the Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection, etc, they're far more likely to be a liberal than a traditional Catholic, an evangelical, a fundie, or anything else I can think of. The theological framework of liberalism by its nature is more likely to lead in that direction but doesn't have to by any means.
The Incarnation is another matter. I tend to use the Trinity more than anything as the boundary of Christian belief. If you deny the Incarnation, you're not expressing a liberal viewpoint but a non-Christian one, to my mind.
quote:
Some do, but in my experience, the most "Liberal" have very Orthodox beliefs concerning all of these. Indeed, it is this Orthodoxy, especially with regard to the Incarnation, that is the source of their "liberalism". As far as I can see, it is only the rare loud loonies who would fit your above given definition of "Liberal".
That may be the case but I would want to make a massive glaring exception for certain Universalists at the very least from my list, and I'm not sure I'd want to stick a loony lapel badge on anyone who had trouble with Virgin Birth or Bodily Resurrection. Mistaken maybe, according to me and most of the Church, but loony?
It is a tangent, however, because I don't think we're necessarily seeing a clash between theologically liberal and theologically conservative on this issue.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
rebekah
Shipmate
# 2748
|
Posted
The knee-jerk suspicion and fear is a problem. I've found some people nervous of me just because I'm single - they fear straightaway that I may be lesbian. I'm annoyed, all right, angry, that I have to defend myself, or talk about personal issues or sexuality whether it seems appropriate, or not.
I hasten to add that I realise that's a minor problem compared to what people who are gay or lesbian in the church have to put up with.
Gordon, I wonder if you'd comment on whether this might be the reason that Sydney seems to have a de-facto "no singles" policy in its ordination process? Are the powers that be just scared that any single person must secretly or unknowingly be homosexual?
--------------------
grow in grace
Posts: 117 | From: rural Western Australia | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gordon Cheng
a child on sydney harbour
# 8895
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rebekah:
Gordon, I wonder if you'd comment on whether this might be the reason that Sydney seems to have a de-facto "no singles" policy in its ordination process? Are the powers that be just scared that any single person must secretly or unknowingly be homosexual?
I don't have stats to hand (I'm not involved in any part of the process of appointing rectors here) but I know that the existence of such a policy, de-facto or otherwise, is flatly denied by those in Anglican diocesan leadership here. If you felt so inclined you could log on to this website and contact them directly to ask them about the issue, as I'm sure they'd have the exact details to hand on who gets appointed and how. Phillip Selden is the registrar of the diocese and would be able to answer detailed policy questions.
From my experience and knowledge of the process as it works here, in all cases where rectors are to be appointed in the Sydney Anglican system, the initiative to look for and the right to nominate a candidate rests with the 5 nominators elected by the local parish at its AGM. The local parish nominators have the ability to reject any candidate they consider unsuitable, or even not to interview such a person. So choices about who gets interviewed and nominated for a rector's job are substantially affected by local issues.
--------------------
Latest on blog: those were the days...; throwing up; clerical abuse; biddulph on child care
Posts: 4392 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rebekah:
I've found some people nervous of me just because I'm single - they fear straightaway that I may be lesbian. I'm annoyed, all right, angry, that I have to defend myself, or talk about personal issues or sexuality whether it seems appropriate, or not.
Interesting that you use the word "defend." I think I would have at one point, too. But I long ago decided that if I really believe that there's nothing wrong with being gay, I don't have to "defend" myself when someone thinks I'm gay (which happens from time to time, as I am 42, have never married, and live alone with two cats in a neighborhood with a fair number of gay people in it). Now I figure, "So what if people think I'm gay?" and I correct misimpressions only in contexts where it might really matter that I go for men and not women.
Do you really have to discuss your sexuality? Seriously asking, because a) I'm not a priest, so that could make things different, and b) I don't imagine everywhere in the world is like the diocese of Los Angeles, where increasing numbers of people have gotten to the point where they just don't care which way you swing as long as you're a good priest.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
I posted something on here a while ago in support of gay christians and got a flurry of supportive "It's ok that you're gay" PMs.
FWIW, I'm straight. But at the time I remember I felt in quite a quandry as to how to reply! Messaging back "I'm not gay" seemed too defensive, as Ruth said; like I had a problem with the assumption, which I didn't... but not mentioning it felt like I was being misleading!
Lol..... what a topsy turvy problem to have. I think I couldn't be bothered to correct the misconception in the end. But every time I now make reference to my husband when I post I'm scared people are going to try and out me!!
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek.*
Resident alien
# 3207
|
Posted
From the BBC News article (discussed in this thread) re: the statement on the Episcopal Church in Scotland website:
quote:
A spokesman for the Church of England said: "The clergy are held as models or examples of Christ-like behaviour.
"Given the present understanding of active homosexuality it is not an acceptable mode of behaviour for someone who is ordained."
*the* present understanding? The problem is, there *isn't* a commonly held present understanding. What a rubbish thing to say.
--------------------
.sig on holiday
Posts: 702 | From: Hot-on-us, TX | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The C of E doesn't ordain active homosexuals? Goodness, when did this start?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
