|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Homosexuality and Christianity
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
I think such training needs to be at a more general and less politically contentious level. That way it is left to the people themselves to apply the training appropriately to any vulnerable minority groups they encounter.
Those groups would include not just homosexual people but all other kinds of vulnerable minorities, especially those with disabilities (I am long-term ill with ME/CFS, and my wife has Asperger’s Syndrome). I’ve already been accused on these boards of being a benefit scrounger. Some people definitely do need disability awareness training.
I agree entirely. In my experience, the church does a lousy job of meeting the needs of disabled people. But that would be a different thread.
You seem to be contradicting yourself just a little here, though. You say that training in treating people appropriately should be done on a general level, but that disability awareness training is needed. I don't see why we should avoid speaking specifically about the needs of gays and lesbians, while talking spefically about the needs of people with disabilities. I think we should address both issues directly and specifically.
quote:
quote:
How would the issue of the mistreatment of gays and lesbians need to be presented in your church in order to be accepted by the congregation?
Your question here presumes mistreatment of homosexual people as a fact of life. I think one would need to make a good statistical case that gays and lesbians (or any other vulnerable minority) are indeed being systematically mistreated by the wider church.
Why would the problem have to be systematic to be a problem? What, exactly, do you want to prove? It's a simple fact that some gays and lesbians have been mistreated by Christians individually and by the Church corporately. Even if there haven't been many, the fact that there are any is a problem the Church needs to address.
quote:
It is a sad fact that nearly everyone in the wider church has a bad experience at one time or other, but one bad experience is not enough to establish a systematic pattern of bullying and abuse.
It's more than one bad experience, Faithful Sheepdog. Look, I've got a suggestion for you. Go hang out with some gay and lesbian people for a while. LISTEN to what they tell you. Don't judge, just listen. Now, what you hear may not be "a systematic pattern of bullying and abuse" (however that would be defined), but I promise you, if you listen, you'll find out that many, many gay and lesbian people have been deeply hurt by people who called themselves Christians. It might not be a pattern, but it's sure as hell a problem.
[ 04. October 2005, 00:50: Message edited by: josephine ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by igeek:
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
Hence the fundamental question that you are begging: can homoerotic behaviour ever be holy or not? Our forebears in the faith were clear on their answer.
Our forbears have been wrong before. On slavery. On the role of women in society and in the church. On mixed-race couplings. On many issues of science.
So iGeek would you agree that the acceptance of homosexual relationships is an unprecedented and recent theological development?
quote:
Originally posted by corvette:
Experience? of course you have to use it as a trump card. If your theory doesn't fit the facts it's the theory that has to change. Otherwise you have nothing but a pretty theory. A pretty useless one.
But then it turns into a game of my experience is better or worse then yours therefore I am more qualified to talk on that topic then anyone else.
Which is silly game because take Jesus for example who never had the experience of a homosexual relationship. Does that make people in a homosexual relationship more qualified then Jesus to talk on the topic? Or divorce, Jesus was never divorced. Are people who have been through divorce able to trump Jesus with all of this theories about divorce because they have actually had a divorce and Jesus hadn’t?
(Disclaimer: I don’t think people who have had a divorce or are in a homosexual relationship are any less loved by God.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by corvette:
Experience? of course you have to use it as a trump card. If your theory doesn't fit the facts it's the theory that has to change. Otherwise you have nothing but a pretty theory. A pretty useless one.
"But it does move"
But, surely, experience is ALL we have. We read scripture, attend to the tradition of the church and use our reason. We dialogue with our experience. Perhaps I should have said 'conscience'. For Roman catholics, an educated conscience is supreme in moral matters (though the new catechism of he RCC put limites on it).
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I agree entirely. In my experience, the church does a lousy job of meeting the needs of disabled people. But that would be a different thread.
You seem to be contradicting yourself just a little here, though. You say that training in treating people appropriately should be done on a general level, but that disability awareness training is needed. I don't see why we should avoid speaking specifically about the needs of gays and lesbians, while talking specifically about the needs of people with disabilities. I think we should address both issues directly and specifically.
Actually, my comment here was an indirect pot-shot at another shipmate, which I shouldn’t have made. That issue has now been sorted out by PM, so I can return to talking in more general terms.
quote:
Why would the problem have to be systematic to be a problem? What, exactly, do you want to prove? It's a simple fact that some gays and lesbians have been mistreated by Christians individually and by the Church corporately. Even if there haven't been many, the fact that there are any is a problem the Church needs to address.
What exactly is it that you are trying to prove? That gay and lesbian people have been treated more badly than any other minority group in the church? Personally I see no evidence that this is true, but I am willing to listen to a rational, well-documented and well-argued case.
As I said before, everyone in the church has a story about mistreatment, but the only rational way to establish the true picture is to do some scientific and statistical study. Otherwise it simply becomes a case of one person’s favourite minority group versus another person’s favourite minority group.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
What exactly is it that you are trying to prove? That gay and lesbian people have been treated more badly than any other minority group in the church? Personally I see no evidence that this is true, but I am willing to listen to a rational, well-documented and well-argued case.
As I said before, everyone in the church has a story about mistreatment, but the only rational way to establish the true picture is to do some scientific and statistical study. Otherwise it simply becomes a case of one person’s favourite minority group versus another person’s favourite minority group.
Surely it is sufficient to demonstrate that gay and lesbian people are frequently treated abominably by the church on the grounds that they are gay or lesbian, a proposition which I would have thought was hardly controversial and which, it appears, can be assented to by such thoughtful theological conservatives as Josephine and Leprechaun.
This need not preclude the possibility that the church behaves abominably towards other minority groups. The only adequate response to injustice, I would have thought, is to fight it wherever it is found, not to engage in statistical surveys as to which minority suffers the most injustice.
Personally, I suspect that the revisionist position will turn out to be correct. But I would have thought that, for those opposed to the revisionist case, correcting the injustices suffered by gay and lesbian people would be a matter of some priority. After all if you generate a widespread conviction that traditionalists have a vested interest in perpetuating prejudice and oppression against gays and lesbians, whereas revisionists are the people who are fighting it then you equate the cause of tradition with bigotry and injustice and the cause of revision with the rectification of those offences. This is not, I submit, an outcome with which you might be entirely comfortable. So whilst revisionists and traditionalists may disagree on the correct attitude towards sexual activity between people of the same sex they should surely be agreed on the necessity of fighting injustice against gay and lesbian people wherever it is found, should they not?
--------------------
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
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
So iGeek would you agree that the acceptance of homosexual relationships is an unprecedented and recent theological development?
Theologically, yes. Sociologically (and, to some degree, in the life of the church), no.
I don't view that as significant. Let's examine another issue with a fairly recent radical change in terms of the consensus of the church, sociologoically and theologically.
We've lived for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years with ownership of human beings up until fairly recently (150 years ago in the US; arguable as to whether it's fully stamped out in all the world) with Christian theological arguments supporting the existence of the institution for nearly 2000 of those years. In South Africa, people supported the idea of separation of races and differentness based on racial tests with theological justifications up until just years ago. Our current theological and sociological consensus on race-blind equality is a very recent phenomenah.
Various cultures at various times have viewed same-sex erotic relationships differently. I view the contemporary effort to develop an ethical, theological and legal model of gender-blind committed relationships as a positive development. But that discussion probably belongs in the "gay marriage" thread.
The fundamental issue being dealt with on this thread, as I understand it, is: "can a person be a Christian and be same-sex attracted with appropriate physical expression of their sexuality? Or, put another way, do same-sex relationships have the same value as opposite-sex relationships in God's eyes?
(tags.)
[ 04. October 2005, 13:57: Message edited by: iGeek. ]
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Why would the problem have to be systematic to be a problem? What, exactly, do you want to prove? It's a simple fact that some gays and lesbians have been mistreated by Christians individually and by the Church corporately. Even if there haven't been many, the fact that there are any is a problem the Church needs to address.
What exactly is it that you are trying to prove? That gay and lesbian people have been treated more badly than any other minority group in the church?
I'm not trying to prove anything, Faithful Sheepdog. As Callan said, it doesn't matter whether the Church corporately and Christians individually treat gays and lesbians better or worse than we treat disabled people, or whether we treat people with disabilities better or worse than we treat illegal immigrants, or what. If we are treating anyone badly, we are sinning. The only possible response to that, it would seem to me, is to quit sinning. To argue (as you seem to be doing) that it may be okay to continue sinning gays and lesbians because our treatment of other groups is even more sinful seems just totally bizarre. If we treat people with disabilities even worse than we treat gays and lesbians, we need to repent of our treatment of people with disabilities, while at the same time repenting of our treatment of gays and lesbians. Which one we're treating worse is really of no relevance at all.
quote:
Personally I see no evidence that this is true, but I am willing to listen to a rational, well-documented and well-argued case.
You see no evidence that what is true? If you see no evidence that gays and lesbians are treated worse than, say, Deaf people, that's probably true -- it's likely you don't see either gays and lesbians or Deaf people very much, to have any basis at all on which to compare their experience of the Church. If you're saying that you see no evidence that gays and lesbians are treated badly by Christians, then you have wilfully closed your eyes and ears, and are refusing to hear and see what is right in front of you. Open your eyes, unstop your ears, and unfreeze your heart.
It's not a matter of "my favorite minority vs. your favorite minority." I don't care at all which minority is most badly treated by the Church. For Christians to mistreat anyone is a sin, a scandal, and it must be stopped.
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
To argue (as you seem to be doing) that it may be okay to continue sinning gays and lesbians because our treatment of other groups is even more sinful seems just totally bizarre.
Here you misrepresent me. I've not said anything like that at all.
Rome wasn't built in a day, nor the Kingdom of God. Sometimes it is necessary to prioritise between certain actions. That's when some objective data helps with sensible decision making and strategic planning.
quote:
You see no evidence that what is true?
Your "what" refers to my phrase "treated more badly". Please note the use of "more". It is crucial to understand my point.
quote:
If you see no evidence that gays and lesbians are treated worse than, say, Deaf people, that's probably true -- it's likely you don't see either gays and lesbians or Deaf people very much, to have any basis at all on which to compare their experience of the Church.
Here you misrepresent me again in a rather offensive manner. My mother is now virtually deaf, and only gets by with some powerful digital hearing aids. She can tell you a few stories about inadequate microphones and loop systems in churches.
As for gay people, I see at least one gay person every time I go to church. Since he is the Rector, he is hardly being treated badly, unless one considers the Episcopal ministry to be some bizarre form of punishment. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
If you're saying that you see no evidence that gays and lesbians are treated badly by Christians, then you have wilfully closed your eyes and ears, and are refusing to hear and see what is right in front of you. Open your eyes, unstop your ears, and unfreeze your heart.
Are you reading what I write? I've said nothing like you allege at all. Please take your patronising preaching elsewhere.
quote:
It's not a matter of "my favorite minority vs. your favorite minority." I don't care at all which minority is most badly treated by the Church. For Christians to mistreat anyone is a sin, a scandal, and it must be stopped.
Well, I suggest you might care to begin the "stopping" by reading my words more carefully and not misrepresenting what I have said to suit your own purposes.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
To argue (as you seem to be doing) that it may be okay to continue sinning gays and lesbians because our treatment of other groups is even more sinful seems just totally bizarre.
Here you misrepresent me. I've not said anything like that at all.
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, Faithful Sheepdog. I am not wilfully misrepresenting your position for my own purposes. I am saying back to you as accurately as I can what I hear you saying, and I'm checking for clarification. That's why I have said things like, this seemed to be the point you were making, or "if you mean X, then; if you mean Y, then." It's not entirely clear what you mean.
So why don't we back up a bit, and start with a point that is to me fundamental. Do you believe that gays and lesbians experience hateful, bullying, abusive treatment by the Church corporately and by Christians individually? Not that all their interactions with the Church and with Christians are abusive, nor that they are more abused than any other group, but that it happens often enough that it is in fact a real problem?
--------------------
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
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek:
The fundamental issue being dealt with on this thread, as I understand it, is: "can a person be a Chrsitian and be same-sex attracted with appropriate physical expression of their sexuality ? Or, put another way, do same-sex relationships have the same value as opposite-sex relationships in God's eyes ?
Does it make a difference if the person who experiences same-sex attraction also does or has in the past experienced heterosexual attraction, and/or has been in previous heterosexual relationships ? A number of the Christians (and non-Christians) I come across who experience same-sex attraction and/or who are currently in same-sex relationships fall into this category, yet it's interesting that they don't necessarily define themselves as 'bisexual', rather they define themselves as 'gay' or 'lesbian'.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
I don't think so. Taste is fluid (I didn't like onions as a kid; I do now). Sexual attraction is (potentially) fluid; alternatively, one's understanding of their attractions can change. Sexual orientation is a complex topic with manifold nuances. That's one reason why I think the genders involved in a relationship are relatively unimportant as compared to how the partners love each other, especially as gauged in 1 Cor 13 terms.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, Faithful Sheepdog. I am not wilfully misrepresenting your position for my own purposes. I am saying back to you as accurately as I can what I hear you saying, and I'm checking for clarification. That's why I have said things like, this seemed to be the point you were making, or "if you mean X, then; if you mean Y, then." It's not entirely clear what you mean.
OK, I accept your apology. I’m sorry that I’m not making myself clear enough, but I suspect that there is a huge gulf in our presuppositional understandings.
quote:
So why don't we back up a bit, and start with a point that is to me fundamental. Do you believe that gays and lesbians experience hateful, bullying, abusive treatment by the Church corporately and by Christians individually? Not that all their interactions with the Church and with Christians are abusive, nor that they are more abused than any other group, but that it happens often enough that it is in fact a real problem?
I am ready to acknowledge that some gay and lesbian people have experienced hateful, bullying and abusive behaviour by individual Christians for all sorts of reasons, some related to their sexuality, and some not. Please note the use of the word “some”.
That abuse is something I deplore. No Christian has a licence to bully and abuse anybody. As Leprechaun posted earlier, verbal abuse by crude, demeaning and laddish language is common in some unthinking circles, but hopefully not in my posts.
As for your much wider statement about homosexuals generally and the church corporately, I would need to see a lot more evidence before I would consider your charges to be sustained. You are asserting a great deal with very little evidence in support.
In my part of Scotland, a huge proportion of the Episcopal clergy self-identify as homosexual, including my rector. The same is true in other parts of the UK. That suggests to me that the church is actually far from hostile to homosexual people.
In fact, I would put it to you that the church may be too accommodating to homosexual people. Certain UK churches and theological colleges are well known for their pervasive gay culture that is rather excluding to everyone else, especially heterosexual men.
Speaking to various single women of my acquaintance, there seems to be a complete dearth of young, eligible, heterosexual men in the UK church. So perhaps this issue is directly related to the various lonely hearts on the Ship, all yearning for the heterosexual Christian men no longer to be found.
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
iGeek,
thanks for your response. I would agree with you that sexual orientation has nuances. However, I'm not sure how you can argue from that to saying that 'the genders involved in a relationship are relatively unimportant', partly because it doesn't chime with the importance given by so many people to the social ritual of 'coming out'. Coming out strikes me as being about declaring to people you know that you are predominantly (or exclusively) attracted to the same sex and wish to pursue sexual relationships with the same sex.
Also, if the genders involved are so unimportant, why would some people switch from having a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex to one with a member of the same sex, or indeed the other way round ?
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
...Also, if the genders involved are so unimportant, why would some people switch from having a sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex to one with a member of the same sex, or indeed the other way round ?
I happen to know two transgendered people. Both were originally males and are now living as females. Both are living with females. (One was married before and continues to be.)
People do what people do.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Coming out is not a social ritual. Well, it is, but it isn't one of the really fun ones, specially not the first few times. It isn't like being presented to the Queen, or having an engagement party or a baptism.
The importance of it for lesbians and gay men is that you know that some people are going to behave negatively towards you. I would guess that there isn't a single queer who hasn't experienced at least one bad reaction to coming out. It isn't any wonder that it takes on huge significance for us. The people who are immediately supportive are like gold and precious jewels.
For instance, if you came out to your minister/priest/spiritual director, and they started in on Luke or Faithful Sheepdog's theological line, how do you think it would make you feel when you're already terrified? Or your church decided you needed to be exorcised? Or the church community you lived in decided that exorcism wasn't enough and you needed physical punishment, including marital rape? Or you came out to your parents and they disowned you? Or, what is more subtle but I find personally more distressing, they sound accepting but you suddenly find you're no longer invited to anything, or left off rosters, or not given opportunities other people are. All of these are things that have happened to me or people in our home group, which consisted of three ex-Baptists, two Anglicans, three Presbyterians and three Catholics.
The first few times I came out to people I felt sick to my stomach and terrified. When I came out to my mother it took me several weeks to get up the courage (she was totally supportive, as it happens, and has become very vocal since my dad died - Church Ladies for Jesus rock). My dad cut off relations with me, which made visiting home difficult until he died.
Now, after 25 years of being out, coming out doesn't even register with me. It just happens and either the person is OK or not, no skin off my nose either way.
--------------------
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
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
The people who are immediately supportive are like gold and precious jewels.
That makes me so sad. Let me say, then, that there are those of us working "from the inside" to try, inch by inch, to change things so that those people one day will be like gravel - so plentiful you can't even count them, their support and love so ordinary it barely registers.
I mean, you don't even need to take a particular line on the issue to do that; to love and support someone ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) . Why we find it so frikking hard I just don't understand.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
Why we find it so frikking hard I just don't understand.
We find it hard Caz, because it is hard to express support for someone when you fundamentally think that they what they are doing is wrong and damaging to themselves and the church.
That is why it is hard. I'm not making a point here about the rightness otr wrongness of the action, I know others disagree with my view. Rather, I am saying I think this is really difficult for those of us who hold the traditional line, and just saying "change your mind on that line" (as I know you aren't but some people appear to be saying) doesn't cut it if you have theological convictions about right and wrong.
:sigh: We are miles away from dealing with this issue pastorally. I feel totally foxed by it.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
Oh, Lep, we meet again
I hear your weariness in your last sentence about being foxed by this. And it gladdens me in a way, because I at least know that you are wrestling this one through. And that has to be a good thing, rather than just a blanket "it's wrong, end of story" approach.
And I do understand it's an issue of right and wrong to you. I know it probably feels like your integrity is compromised by supporting that person in what you saw as their sin?
But Lep, honestly, what's the alternative? To tear our beautiful body to shreds over this, and continue to alienate and damage our homosexual brothers and sisters? We both know that's not productive. Can you think of anything that could make it easier for your "side" to come to terms with this challenge? (and I do mean that nicely!)
Here's my bottom line. Knowing the diverse range of scholarship on this subject; knowing it's not as black and white as either side would want to put it, here's what I'm nailing my colours on: just loving and accepting and respecting all, trusting God to reveal their sin to them (and me) as He sees fit? Because surely if it is this massive issue to him that we seem to be making it, He's big enough to convict us of it?
Maybe I'll get to heaven and turn out to be wrong on this one. It's a strong possibility; there's enough opponents out there! But all I keep saying to the Lord on this one is "If I'm wrong about this, I'd rather be wrong on the theory but have spent my time working to build up and accept and love people; however misguided I may turn out to be, than be proved right in my doctrine and then handed a list of names of people who have been broken and turned away from the gospel because of the harsh way I presented it".
Ach, bedtime for me. Sleep well. Interesting thoughts
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
Lep -- I feel and share your pain. I guess that for me, though, the treatment of homosexuality (the orientation) and any activity by gay people by the church (and church members) is far stronger and in general far more assiduous than the treatment of any other "sin". So there's an imbalance there that leads me at least to be far more urgent about how the church mistreats gay people. When I see userers or the proud told they may sit in the pews but may not exercise any ministry, even those to which they have an episcopal license, the way I have seen gay men treated by an ANglican priest (though he doesn't like the concept of priesthood) simply for being gay, then I may be a little less strong.
Neil -- some time ago you called on Josephine to stop generalizing from her personal experience -- and I suggested then that logically you ought to do the same. But you seem to be basing a whole theology and pastoral practice on your experience in the Scottish Episcopal church. I can't comment on the Scottish Episcopal church, but how can you take it to be typical of the C of E, or other Anglican churches, or indeed other churches. The rest of us are talking about "the church" in Augustinian (sorry Josephine) terms -- the whole body of CHrist's faithful people, and the various different bodies and structures in which they currently live. People on this thread live on several continents with experience in several denominations -- you are talking as if all that mattered was your own small section of one small branch. Can you please either engage in this debate in the terms the rest of us are, or at the very least stop doing what you criticized Josephine for doing.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
I realise that I was intending to answer Lady of the Lake's question about gender being relatively unimportant.
For someone like me who has been exclusively lesbian in orientation since I was 14, obviously the gender of my partner is important, on the outside anyway. However, like everyone else who falls in love, I fell in love with a person. My partner, who was previously married to a man, fell in love with me. As she sees it, my gender was secondary to me being me.
You wouldn't fall in love with just any bloke you met, I wouldn't fall for just any woman. From that point of view, gender is utterly secondary.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
And I do understand it's an issue of right and wrong to you. I know it probably feels like your integrity is compromised by supporting that person in what you saw as their sin?
To be honest, it's not my integrity I'm worried about - that's compromised enough by my own sin on enough levels! It's that if you believe that the passages in the Bible mean what the church has always thought they mean, then it is offensive to God, and damaging to the person, to say what they are doing is fine.
quote:
But Lep, honestly, what's the alternative? To tear our beautiful body to shreds over this, and continue to alienate and damage our homosexual brothers and sisters? We both know that's not productive. Can you think of anything that could make it easier for your "side" to come to terms with this challenge? (and I do mean that nicely!)
I take it nicely.
A couple of things I suppose. A simple acknowledgement from the other "side" that while there is homophobia in the church, not everyone who is against sex outside heterosexual marriage is homophobic. And (this is "our" problem to solve) more men and women in our part of the church to be up front with their issue with this, and not dress it up in terms of "I've sorted it all out now, so can you, victory victory." But other than that, no, I wish I knew how it could become easier.
quote:
Maybe I'll get to heaven and turn out to be wrong on this one. It's a strong possibility; there's enough opponents out there! But all I keep saying to the Lord on this one is "If I'm wrong about this, I'd rather be wrong on the theory but have spent my time working to build up and accept and love people; however misguided I may turn out to be, than be proved right in my doctrine and then handed a list of names of people who have been broken and turned away from the gospel because of the harsh way I presented it".
Indeed. I can see that. But I can also see that it is partly through the church that God convicts people of sin, and also that if this is a sin, it is important that I don't lead people to think it isn't. ISTM that the Bible puts that responsibility onto the church, and especially those who teach in the most serious of terms.
Although, what we say musn't lead people to hate, demonise and discriminate either. Which is where we aren't doing quite so well.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Henry Troup,
The reason I asked the question about the importance of gender is that in the cases I come across, gender is important to those people who a)come out and b)have same-sex relationships.
(My question was in the context of this thread which is about homosexuality, not the transgender issue. 'People do what people do' isn't really an answer to my question, rather a banal dismissal of the matter being discussed.)
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
Henry Troup,
The reason I asked the question about the importance of gender is that in the cases I come across, gender is important to those people who a)come out and b)have same-sex relationships.
(My question was in the context of this thread which is about homosexuality, not the transgender issue. 'People do what people do' isn't really an answer to my question, rather a banal dismissal of the matter being discussed.)
I didn't intend a "banal dismissal" - and the issue of the mutability of sexual orientation is actually one of the key ones. I apologize for being off-topic and unhelpful.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Neil -- some time ago you called on Josephine to stop generalizing from her personal experience -- and I suggested then that logically you ought to do the same.
I think the more fundamental problem here is with people who are making very superficial and generalised assertions about the mistreatment of gay and lesbian people across the whole body of the church. These assertions invariably invite a superficial and generalised rebuttal in kind, but I would agree that this methodology of argument is not particularly enlightening.
quote:
But you seem to be basing a whole theology and pastoral practice on your experience in the Scottish Episcopal church. I can't comment on the Scottish Episcopal church, but how can you take it to be typical of the C of E, or other Anglican churches, or indeed other churches.
I spent much of my life living in England before moving to Scotland. In fact, I lived in England for twice as long as I have lived in Scotland. With my own family’s roots in Wales, and my wife’s family having some roots in Ireland, I am like much of the UK, something of an ethnic mongrel. It’s a much smaller place than Canada.
I would also point out that whereas I am still a practising Anglican/Episcopalian, my wife is now formally Russian Orthodox, and has been worshipping with them for several years. I will be particularly interested to see how the Orthodox Church in the UK responds to the upcoming Civil Partnership legislation.
quote:
The rest of us are talking about "the church" in Augustinian (sorry Josephine) terms -- the whole body of Christ’s faithful people, and the various different bodies and structures in which they currently live. People on this thread live on several continents with experience in several denominations
That is why a far-reaching generalised claim about mistreatment across the whole body of the church needs some solid substantiation. On this thread I hear a lot of complaining and a lot of assertion, but so far I have seen little hard evidence in support of these claims.
Furthermore, as I have posted, these generalised claims are not supported by my own observations with respect to either the Scottish Episcopal Church (SEC) or the wider UK church. However, I do not condone any mistreatment and I am willing to listen to a reasoned case if someone cares to make it.
quote:
-- you are talking as if all that mattered was your own small section of one small branch. Can you please either engage in this debate in the terms the rest of us are, or at the very least stop doing what you criticized Josephine for doing.
I don’t think this is a fair comment at all. I have already been publicly critical at SoF of the “ethnic sectarianism” that is in evidence in liberal theological circles of the SEC. For me the “holy catholic church” is far wider than certain ethnic groups, whether in Scotland or elsewhere.
Neil
[minor edits]
[ 05. October 2005, 13:20: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog ]
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
But you see, Neil, your response to any suggestion that there is discrimination against gays by "the church" is "But my rector is gay and so are most of the clergy in the SEC around here so I don't see what you are talking about as discrimination."
If it's fair for you to reason from that to your position, then it's fair for me and Josephine and a whole bunch of others to reason to our position from the discrimination we've seen or in some cases like Arabella experienced. Especially as together we demonstrate a reality that spans denominations and continents.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
This report from Human Rights Watch suggests that, at least in some quarters, the church is complicit in prejudice against gays and lesbians. Scroll down to section five.
This was the result of a few minutes desultory googling, so it is hardly difficult to find evidence that the church behaves badly towards gays. Doubtless one could find examples from other parts of the world.
--------------------
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
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Henry Troup, thanks for your apology. I'd be interested to see what you think about the mutability of sexual orientation and the relevance of this to the discussion.
Arabella,
the reason I referred to coming out as a social ritual is that a friend of mine recently came out at a party she'd organised. My experience is that different people come out in different ways.
Concerning what other Shipmates have been discussing recently on this thread about abusive behaviour, my own experience and that of others known to me is that abusive behaviour can be perpetrated by anyone regardless of sexual orientation. I'm sorry to say but a number of times I've been at the receiving end of gratuitous misogyny from gay men in the church, so have female friends of mine, and other female acquaintances, of differing theological persuasions on this issue (and no the misogyny did not surface due to discussion of this issue). A while ago a prominent female Anglican spoke out about this being a problem for female clergy (Monica Furlong if I remember correctly, reported in the Independent: it's also been alluded to in writing as a problem by Daphne Hampson, who is a feminst theologian albeit no longer a Christian), and I've also had this problem drawn to my attention by a fairly well-known male liberal Anglican theologian I shan't name as it was a private conversation initiated by him. He is in favour of blessing same-sex unions (as were both the aforementioned women), but told me that what got him was that 'a disproportionate number of gay men in the Anglican church are opposed to the ordination of women'. It's a big enough problem that 3 major liberal theological figures are raising it. It is not simply a reaction of the 'oh he's opposed to women's ordination therefore he must be gay' type of insult, because none of the 3 people mentioned strike me as the type to talk in that manner.
While this does not in itself constitute an argument concerning the validity of same-sex unions, it does suggest that there is a conflict at work in parts of the church between the interests of women and gay men.
People who take a liberal line on this issue do have to stop and think what the effect on the church as a whole would be to openly tolerate gay male relationships (would this be an argument from catholicity ? At least it's an argument with the welfare of the group in mind). It strikes me as a question of the signals given out to different groups of people.
The majority of the church is made up of women, a number of whom are forced into celibacy or end up leaving church because they cannot find Christian spouses (and straight single men, especially younger ones, are less likely to gravitate towards more liberal churches). In those cases where these women are then treated in a misogynistic manner by some gay men in the church, ordained or not, and also find that gay men are allowed to have sexual relationships whilst they cannot find Christian husbands as would be preferred both by the church and by the authors of the NT, it isn't that surprising that there is going to be opposition to the move to validate same-sex unions from those churches attended by the majority of (female) Christians (i.e. churches that turn out to be less liberal on this issue). Furthermore, there is evidence that children born to couples where only the mother is a Christian are significantly less likely to become or remain Christians as adults, compared to those whose fathers are also Christians and take them to church. (I know Christians should make converts, but the upbringing of children in the faith is a legitimate and important way in which people are inducted into the faith.)
I sometimes wonder if this sort of dynamic was behind the writing of I Corinthians and maybe other parts of the NT (the early church was also mostly female in its attendance). (Demographic considerations strike me as possibly being behind a number of Biblical texts anyway).
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
However, I'm not sure how you can argue from that to saying that 'the genders involved in a relationship are relatively unimportant'
Clearly, the gender of the partner is important to the people involved. The implication I intended was in terms of God's view of the relationship which is why I cited the criteria for "love" from 1 Cor 13. ISTM that when two people enter into an intimate relationship, the quality of the love expressed in the relationship, how the two people treat each other, support each other, care for each other, build each other up and so forth is more important in God's economy than whether they happen to have complementary genitals.
Taking up Lep's point, I understand the quandry of how to relate to people in the church who, according to my understanding, are making wrong choices. Do I (and the church) treat them as persona non grata?
Taking the case of divorced and remarried people as an example: that used to generally be the case (at least, it was in more conservative churches in the US). But the church (even in conservative contexts) has generally come around to dealing with the situation with grace and compassion -- working from a position of extending grace to the parties (and their children) involved justifying it as the pastorally right thing to do. The traditional conservative position is the people in that situation are in a perpetual state of adultry. These days, we don't ask them to divorce their current partner, further tear up their families encourage them to make up with their former spouse (if possible) or live in singleness for the rest of their lives. Instead we're somehow able to wrap our minds and hearts around that and deal with the situation as it is.
Is it such a stretch to extend the same grace to people who've personally reconciled their orientation with their theology and are conducting themselves in intimate, commited relationships as best they can?
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Sorry igeek, but Lep's already given us the answer to that - our relationships are offensive to God (according to Lep, who must know the mind of God better than you or me).
Lady of the Lake, you are quite right about certain gay men. You might like to consider whether your argument actually affects lesbian women even worse than straight women. And it has little to do with sexuality and lots to do with sexism. Fortunately it is by no means all gay men. And it isn't a good argument for getting rid of us queers.
People are people, and when you set people up the way queer people are set up to be the butt of every problem in the church at the moment (and sorry, Neil, but its a worldwide problem in almost all denominations - a very brief scan of the church news will tell you that - Anglicans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals... are all talking about it with scant regard for the feelings of queer people) then you're going to get gay and lesbian people reacting right back at you. That's not my way, which is why I have left the church to be a Christian in the world.
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
Its been interesting reading people's response to the issue of prejudice against gay people in the church.
For those who've not met me on the ship before, I'm a fairly conservative sort of ship mate. But I'd agree with what Lep said on the last page about admitting there is a big problem in the way conservative churches treat gay people. I'm sure there would be double standards in many conservative churches towards two couples waliking into church - an un-married couple living together and a gay couple living together. I'm sure in many churches there would be a very different reaction. Most churches would welcome the unmarried couple, but shun the gay couple. I reacon that's not because of the Bible, but more a reflection of homophobia that runs through the whole of society but rarely gets expressed in these more PC days. But it is wrong, and needs to be challenged. All people should be welcomed and loved. There are so many stories here that shows that is not the case. Its totally tragic the way Christians can treat their fellow human beings.
Having said that, I'll say something I've posted before. We need to balance love and truth. While we must be consistent in our love, we must also teach God's truth. So often it seems that people want love (we must love and accept everyone and never say anything is sinful), or truth (Its sin, so we'll shoot you down into the flames of hell). We need to keep both in balance. Be loving - but not abandon God's truth. And sometimes the loving thing to do is tell the truth.
Having said all that, conservatives are not the only ones to be unloving and intolerant:
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
Sorry igeek, but Lep's already given us the answer to that - our relationships are offensive to God (according to Lep, who must know the mind of God better than you or me).
I know I'll get laughed off the ship for this next comment. But gay people are not the only ones feeling hurt and abused by the current debate. Those of us who love God's church, but feel that sexual relationships outside of marriage are sinful, are also hurting. We see the standards and teaching of the last 2000 years torn down as those it were simple prejudice - and that hurts. We get called biggots, fascists, and queer bashers. We're treated like we are ignorant fools who have never met a gay person and would spit at one if we did. Now while I've admitted there is homophobia in the church, its not the case for all conservative Christians. And unless the liberal Christians achknowledge that our standing is not simply uneducated bigotry, but based on convictions about God and his standards, then there is no hope of any progress in this debate. The issue is not simply ignorance and prejudice on the side of conservative Christians.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
I'm sure there would be double standards in many conservative churches towards two couples waliking into church - an un-married couple living together and a gay couple living together. I'm sure in many churches there would be a very different reaction. Most churches would welcome the unmarried couple, but shun the gay couple. I reacon that's not because of the Bible, but more a reflection of homophobia that runs through the whole of society but rarely gets expressed in these more PC days. But it is wrong, and needs to be challenged.
Fish Fish (and Lep, too), I know that's a difficult position to have gotten to. And I believe, honestly, if people like you start challenging the homophobia in your churches, you will make a difference.
quote:
But gay people are not the only ones feeling hurt and abused by the current debate. Those of us who love God's church, but feel that sexual relationships outside of marriage are sinful, are also hurting. We see the standards and teaching of the last 2000 years torn down as those it were simple prejudice - and that hurts.
I understand that. But you can't make gays and lesbians bear the entire burden of that pain. It's my fault, too -- those of us who have divorced and remarried have done far more to tear down the standards and teachings of the last 2000 years than gays and lesbians have ever done. So, for the pain you've felt as society's norms and the church's norms have diverged, I am truly sorry.
I've got more to say, but I'm rather foggy from a bad cold right now. More later.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by iGeek.:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
So iGeek would you agree that the acceptance of homosexual relationships is an unprecedented and recent theological development?
Theologically, yes. Sociologically (and, to some degree, in the life of the church), no.
Do you mean Boswell and his research? Apart from his speculation nobody on this thread has suggested any other theological justification for homosexual relationships within the wider history of the church. (I admit I skimmed some pages, so I might I have missed a reference.) Whom did you mean theologically?
I know you posted about slavery but that should be for another dead horse thread. If we debate that there and then maybe come back and decide if it is valid to compare the two arguments. Because you seem to be saying yes same sex relationships have a theological history but no they don’t and that doesn’t matter because look at slavery. Lets look at slavery separately or at least argue about if we can compare the two issues.
quote:
The fundamental issue being dealt with on this thread, as I understand it, is: "can a person be a Christian and be same-sex attracted with appropriate physical expression of their sexuality? Or, put another way, do same-sex relationships have the same value as opposite-sex relationships in God's eyes?
Yes I agree. That does seem to be one of the key issues dividing the two sides on this thread. I would argue there is no overall biblical pattern for same-sex relationships as well as the prohibitions against same sex expression.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
I would argue there is no overall biblical pattern for same-sex relationships as well as the prohibitions against same sex expression.
There's no overall biblical pattern for churches with flush toilets, either, but I'll bet yours has them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
And no overall pattern of how to be nice on Internet forums either.
Or is that your complicated way of saying there is no overall pattern?
[ 06. October 2005, 06:09: Message edited by: Luke ]
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It's a very simple way of saying "no overall pattern" proveth diddly-squat.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
So iGeek would you agree that the acceptance of homosexual relationships is an unprecedented and recent theological development?
Originally posted by iGeek.:
Theologically, yes. Sociologically (and, to some degree, in the life of the church), no.
Originally posted by Luke:
Whom did you mean theologically?Because you seem to be saying yes same sex relationships have a theological history
I answered your question directly. You asked, would you agree that the acceptance of homosexual relationships is an unprecedented and recent theological development. I said "Yes".
I also pointed out that contemporary views on other significant issues with social and theological significance (slavery, divorce, role of women) are also fairly recently derived so how is this one different? Why is it important whether its recently developed?
Re: the love and truth argument, I think it comes down to a couple of things.
I've arrived at an understanding of Scripture and god's mind on the topic that is clearly different than that of other Christians so the argument that it isn't "biblical" or theologically justified don't wash with me. I don't concede to "...but the Bible says it's wrong." I'm wholly convinced otherwise. So how am I (and increasing numbers of people who arriving at the same conclusions I have) to be dealt with in the church? One response is to shout louder, with more anger, with more hostility, with initiatives in the civic arena designed to treat such people with a presumption of unfitness. That's what's happening where I live.
Is this an essential issue of orthodoxy? Or is it more in the line of differences about eschatology, church polity, calvinism vs. arminianism and so forth that have, at certain points of church history, been cause for extreme actions to the point of bloodshed but would, I think, be generally agreed today are not *essential* issues in defining who is and is not a Christian.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
Sorry igeek I misread your answer.
Your second point is an interesting one, what is to be done now? The forum is interesting because of its nature as a meeting place for these two views. Its hard to say what will happen out there in the real world and what effect what is being said here will have out there. I hope I'm not in the shouting louder category, see I'm typing in lowercase!
Hi Mousetheif,
Why does a lack of overall Biblical pattern mean nothing? I'd be very interested to hear if Louise or Josphine think the same. ( As in, do they also agree there is no overall pattern.)
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Arabella,
thanks, I'm sure you're right that my argument could also apply to women who are lesbians. In fact this problem (which I hadn't come across among gay men I'd met before getting more involved in church circles) was first brought to my attention by two women, one straight and the other was straight but is currently a lesbian. None of the women I've ever known who have identified themselves as either bisexual or lesbian have had particularly good experiences with men (in this case in the church).
As regards the point I made about the organisation of the church and the effect that blessing (in this case male) same-sex unions could have, I made the point because whilst in principle I am open to the church being able to allow different congregations to pursue their own policies on this issue (as on other things), it doesn't seem to be always the case that people on the liberal side are willing to entertain this possibility. Some are, in the same ways that many conservatives are not.
It seems to me that the church has two basic option as regards policy: either stick to the traditional line, or have a policy whereby congregations in a denomination are allowed to pursue either a traditional/conservative line or a revisionist line. My point is that if we were all to adopt a revisionist line, it might create a lot more difficulties than it attempts to deal with.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Sorry to double-post, but I realise I hadn't answered Arabella's previous reply to me properly. Just a couple of points:
1. You said that coming out is not a social ritual or at least not an enjoyable one. The reason I referred to it as a ritual is that a social acquaintance of mine came out recently at a party organised by herself (but not ostensibly for that reason, which was itself significant.) I realise not everybody comes out in the same way. Nevertheless maybe we're using the term 'ritual' in slightly different ways. I wasn't just thinking about formal occasions like baptism, etc. but about something more general yet undefined.
2.You mentioned reactions to coming out such as exorcism, physical punishment and marital rape. Well I certainly have no time for those behaviours whether or not some people try to use them to deal with homosexuality or anything else for that matter.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
Something else to remember viz "coming out": it's not a one time event.
Yeah, an initial flurry is typical but my (very short) experience is that one is faced with coming out on an on-going basis. Almost every casual or getting-to-know-you conversation is approached with caution, gingerly testing the waters with the other person. That's especially true in the church context. Join the worship band; become involved in the prayer team; be nominated for leadership in some area; take a class on spirituality, join a life/accountability/reading group etc. All real situations, recently, where I had to figure out how much to self-disclose, to whom and over what period of time.
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
Why does a lack of overall Biblical pattern mean nothing? I'd be very interested to hear if Louise or Josphine think the same. ( As in, do they also agree there is no overall pattern.)
The overall Biblical pattern of marriage is a man with multiple wives, and if he's wealthy and powerful enough, a few concubines thrown in for good measure.
The overall Biblical pattern of marriage doesn't allow for dating as a means of finding a spouse. For a young unmarried man and woman to spend time alone together, getting to know each other, is clearly not a Biblical thing to do. The Biblical pattern is for marriages to be arranged.
Nuclear families aren't particularly Biblical either. Multi-generational families are pretty much the Biblical norm.
Our society is vastly different from that of the OT Jews or the NT Christians. So our patterns of marriage and family are different. Our society doesn't fit in the patterns molded by a subsistence-level agrarian society. Nor would their society fit into our patterns. Why would anyone expect that it would?
--------------------
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
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The overall Biblical pattern of marriage is a man with multiple wives, and if he's wealthy and powerful enough, a few concubines thrown in for good measure.
But the teaching is clear - one husband or wife for life. That people didn't follow this does not mean it was not God's standard or teaching. The teaching is clear.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
The overall Biblical pattern of marriage doesn't allow for dating as a means of finding a spouse. For a young unmarried man and woman to spend time alone together, getting to know each other, is clearly not a Biblical thing to do. The Biblical pattern is for marriages to be arranged.
There is nothing in the Bible that says couples getting to know each other is wrong, or that someone choosing their spouse is sinful.
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Nuclear families aren't particularly Biblical either. Multi-generational families are pretty much the Biblical norm.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that being in a nuclear family is sinful (unless I guess it means neglecting the parents etc.)
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful. If someone can show me one positive verse about homosexual relationships, then you can begin to convince me that the overall Biblical pattern is something other than describing homosexual relationships as sinful. Just one verse would win me over. And I'd love to be won over because we could avoid this horrible argument that is tearing apart the church.
[ 06. October 2005, 22:15: Message edited by: Fish Fish ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Actually, the biblical norm for marriage is something we don't know for sure, though I'd suspect it to be monogamy. Polygamy seems so prominent mainly because the Bible tends to follow the lives of the patriarchs and kings, who were wealthy enough to support multiple wives. But average Joe seems to have had one wife (see for example various prophets and minor characters).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful.
In your translation version, of course...
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
(Apologies for DP, was too trigger happy with the post button last time...)
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful.
As, of course, is wearing a garment made of mixed fibres, uncovering my head in church and not camping at the end of my road during my period.
Glad we're applying this consistently then.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
FishFish quote:
There is nothing in the Bible that says that being in a nuclear family is sinful (unless I guess it means neglecting the parents etc.)
Ther has never been anything remotely corresponding to the nuclear family before or outside the modern West.
--------------------
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
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful.
As, of course, is wearing a garment made of mixed fibres, uncovering my head in church and not camping at the end of my road during my period.
Glad we're applying this consistently then.
Even if you were correct in you assertions, there is no logical connection between the issues you raise and the biblical teaching on the immorality of homosexual behaviour. You are confusing categories in an illogical fashion.
As it happens, your assertions here are all incorrect and display no understanding of how the OT Law functions in a distinctively Christian theology and morality.
Neil
[minor edit]
[ 07. October 2005, 13:52: Message edited by: Faithful Sheepdog ]
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Ther has never been anything remotely corresponding to the nuclear family before or outside the modern West.
Not true at all. Its been a normal sort of household in most of northern Europe for many centuries (at least - we don't know enough detail about what went before). And exists in some form in many cultures all over the world.
Its not the most common way for human beings to live together but its quite a common way. And has probably been the most common in this country.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
As, of course, is wearing a garment made of mixed fibres, uncovering my head in church and not camping at the end of my road during my period.
Glad we're applying this consistently then.
The New Testament writers had no difficulty distinguishing between different laws. They reassert the sexual and moral laws consistently. Other laws, such as which foods and clothes are allowed, are no longer apropriate for Christians. Why do we find it so difficult to make such a distinction? We need to read our Bibles!
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
quote:
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
However, there is teaching in the Bible about same sex sexual relationships. And they are always described negatively and as sinful.
In your translation version, of course...
With your different translation, where all the negatives are explained differenlty, is it possible to find me one possitive statement about same sex sexual relationships? One clear statement.
While some of the statements in the Bible can perhaps be explained away, the whole direction of the Bible won this iss ue is negative. Unless you can show me otherwise, my undertsnading of the auhtority of scripture insists that I must also see same sex sexual relationships as sinful.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fish Fish:
quote:
The New Testament writers had no difficulty distinguishing between different laws. They reassert the sexual and moral laws consistently. Other laws, such as which foods and clothes are allowed, are no longer apropriate for Christians. Why do we find it so difficult to make such a distinction? We need to read our Bibles!
Actually its a bit more complex than that. In Galatians, Paul makes it quite clear that Christians are no longer bound by the Law and no-where does he advert to the Torah as the arbiter in a moral dispute.
I think it fair to say that he is an ethical conservative and took the moral norms of the Torah for granted, where our Lord had not already driven a coach and horses through them such as in the matter of divorce. But he has recourse to other forms of argument to defend those norms.
There are serious theological arguments against homosexual behaviour, of course, but quoting Leviticus as if it settled the matter is not one of them. Much the same point is made by Richard B. Hays in his book about New Testament morality (which, by the way, accepts and defends the conservative position on homosexuality).
--------------------
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
