Friday’s two posts about breasts and bodies generated (as of now) 120 comments, for which I am grateful. Over at Amp’s place, there’s a similar discussion raging in the comments section below this post. I’m going to take a break from this topic, but I’ll leave the thread open for more comments.
We watched the Oscars last night. As last year, this was a disappointingly predictable telecast. Other than the surprise in the "best song" category, it seemed as if the results were more or less what had been anticipated. I do have to admit my growing fondness for Clint Eastwood. It was not always so: I grew up in Eastwood’s adopted home town of Carmel, and my mother and I cast two of the 799 votes his opponent received in the 1986 mayoral election. We feared he would be a disaster as leader of our small city. To our amazement (and my chagrin, I confess) he actually did a remarkably good job, and was an exceptionally devoted public servant. He also has made some pretty terrific films, though I still think last year’s "Mystic River" was a better picture than "Million Dollar Baby."
Anyhow, I wanted to post about the Episcopal Church this morning. Over at Kendall’s blog, you can read much of the news about last week’s meeting of the primates of the Anglican Communion. In response to the Episcopal Church USA’s consecration of an openly gay bishop (Gene Robinson) and its increasingly accepted practice of blessing same-sex unions, the primates of the worldwide communion have asked the American church to refrain from sending representatives to high-level international meetings until 2008, when the church will gather again in Lambeth, England, for its huge decennial convention. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the wonderful Rowan Williams, is trying to find a way to hold traditionalists and progressives together in one great communion, and is finding it an increasingly difficult task.
At All Saints Pasadena, we don’t seem to have much fear of schism. Yesterday, Susan Russell (who is now on staff at All Saints as well as president of Integrity, the national organization for GLBTQ Episcopalians) preached a splendid sermon on John’s account of the Samaritan woman at the well. Susan compared the rift between Jews and Samaritans (over issues of the authority of Scripture beyond the Torah and where God ought to be worshiped) to the contemporary struggle over full inclusion for gays and lesbians in the church. Just as we now see the divisions between Jews and Samaritans as obscure and irrelevant to our contemporary lives, so too we will (perhaps in our grand-children’s lifetimes) see the struggle over blessing same-sex unions as equally odd. It’s a nice thing to hope for.
One thing is clear. At All Saints, we have no intention of changing in order to try and placate our conservative brothers and sisters around the world. "We will not allow a moratorium on the movement of the Holy Spirit", Susan said yesterday from the pulpit. In other words, we will continue to bless same-sex unions and to work for the consecration of more gay and lesbian bishops. If the price of unity is closing the doors to gay and lesbian Christians, then we at All Saints clearly consider that price to be too high. I’ve yet to meet anyone at All Saints Pasadena (and as a former Vestry member, confirmation teacher, and youth volunteer I know a few folks around the place) who would be genuinely heartsick if the Anglican Communion fractured. It’s not that we don’t honor the important historic ties we have to churches all over the world. It’s not that we are utterly unconcerned about the feelings of our fellow Anglicans. I’m sure if we were kicked out of the communion, plenty of folks would feel a bit miffed. But the fear of being dismissed from the Anglican Communion pales in comparison to the fear of slowing what we believe to be our divinely inspired march towards greater and greater inclusion for all folks, especially women and sexual minorities. At All Saints, we value ambiguity and tension in many things — but we are not ambivalent about homosexuality. Though many of us (myself included) get tired of the insistence that gay and lesbian concerns are the pre-eminent social justice issue of our time, our large and growing parish is fairly unanimous in our conviction that the Holy Spirit is calling us to bring open and active gay and lesbian folks into every aspect of church life. Henri de Navarre said "Paris is worth a mass" when he converted to Catholicism; but the Anglican Communion, for all its interesting and attractive features, is not worth excluding gays and lesbians. If schism comes, I don’t think we’ll see many tears around All Saints Pasadena.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like to see some sort of compromise, if that could be achieved without a moratorium on same-sex blessings. I like what Michael Hopkins (past president of Integrity) suggested two weeks ago in this article. Drawing a distinction between communion and unity, he suggested that we can have the former without the latter.
What would happen if Anglicans said to the world: "We are mad as hell at each other, and we do not know if we can ultimately stay together. But we are making some room for grace. We will continue to act together, and maybe we will learn again what it means to truly talk and listen to each other."
This is the only way I see to remain in communion (however "impaired") without attempting to create a false unity, which will inevitably be built on the backs of others (be the others gay and lesbian people or so-called traditionalists). I have no illusions as to how difficult it will be to explain this to the world, much less to many of our own people. But isn’t it time some Christian community chose not to go the route of divide and conquer, win and lose?
That seems reasonable to me. The problem lies in finding areas where we can still "act together". I’d like to think that tsunami relief and alleviating the ongoing crisis in Africa might be a start.
On a related note, this weekend I’ll be helping to lead our 30-Hour Fast Relief at All Saints. After four years of participating in World Vision’s 30-Hour Famine, in 2005 we have decided to switch our support to Episcopal Relief and Development. Though World Vision does great work, it makes more sense to send the money our kids raise to our own denomination’s relief agency. We are shamelessly borrowing the techniques of 30-Hour Famine (no food for the kids and youth leaders from noon Friday till 6:00PM Saturday), and we are still doing our Saturday morning service projects. But this year, our efforts will have a more specifically Anglican focus.
UPDATE: I want to make it very clear that when I downplay the threat of schism, I am speaking for myself. I cannot speak for all of All Saints; there may indeed be those who would be grieved if the Communion founders. But I just haven’t met them yet.
And John has a ringing battle-cry for traditionalists on the subject.
Hugo, I have to admit that I am not very familiar with the Episcopalian/Anglican church. I do not understand how your church can justify behaviour that is defined as immoral in the Bible.
As a Christian, I whole-heartedly believe the whole Bible to be true. The Bible describes homosexual relationships as sinful in Romans 1, 1st Corinthians 6, and 1st Timothy 1 (to name a few passages). I don’t think Biblical passages condemning homosexual behaviour can be ignored. While I would never advocate for the church to condemn homosexuals, I do believe that homosexual acts should not be supported by the church.
The restrictions that the Bible places on sexual behaviour are not just limited to homosexuality. The Bible also outlaws sex outside of marriage, and it talks of escaping youthful lust. I believe that this is the word of God, and therefore I believe that it is in societies best interest to encourage societal avoidance of non-Biblical sexual practices.
As their part in this, churches should not be in the business of blessing same-sex unions.
I will admit that I am from a different background than you. I have been raised in a rural community where no one would openly claim to be homosexual. I have never talked to someone who, in conversation, has told me that they are gay. I am not familiar with the homosexual community at all. I do not hate people who are gay, I would love to meet some just so I can discuss this with them, and understand their perspective.
I know that the large majority of your readers will disagree with me, and also that many will not understand my belief in the Bible. I don’t want you all to tell me to stop believing, that is a different topic. But can you help me understand why you believe a church should bless same-sex unions?
As a Christian Canadian, I have been hesitant to jump onto the “don’t allow gay marriage†bandwagon that every other Canadian Christian has (seemingly) jumped on. However, I do not understand how I can continue to profess to be a Christian and support homosexual relationships when the Bible clearly states they are inappropriate. You seem to do so, and I am wondering how you justify your position.
Thanks for this blog, Hugo. I’ve spent longer discussing this same subject at Organicchurch (follow the link if you want).
I am not so calm about schism as you are. It seems to me that as we witness to a God of grace, we should be working like mad to establish gracious relations with others who disagree with us. This seems to me to be a crucial point.
We have to admit that there is a tension in what the scriptures say about Homosexuality. It isn’t at all clear what was meant in the key passages usually trotted out as proof-texts. So how can we find a way of working through this, how can the Spirit of Unity work his wonder?
Sadly many are not concerned, many are more willing to be shown as correct and true then struggle to communion.
I do like your contrast of the terms communion and unity. How can we learn to differ and not seek to win or control? Several years ago I found Riane Eisler’s rhetoric of Partnership Relations very helpful in this regard.
I’m impressed with the work you are doing at All Saints, you are trully a remarkable person to give your time and talent to the church and to the community. I have attended services at All Saints and I must confess that it is a congregation with tremendous energy and outreach. When my kids were younger I almost switched over to your parish, but the kids were acolytes at our own parish and we never made the change.__ I just want to say that you are appreciated and that the Anglican Church could definitely use more people like you.
The concerns Ianvh raises seem pretty pertinent to me, although one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens, as they say. I gave up on Christianity when I became convinced that it was anti-Biblical and anti-establishment to support homosexual relationships. If you can show that we’re wrong, then you’ll probably be doing both me and Ianvh a world of good.
Folks, I do recommend reading some of the fine posts on the net about what Scripture really says about homosexuality. Here’s one recent sermon:
http://www.whosoever.org/v9i2/ntsermon.shtml
The fact is that nowhere in Scripture is there a concept of loving, committed, homosexual relationships — there are condemnations of individual acts, but those are usually (like Romans 1) in the context of idol worship.
Besides, most of our conservative critics have already accepted divorce, long hair on men, women in the priesthood, and legalized gambling — all things about which Scripture is at least as clear as homosexuality. If they are as opposed to these things as they are to homosexuality, they have some moral authority — if not, not.
We Presbyterians have been dealing with this as well. I once heard a moving sermon that talked about Paul and Barnabas deciding to part ways even though they continued doing the work they both agreed was important. For better or worse, this hasn’t happened yet in the PCUSA, but it’s important to remember that people of faith can agree to disagree.
Tripe. There were absolutely loving and committed relationships between men and men and women and women in the ancient world. Gagnon does a good job of demonstrating this. And, most conservative churches (including mine) have strong statements about divorce, long hair on men (one word: No), we ordain women with their husbands, and we campaign against gambling. And as for women and divorce, they may be permissible under certain circumstances; the affirmation of homosexual practice never.
There were absolutely loving and committed relationships between men and men and women and women in the ancient world.
John, you’re right — but they are in no way the subject of any of the traditional proof-texts against homosexuality.
Hugo and anyone else who cares to answer:
what do you think about an argument from ontology- male and female created in God’s image, marriage therefore as a specific reflection of God?
I grew up in the Catholic Church. I converted about 12 years ago to the Anglican camp because I liked the more liberal outlook. This topic is only an issue because the Anglican Church is so liberal. In other religions (Catholic) it is unimaginable because ‘children’ cannot come from homosexual unions.
Personally, I think that people should be able to do whatever they please. But having the church take an official stand in favor of homosexual unions would probably destroy the Anglican Church.
As a Christian, I whole-heartedly believe the whole Bible to be true. The Bible describes homosexual relationships as sinful in Romans 1, 1st Corinthians 6, and 1st Timothy 1 (to name a few passages). I don’t think Biblical passages condemning homosexual behaviour can be ignored. While I would never advocate for the church to condemn homosexuals, I do believe that homosexual acts should not be supported by the church.
Well, the Bible also says not to mix your fibers or eat shellfish or pork, and that the punishment for stealing is death. Does your church speak out against these things?
Gosh, Erica, the argument from design is far too tough for me to tackle here. Suffice it to say that I think we make a mistake when we assume that all God’s creation has a clear, functional purpose. Pleasure and delight and joy are reason enough for Him to create all that is. Most deep and intense and lasting romantic relationships involve connections on levels that go far beyond the physical, and Lord knows, I’ve seen plenty of GL couples who could complement each other as well as any straight pair I’ve seen.
And as Nancy points out below, the whole notion of complementarity is difficult to struggle in the violently hierarchical world of the Old and New Testaments.
Just visiting your site for the first time. Greatly appreciate your perspective. Will be back!
Lest you forget, women were close to being property in the Biblical era. There were some limits as to what a father or husband could do to a daughter or wife, but not many. And some women WERE property (concubines or slaves), the enemy tribeswomen who were left over when their fathers were killed in battle.
You simply did not have sex with an equal being in pagan antiquity. There had to be a superior and an inferior. In homosexual relations, this was typified by sex between mature man and teenager, by sex between mature man and his mature male slave, or occasionally between a mature man and a mature free man several steps lower on the social scale. Generally, mature male “bottoms” were regarded as being womanish, of very low, contemptible status, whereas mature “tops” were not regarded as what we think of as homosexual, but as uncoded “men” who had some variety in their sex life and probably had wives and children. Lesbian relations were generally considered to be not worthy of notice - after all, there was no risk of compromizing the legitimacy of any offspring, and since women were not allowed to dispose of themselves, lesbian relations could always be interrupted by forced marriage. The “goods” (women) were not materially “damaged”, and were available for trade. In heterosexual relations, the inequality was built in since the woman was always considered inferior. Jesus’ insistence that married women couldn’t just be discarded for any whim was a fairly radical abrogation of the rights of the husband/”owner” - giving the wife some rights. Before this, husbands might avoid divorcing a faithful but older or infertile wife simply to avoid social, economic, or political consequences from the wife’s natal family.
The Hebrews had the procreative needs of a smaller, politically and economically insecure agrarian people. More children equalled more need for land, and more soldiers, and more dominance of the local economy. It isn’t so surprising that they opposed nonprocreative sex. It was a luxury that the Roman urbanites could afford but that the Israelites could not afford.
We are very different from the Jews, Jewish sectarians later called Christians, and pagans of Biblical times. The concept of covenant relationship of two men or two women would never have occured to any of the three groups.
Response on my weblog. We are not bound by OT ceremonial law. We are bound by OT moral law, and the commands of the New Testament. Among which is the condemnation of homosexuality.
I’ll put your response in the post, John.
While the differences between Jews and Samaritans may be considered obscure and unimportant by you, I don’t think either Jews or Samaritans would agree. Yes, there are still Samaritans in the world (not many) and they practice a tradition that has very little to do with Judaism.
Not your main point, I know, but it doesn’t seem nice to leave that kind of thing as fact.
Also I’d point out that
a) the bible has nothing to say about lesbians
b) whether the prohibition against male homosexuality is ceremonial or moral is not a clear cut question - is a prohibition against a man descended from the Cohen (priestly) line marrying a divorcee moral or ceremonial? What about the prohibition (by penalty of death) against having intercourse with a menstruating woman? Spilling seed outside a woman’s womb?
I don’t think there is any such thing as reading the Bible without interpreting it, but of course it’s natural for each person to think that THEIR interpretation is the most natural, or not even an interpretation at all.
Hugo,
seems to me that you should not (shamelessly or otherwise) rip off Worldvision’s 30-hour famine. Fairs fair. If you want to support ERD then you should develope something new. Shouldn’t be too hard in a creative parish like yours. But there is an ethical issue here.
And where to you Americans get off having only a 30-hour famine..downunder it is a 40-hour famine!
OT does not mention sex between two females. NT does, once, in parallel with sex between two males, in Romans 1:26-28. In that context, it is a bad habit that people fall into because they are pagan idolators (of Caesar, the Roman pantheon, or indigenous Baal/Asherah-type gods). Jews have other bad habits, outlined in the next chapter.
I think people focus on uncommon sexual practices of other people because it is a lot less scary to do so than to focus on the fact that they are enjoying all sorts of luxuries while other people are homeless, and that the Bible has more to say about care for the poor than about male-male or female-female sex.
WorldVision didn’t invent the concept of fasting and donating the money saved to the poor. That has been around for a very long time, and is done by Jews and Muslims as well as by Christians as a routine part of religious duty.
nancy,
a fair point. But I think Hugo should try and put a respectable difference between his ERD event and the Worldvision one.
Which is why we are calling it Fast Relief in all of our publicity. The techniques are inspired by World Vision, but the name and the branding will be distinct.
“I think people focus on uncommon sexual practices of other people because it is a lot less scary to do so than to focus on the fact that they are enjoying all sorts of luxuries while other people are homeless, and that the Bible has more to say about care for the poor than about male-male or female-female sex.”
Really, Nancy, this is just an insipid, gratuitous and self-congratulatory slap-down. Let me try it in kind and maybe we can get into one of those online pissing matches that is more maturabatory than instructive.
Thsoe who promote same-sex unions are clearly unable to promote any sort of discipline in their own lives and therefore are unwilling to suggest that other follow Biblical strictures around sexuality — all they can pomote is a cheap grace ’cause it keeps them from looking at their own sin. Lord knows they couldn’t be motivated by a sincere belief that affirmation of homosexuality is a just end for Christians.
Is it possible that those who believe that homosexuality is not a bibical understanding of sexuality do so with motives that are not more (or less) pure than anyone else who engages in this debate?
Stephen
Stephen, you wrote:
“maybe we can get into one of those online pissing matches that is more masturbatory than instructive.”
Now, there’s an interesting mix of images for my little brain.
I am pointing to the millions of Americans who claimed that “moral values” were the main motivator for their vote. Yet many of these, perhaps most non-minority “moral values” voters, are perfectly happy to see Bush and Republican governors cut back on health care, heat, housing, and education for the poor, just so they can continue to have low taxes and afford that new car every 3 to 4 years. I can’t know the private thoughts of everyone in the blogosphere, but I don’t think it too controversial to contend that it is more popular politically to pass a law against same-sex marriage and civil unions than it is to pass a law exempting the very poor from paying income tax. Some conservative Southern state, probably Alabama, home of Roy Moore’s rock (the controversial public display of 10 commandments in the state courthouse), was urged by its conservative Gov. to exempt people making less than about $5,000.00 a year from state income tax, on the grounds of Christian charity, but that referendum failed with the same set of voters that idolize Moore and his own idolatrous antics with the 10 Commandments statue. So before you get all huffy, Stephen, take a look around you. Notice what the popular radio preacher James Dobson goes on about - homosexuality is one of his main topics, if not THE main topic. I have heard 20 to 50 times more on homosexuality than on duty to the poor from the popular nationally syndicated radio preachers. Those preachers stay on the air because people listen and donate - if a message about caring for the poor were popular, the radio preachers would be doing more of it. I am not saying that all Christians ignore the poor in their own communities or elsewhere in order to get a feel-good moment by condemning “those evil gays”, but lots do.
NancyP:
My request (admittedly strident) was to allow that individuals who do not see homosexuality as a biblically valid way of expressing sexuallity may believe this premise from convication not laziness. Apparently, you are unwilling to grant this.
I suggest that you consider that your beliefs impact what you see — as mine do, as all of ours do. None are granted perfect sight; all will see what they want to see to support their own sense of self-righteousness.
Before you continue to rail against the moral blindness of “those on the religious right” consider how very much you sound like the Pharisees of old — “Thank God I’m not like them.” At the very least, try to smile at the irony, or don’t, I suppose. But save the nonsense about how blind “they” are; it’s tendentious at best.
Stephen
Stephen, you persist in misunderstanding me. My point is that much of Christian pop culture uses homosexuality to avoid addressing issues of real relevance to their own lives. Homosexuality is portrayed as a uniquely serious threat, rather than one of many threats. Most of the audience for this tactic is heterosexual, ie, homosexuality is not a temptation for them at all, not a sin they should be placing much emphasis on. It makes as much sense for these people to be carrying on about homosexuality to the exclusion of most other topics as it does for me to carry on about the sin of drunkenness when I simply don’t like to drink much and hate getting drunk. I can claim no credit for living a sober life - it is no effort for me whatsoever. Greed (based in insecurity, not love of lavish living) and timidity are my besetting sins.
Stephen, you are talking like a canon lawyer. This might be useful if you are a professional clergyperson who needs to advise people, but less relevant for many layfolk (see above). I am talking like an observer of pop culture and politics.
Well, Hugo, you tackled this issue a lot more maturely than I did! But that’s only to be expected given our many differences. ;-)
I have nothing civil to say to bigots who oppose same-sex relationships (btw, when you say “gays and lesbians” let’s not forget those of us who swing both ways). I’m an atheist. The Bible holds very little weight with me. I am, however, a staunch supporter of individual freedom and human rights. The fact that some bigots use the Bible as an excuse to pick-and-choose their moral pronouncements sickens me. There seem to be so many things said in the Bible that these people conveniently ignore, while at the same time using their “faithful” adherence to the Bible as an excuse for bigotry and discrimination against LGBT folks and women. When they start protesting the eating of shellfish and lobbying scientists to reclassify bats as species of birds, then I might be persuaded to treat their evil views as worthy of discussion. They’re not just bigots, they are hypocrites of the worst kind.