The Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

[PaladinValer]

Sex is always going to be a hot button issue. It's one of the four Fs - fight, flee, feed and ... find a mate. It's a very, very ancient gene.

I'm not trying to suggest it isn't important; it most certainly is!

However, as my conservative bishop said and who I agree with, matters like the dogma of the Trinity, and the uniqueness of Christ are more important to orthodoxy.

Furthermore, whereas a lot of people are uppity over consensual relations between people of the same gender, I am personally far more concerned about things like 1) AIDs epidemic, 2) Christian persecution [and, truly, any religious persecution], 3) hunger, 4) growing poverty due to the global recession.

The whole elephant issue (as I like to call it) is by no means minor. But when compared to others, it is comparatively more trivial than ultra conservatives and ultra liberals make it sound like.

 

[Healed_IHS]

One hears this a lot, but I guess people just don't think about how very unlikely it is. I seem to recall this argument being made in the EFM course, which makes me wonder if they botherd to actually check with anyone who could comment on the ancient and medieval understanding of sin.

But put it this way. Saying that they thought homosexuality was just a free choice with no relation to the body or biology means you would have to believe a number of other things that are pretty silly.

1. The people that believe this mustnever have actually felt attracted to someone of the same sex themselves. If they had they would realize that attraction was not a "choice".

2. They must have never met anyone else who had, or not believed them.

3. They likely had never been attracted to anyone else inappropriate, allowing them to compare same sex attraction to other kinds of inappropriate attraction.

4. They must not have ever suffered from other sinful tendencies that have their origin in the body, which would allow them to extrapolate the principle to same sex attraction. Anger for example, or gluttony.

The Early Church understood quite well that many predilections to certian behavior had their origin in some way in the body. The exact mechanism is and was irrelavent - they knew people feel violent anger, lust of all kinds, jjelosy and envy, etc, not normally because they choose to, but because these feelings somehow arise, undesired, from the body or the mind. In some cases these feelings are simply misdirected, in other cases misordered, and in many cases we fail in our attempts to control them. The Church has always seen this as a result of the Fall.

Choosing to persue these things has been what is percieved as a sin for the individual, and the amount of sin involved is mitigated by our human inability to totally control ourselves in many cases. The feelings themselves and our lack of complete control were not seen as a sin by the individual, but were understood to be a result of original sin.

I'm not sure why anyone ever thought it is plausible that the people of the Early Church, medieval period, or whatever, had a totally different experience of being human than we do.

I'm not entirely sold that homosexuality was ever seen as anything but a sinful choice by the Biblical authors. From what I have read it is a sinful choice caused by "demons" much the same as schizophrenia was by non-aristotlle following people back then.

To not understand that sexuality is hard-wired into our psyche (ask the male cofounders of Exodus International, who enroute to saving souls from homosexuality, fell in love with each other) and to still say it is a choice is to live in the bronze age instead of the space age and to throw God's gift of science back in her face.

 

[MKJ]

I'm not entirely sold that homosexuality was ever seen as anything but a sinful choice by the Biblical authors. From what I have read it is a sinful choice caused by "demons" much the same as schizophrenia was by non-aristotlle following people back then.

To not understand that sexuality is hard-wired into our psyche (ask the male cofounders of Exodus International, who enroute to saving souls from homosexuality, fell in love with each other) and to still say it is a choice is to live in the bronze age instead of the space age and to throw God's gift of science back in her face.

You might want to ask yourself - what does it mean when a pre-modern person says disordered desires spring from the promptings of demons? We live in an age that speaks the language of psychology and biological processes. As Christians, we understand the body to be good, but compromised because of original sin.

Speaking about demons is not necessarily that different, but it belongs to a pre-modern way of thinking about the same ideas. What does it mean that some imperfection in brain chemistry gives rise to strange delusions and behaviors? Is this fault or mistake in the body, which surely isn't from God in the normal sense, different from having a demon? Consider the story in Genesis. Was there really a snake in the Garden whispering in Eve's ear? Or was there something in her mind saying what is personified by the snake in the story? Hard to say, and it rather comes out to the same thing.

Certainly as Christians the possibility of interference of demons or angels is a something that could happen.

There isn't a lot of difference between a Screwtape and an Id or Ego. We tend to think we are much more advanced in our understanding of psychology, but actually reading ancient authors reveals this to be false. Teyy may have had different words, but their understanding was not therefore less.

Have you ever read any Robertson Davies? Sometimes this theme comes out in his novels, particularly in "The Cunning Man, which is also very enjoyable reading. It includes lesbians, high church Anglicans, murder, and saints too.

 

[Yab Yum]

Love Robertson Davies. Met him once.

 

[Healed_IHS]

You might want to ask yourself - what does it mean when a pre-modern person says disordered desires spring from the promptings of demons? We live in an age that speaks the language of psychology and biological processes. As Christians, we understand the body to be good, but compromised because of original sin..

Well, to be fair the theory of Original Sin is held by those who agreed with Augustine's Manicheism (spelling?) vs. Pelagianism. I am not among the number who hold the Augustinian POV, but it is what it is...

There was a saying when I was a kid that our parents used to tell us to boost our morales... "God don't make junk". To suppose that the baby born gay is any more "flawed" then one born in any way different than what we consider "normal" just seems to be "off-kilter", IMHO.

 

[JasonV]

Not to drag this on, but I just came across a great letter written by an independent Catholic Bishop on this matter, and I recommend it for reading:

Diocese of Saints Albert and Aelred » On Inclusiveness

 

[AngCath]

Not to drag this on, but I just came across a great letter written by an independent Catholic Bishop on this matter, and I recommend it for reading:

Diocese of Saints Albert and Aelred » On Inclusiveness

Thank you for sharing this.

 

[MKJ]

Well, to be fair the theory of Original Sin is held by those who agreed with Augustine's Manicheism (spelling?) vs. Pelagianism. I am not among the number who hold the Augustinian POV, but it is what it is...

There was a saying when I was a kid that our parents used to tell us to boost our morales... "God don't make junk". To suppose that the baby born gay is any more "flawed" then one born in any way different than what we consider "normal" just seems to be "off-kilter", IMHO.

No, the idea that we are subject to concupiscence due to the Fall is not particularly Augustinian; the Eastern Church, for example, also holds it, despite rejecting the idea that we each bear the guilt of original sin. No major Christian group that I can think of disputes that we inherit the effects of Adam and Eve's act away from God. Pelagius was resoundingly rejected for a good reason. his views made the whole idea of Christianity unnecessary and contradict scripture, not to mention human experience.

And in any case, I have no clue why you think this would apply to homosexuals more than anyone else. The effects of the Fall apply to everyone, in varying ways and varying degrees.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To PaladinValer,
Good post.

Yet the problem with both is this: the former are so uppity over one violation of 1.10 that they almost never if not never say anything about the violation of the same canon over the issue of executing homosexuals in Uganda...even its primate won't even take a stand and, like a bishop should, denounce the legislation due to its violation of 1.10.

This is true, but this criticism comes most strongly from those who never intended to follow the prohibition on same sex relations in Lambeth 1.10 in the first place, perhaps they have ‘cried wolf’ too often, they have certainly tried to silence those who wish to uphold Lambeth 1.10.
I would also point out there is a big outcry over this law from pro-gay groups when there isn’t a big on going outcry over Christians being killed or executed for their faith all over the world. ‘Gay Christians’ seem more interested in gay than Christian.

Yes, +Robinson is now validly ordained and cannot have his ordination removed...that doesn't mean that you all can go and say "may as well go on with another one."

Why not? Who says? Does God recognise his ministry? Certainly God is the judge, those who place themselves under his leadership should serve him, those who cant should leave.

When the logs are removed, then we can finally have dialogue and discussion. I'd like to actually see people on all three sides denounce both, giving neither violation a "worse than the other" treatment.

I denounce the law, I think it is as against Jesus teaching as same sex relations are.
When you say remove the logs are you referring to the Matthew 7 scripture? If so the speck is same sex relations, and the log is this law. If one managed to get the law prevented or repealed, would one manage to get same sex relations agreed as error?

 

[Healed_IHS]

No, the idea that we are subject to concupiscence due to the Fall is not particularly Augustinian; the Eastern Church, for example, also holds it, despite rejecting the idea that we each bear the guilt of original sin. No major Christian group that I can think of disputes that we inherit the effects of Adam and Eve's act away from God. Pelagius was resoundingly rejected for a good reason. his views made the whole idea of Christianity unnecessary and contradict scripture, not to mention human experience..

Nor is it particularly Christian... in fact other religions that are un-Christian have the same reasoning... manicheasim (sp?) as well as neo-platonism. Pelagius was rejected, in great part, because Augustine was a Bishop while Pelagius was a simple monk. Then, as now, politics was a God to a lot of church folk.

Ask any 100 Christians and I am sure at least 99 will say Jesus repaired the breach caused by Adam's disobedience. There is nothing weak-willed, mortal little 'ol me can do to repair it any further. As a mortal, I simply cannot effect it anymore than the sacrifice of God on Earth, though this is just IMHO.

And in any case, I have no clue why you think this would apply to homosexuals more than anyone else. The effects of the Fall apply to everyone, in varying ways and varying degrees.

I'm sorry, I thought the post was just about homosexuality... not smoking, though it applies to that as well

 

[brightmorningstar]

Ask any 100 Christians and I am sure at least 99 will say Jesus repaired the breach caused by Adam's disobedience.

This is a good reply. All that those who dont believe the Bible have to cite and quote is from other people's thoughts. The NT says in Adam we all die and in Christ we all may live. If some of the earlier church leaders grapsed it all well and good.

 

[JasonV]

All that those who dont believe the Bible have to cite and quote is from other people's thoughts.

Not true. Please produce evidence that this is true before you offer it up again.

 

[MKJ]

Nor is it particularly Christian... in fact other religions that are un-Christian have the same reasoning... manicheasim (sp?) as well as neo-platonism. Pelagius was rejected, in great part, because Augustine was a Bishop while Pelagius was a simple monk. Then, as now, politics was a God to a lot of church folk.

Ask any 100 Christians and I am sure at least 99 will say Jesus repaired the breach caused by Adam's disobedience. There is nothing weak-willed, mortal little 'ol me can do to repair it any further. As a mortal, I simply cannot effect it anymore than the sacrifice of God on Earth, though this is just IMHO.

I'm sorry, I thought the post was just about homosexuality... not smoking, though it applies to that as well

The Maniches and the neo-platonists, among others, had a similar idea, but it is not the same when you look at it with a little care. In those cases, the idea was that matter itself was to blame for our human weakness, that we are pure souls imprisoned in flesh, and that the goal of a human being was to overcome the effects of this by various sorts of purification. After death one was freed permanently or temporarily from this imprisonment, depending on the teaching of the group in question. (You can see a similar POV today in Hinduism.)

This view was popular both at the philosophical and popular level for a few reasons, including the philosophical understanding of matter as changeable and corrupted and the immaterial realm as the source of stability and truth, and the general human experience of intending or wanting to do something and then finding oneself doing the opposite.

The difference comes because of the insight that Christianity has from its Hebrew roots - that matter is not separate from God, evil, and the source of corruption, but rather that it is created by God and is good according to the nature God gave it.

But this leaves open the question of why we are then not able to reach God by our own efforts at goodness, and why we perceive a separation from him. The Christian answer to this has been the Fall - human (and angelic) free-will, and the effects of choosing untruth over truth. It is not, as in the neoplatonic view, an explanation that sees the origins of the problem in matter, but from the soul, though that affects matter. In humans, the effects of the Fall are understood to be passed through the material.

Yes, you are right that Christianity teaches that Christ healed this chasm between us and God, but that is not a complete statement. If 99 out of 100 Christians say so and nothing more they haven't thought very hard about it, or bothered to read much theology. Clearly, we still all feel its effects. I am not sure how you could possibly understand it otherwise, unless you expect to see people, as Pelagius claimed they could, simply and successfully choosing not to sin so long as they tried hard enough, or at least finding that to be the case after baptism. You seem to understand that is not the case with smokers, which makes your claim that concupiscence cannot be part of the issue with other things like homosexuality, because concupiscence doesn't exist, a bit suspect. If you are right that "God doesn't make junk" in the way you claim, than there should not be anyone who really wants to who fails to quit smoking.

I'd be interested to know, if you take the viewpoint of Pelagius, how you explain this.

 

[Healed_IHS]

If 99 out of 100 Christians say so and nothing more they haven't thought very hard about it, or bothered to read much theology.

Reading theology is good and important. Perhaps as much as reading the Bible and perhaps less. However, even these two are incomplete for it is missing Reason.

The Maniches and the neo-platonists, among others, had a similar idea, but it is not the same when you look at it with a little care. In those cases, the idea was that matter itself was to blame for our human weakness, that we are pure souls imprisoned in flesh, and that the goal of a human being was to overcome the effects of this by various sorts of purification.

Enter Original Sin as a sexually transmitted "disease", except it was inherited. Who was this idea popular with? Augustine. Augustine was a ?
Manicheism follower-cum-Christian.

Clearly, we still all feel its effects.

Not when it comes to salvation we don't. We have been spared out of grace, just as Cain was spared out of grace and protected with the mark of God.

I'd be interested to know, if you take the viewpoint of Pelagius, how you explain this.

It isn't about Sin. Sin was (obviously) in play when Cain slew his own brother. Yet, when God exiled him, what was Cain's concen? That he would be cast out in what is recorded in the gospel as "where there is weeping and gnashing". And what did God do? Protected him from that. Said, "Don't worry, I will put my mark on you". Did God change?

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV,

Not true. Please produce evidence that this is true before you offer it up again.

Of course its true, you yourself linked to a Catholic Bishop’s thoughts on the matter in post #126. For me the Biblical testimony is God’s testimony with man, and God’s word, so anything contrary to it is merely human.

If you are going to do so the key would be to find others that believe the Biblical testimony rather than those who dont.

 

[Abiel's sock]

I question the point of ordination.

 

[JasonV]

To JasonV,
Of course its true, you yourself linked to a Catholic Bishop’s thoughts on the matter in post #126. For me the Biblical testimony is God’s testimony with man, and God’s word, so anything contrary to it is merely human.

I'm glad that works for you.

Would you mind explaining your personal view on the difference between an Old Testament prophet who tells people a flaming bush talked to him, and the guy holding a sign on a street corner claiming God spoke to him?

 

[MKJ]

Reading theology is good and important. Perhaps as much as reading the Bible and perhaps less. However, even these two are incomplete for it is missing Reason.

I said thinking hard and reading theology, which are both part of using reason. I also mentioned Scripture. What is your point?

Enter Original Sin as a sexually transmitted "disease", except it was inherited. Who was this idea popular with? Augustine. Augustine was a ?
Manicheism follower-cum-Christian.

THis idea is not simply Augustinian, as I pointed out. And you can't say "Augustine was a member of group X at one time and therefore his ideas were all derived from that" or "therefore they weer not Christian". You would be laughed out of any discussion of the history of theology or philosophy with that argument, which is simply a logical fallacy. You need to show that it is true by actually looking at the ideas, and preferably finding further evidence of the connection. I showed that in fact the argument or understanding of Augustine was quite different from the Manichean position, and you have not addressed what I said in any way.

Not when it comes to salvation we don't. We have been spared out of grace, just as Cain was spared out of grace and protected with the mark of God.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The subject was the nature of concupiscence and the way in which the Fall affected human bodily perfection and our ability to rule our own bodies.

It isn't about Sin. Sin was (obviously) in play when Cain slew his own brother. Yet, when God exiled him, what was Cain's concen? That he would be cast out in what is recorded in the gospel as "where there is weeping and gnashing". And what did God do? Protected him from that. Said, "Don't worry, I will put my mark on you". Did God change?

You'll have to connect this more explicitly with the topic under discussion, or Pelagianism, or whatever you are intending it to refer to.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To JasonV

Would you mind explaining your personal view on the difference between an Old Testament prophet who tells people a flaming bush talked to him, and the guy holding a sign on a street corner claiming God spoke to him?

Sorry but its a view held and shared by millions because it is one that wasn’t constructed by a human, but given to some by God. What possible motive can you have for always trying to diminish mainstream Christian beliefs to as thought they were one person's view alone?

Whether he believes in God would be a good test for the guy on the street corner as to whether he believes God spoke to Moses through the flaming bush, if he does he is a believer .. by definition!.

 

[JasonV]

To JasonV
Sorry but its a view held and shared by millions because it is one that wasn’t constructed by a human, but given to some by God. What possible motive can you have for always trying to diminish mainstream Christian beliefs to as thought they were one person's view alone?

Are you suggesting that it's true because lots of people believe it?

Whether he believes in God would be a good test for the guy on the street corner as to whether he believes God spoke to Moses through the flaming bush, if he does he is a believer .. by definition!.

Any nut-job can be a believer.