[The Update is at the foot of the original post.]
Recently Francis Spufford, novelist and CofE General Synod member, wrote an article making some waves. It is entitled "How I changed my mind about same-sex marriage" and can be read here.
Ian Paul, blogger and CofE General Synod member, has written a response entitled "Is change in the Church's teaching on sexuality inevitable?" and can be read here.
(Aside: there are illuminating comments, or, at least, fascinating comments, including this one:
"Paul was doing to the equivalent of a bishops letter to the diocese. Bishops change their minds. So with Paul." LOL. The only non-controversial claim here is that bishops change their minds!)
Both Francis and Ian (first names here will save confusion about "Paul"/"[Saint] Paul") offer extensive arguments in support of their respective theses, and - frankly - I don't have time to engage with the details and subtleties and offer my own "Francis/Ian is right and here is why."
In my estimation a singular question Francis raises is whether the church through history has indeed worked through tensions between "principle" and "rule" in favour of principle over rule. In part Ian's counter is that the principle of marriage is that male and female come together in union so the principle here always supports the rule (no same-sex sex).
I also wonder whether what Francis writes is more of a forecast than a thesis. That is, even if Ian is right in what he says is wrong with Francis' thesis, Francis (perhaps with the insight of a novelist?) is putting his finger on where the winds of collective change are heading, even if we will not know that till later this century. Nevertheless, the tradition of marriage, the embedded narrative and theology of marriage in Scripture, that a man and a woman become a couple, both formally (in the eyes of their community and their families) and biologically, imaging aspects of the divine life (diversity in unity; the union between Christ and the church) would have to make a significant, if not dramatic change to become a theology of any two persons marrying.
The church has changed its mind on many things but often it has taken a long time for the change of mind to involve a strong majority if not a unanimity of church members. And through that time there have been arguments and counter-arguments concerning the change, even as sociologically the change has continued to role along - I am thinking particularly of decision-making in favour of the ordination of women.
But, with a few moments of spare time, I want to have a stab at offering a few thoughts, by picking on one thing Ian says as a specific cue to my thoughts:
"In other words, the implicit but clear case Paul is making is not about the context of such activity, but the creation principle behind it which is the form of humanity as male and female."
I suggest this emphasis on "context" and "creation principle" in relation to matters of human relationships raise more than a few questions as we engage with Scripture and in particular with Paul's writings.
For instance, does "context" play a role in what Paul says? I suggest it does, notably in 1 Corinthians 7 where the so-called Pauline Exception (re divorce and remarriage) introduces a new and different exception to the so-called Matthean Exception, because Paul in the Graeco-Roman context finds a new issue to give a ruling on, and does so, but not one he has a direct ruling from Jesus to draw on.
Conversely, how well does "creation principle" play out in the notable and controversial passage 1 Timothy 2:11-15, where Paul appeals to Adam being created first, ahead of Eve, and to Eve's role in "the fall" of creation, to justify women's silence in church and submission to male leadership? Does Paul, for example, appeal to one aspect of the creation story (Eve being created from Adam, according to Genesis 2) and not to another, namely, humanity, male and female being created in the image of God (Genesis 1)?
With respect to same-sex civil marriages, even if they fail a "creation principle" in which the emphasis falls on marriage as a creation institution for male and female, do they not fit with another "creation principle" in which (also according to Genesis 2), it is not good for a man to be alone? To what extent, in other words, might companionship be a "creation principle" which undergirds affirmation in the church of two men or two women covenanting together to be partners in life for life? Especially if those men or women are not capable of otherwise conforming to the requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman?
Paul, incidentally, in respect of the two articles which touch on the question of whether Paul was wrong on homosexuality, was an intriguing theologian of sex. For instance, overwhelmed by the conviction that the return of Christ was imminent, he offers nothing by way of support for the notion that sex is primarily for the purpose of procreation, pace our 20th and 21st century debates re contraception. (He's not against the possibility of procreation being primary; likely, as a well trained Jewish scholar and teacher, he would answer that question affirmatively; but he just doesn't give the matter consideration.) Conversely, in 1 Corinthians 7, he is realistic about the power of sexual desire: better to marry than burn; better to refrain from sex in order to pray for a limited time only and only by mutual agreement. Yet these considerations have nothing to do with a classic modern posed dilemma, is sex for procreation or for pleasure.)
In other words, even though there is considerable weight in tradition and Scripture re Christian marriage involving a man and a woman, there is also possibility within even the Pauline writings for some fresh thinking about how the church might respond to same sex couples who covenant life together, including contracting together a civil marriage according to changed civil laws.
There is lots more to say here - more questions and observations - and I don't have time to write them. Francis and Ian both make excellent arguments along the way of their respective articles, and each article deserves careful consideration by all Anglicans interested in this particular conversation.
UPDATE [15 August 2021]
In the comments below a point is made that any changes to our understanding of and application of Scripture should not involve strain on a "plain reading" of Scripture. The specific comment by Bowman Walton sparking this update is this:
"In an interview, J I Packer once replied to some of the usual arguments for SSM by saying that such sophisticated readings of scripture dissolved the ordinary believer's confidence in the plain meaning of the text, and that was far too high a price to pay for a trendy ritual innovation. Kindly note that even if one favors the innovation, some authority problems remain to be solved."
Of course (as a comment in reply by Jonathan notes), there is not always a "plain" understanding of the "plain meaning" of Scripture and so forth re complex discussion on hermeneutics.
We could also note that some readers of Scripture are quite comfortable with "sophisticated readings of scripture" - I am thinking, for instance, of interpretations of Revelation in respect of different understandings of "end times".
Nevertheless I think JI Packer via Bowman makes an excellent observation. For instance, if we wish to persuade the whole church of change X then we are more likely to be persuasive if we can offer an interpretation of Scripture which can be easily recalled and recounted to another Christian than if the explanation is sophisticated to the point where few can readily pass it on to others.
With respect to what Ian and Francis are arguing over I make the following observations:
1. The plain understanding of marriage in Scripture (whether in its narratives or in its ethics or in its imagery (e.g. re Christ and the church) is that marriage is between a man and a woman. To argue that marriage can be between any two persons, without reference to gender, is intrinsically to bring forth a sophisticated argument.
2. On what I see as a "related" matter, marriage and divorce and remarriage after divorce, it is interesting that getting around what Jesus and Paul say involves a not entirely persuasive sophistication. For instance, the Roman approach via "annulment" both reads Jesus and Paul in a "plain" manner (there can be no marriage after divorce) and in a "sophisticated" manner (because Jesus and Paul say absolutely nothing about "annulment" of marriages, nor about difference between "civil marriages"/"church marriages which are not sacramental" and "sacramental marriages." Where Protestants seek to offer Scriptural support why A and B can remarry after divorce but not C and D, because the background circumstances are different; or because A and B have repented of mistakes made in their previous marriages whereas C and D have not, there is a different kind of sophistication going on. Neither Jesus nor Paul offer other exceptions than the Matthean and Pauline Exceptions; and neither talk about "repentance" as overcoming Jesus' fundamental point that marriage is for life.
3. In my view, a simpler and plainer reading of Scripture re marriage, divorce and remarriage, is to work pastorally with a couple seeking marriage after divorce under the mandate "be merciful."
4. Back to same sex lifelong partnerships, especially those lawfully constituted as marriages in an increasing number of countries around the world: what is a plain reading of Scripture which supports the church pastorally supporting rather than condemning same sex couples in our parishes?
5. Noting some approaches I have read to the "Six Texts" over the years, and fascinating as certain word studies are re words used in - notably - Leviticus 18:22 and 1 Corinthians 6:9, sophisticated arguments which attempt to effect a neutralising of the plain meaning of these texts are likely to be unpersuasive. Better (as some writers I have read do) to admit these texts are condemnatory and then ask whether they address our modern situation as governments by divine appointments change laws.
6. A straightforward possibility is that the church then invokes "be merciful" (per 3 above, per precedent regarding response to remarriage after divorce) and re-examines what "companionship" (Genesis 2) might mean in 21st century society.
7. In making an examination of what "companionship" in 21st century society might mean in relationship to sexual relationships, the church might remember that in some ancient times, in Hebrew/Israelite society, there was divine tolerance of polygamy, even though polygamy cannot be squared off with Genesis 2 or Jesus'/Paul's reading of Genesis 2.
36 comments:
Two ships pass in the night.
Francis appeals to the Body's judgment about what sorts of living are visibly holy. Ian appeals to the Church of England's duty of consistency with its modern past.
A reader of both might wonder how, exactly, one might get from belief in the Creator to either.
BW
Dear Bowman,
You have, at long last, discovered an Anglican novelty.
Two Anglicans expressing an opinion are like "two ships passing in the night."
This is new, I tell you, new.
Anglicans pundits until now have never talked passed each other etc.
[... NOT ...]
[ ... Smile ...]
Yours of Canterbury and York!
Just a small comment from me, Dear Bishop Peter, about my own personal understanding of the subject under discussion. The Church has only fairly recently accepted the need to listen to actual individuals who are both (a) LGTB+ in their gender/sexuality orientation and who are also (b) devoutly Christian; in their personal understanding of their own situation and their equal understanding of the place of God in their lives.
It should not be too surpising that the most hurtful and destructive critics of LGBT+s are those who may never have experienced what LGBT+ people themselves have to live with on a daily basis. Such criticism often originates from the primaeval fear of some aggressively heterosexual people (both M. and F.) for whom S/S behaviour seems to imply a threat for what they see as being their own, heterosexual, 'normality'.
With regard to Paul (the Biblical apostle, not Ian) it has been conjectured (mostly by gay people I suspect) that he could have been same-sex attracted himself! Like some of today's closetted Gay Christians, maybe he was not able to live with this and (in the context of the situation he was living in - where S/S prostitution was a threat to society) felt duty-bound to oppose the possible authenticity of Same-Sex relationships being part of God's plan in Creation for a minority of those made in the Divine Image and Likeness. ("It is not good for man to be alone"). Paul, incidentally, just had to live with his 'thorn in the flesh' - whatever that may have been. It could have crippled him, but he didn't allow it to
Your predecessor, Bishop Victoria, led a whole group of Canadian Anglicans in an extensive study of 'Marriage' and its implications for both Christians and the broader society in which we all live. Partly as a result of those studies the Canadian Anglican Church decided to accept the view that S/S Marriage was not outside of a reasonable accommodation for people of Faith in Christ who felt that this was their intrinsic calling. (Of course, the actual experience of Christian people who are S/S-attracted was respectfully listened to and taken on board). This decision, importantly. arose from both prayer and serious study: both theological and scientifically biological.
As you say here, it often takes the Church a long time to adapt to circumstances that society presents as being practicable and acceptable behaviour. Even Jesus had to protest against some of the accepted rules and regulations of the Jewish Community - to the degree that its leaders had him put to death for what they saw as his apostacy. There never was one perfect human being - except for the Incarnate Christ. We all need Mercy and Love.
In fairness, Peter, Anglican pundits are usually trying to talk past each other. And more or less brilliantly succeeding.
But when Francis exhorted his side to be less churlish to their younger selves, and Ian opened with how much he wished to continue a conversation with Francis, well, perhaps we all hoped to see an elephant fly after all.
The General Synod in Cockaigne hasn't anyone as eloquent as Francis or as sharp as Ian, so its only discussion of That Topic was rather dull.
Someone argued that sexual difference was so woven into higher forms of life that the Creator must have intended it. All nodded that this made creedal sense.
Then someone pressed the point that, just because the creed is true, anomalous constitutions of sexuality must also be within the Creator's will in some sense. Whatever one involuntarily has, it must have come from God. Nobody objected to this. A few thought that the Whirlwind's delight in Behemoth and Leviathan, Jesus's healings of outcasts, St Paul's discovery of messianic Gentiles, etc had revealed a God who more than tolerated anomalies.
At this, a somewhat GAFCONian member rose to insist that the received ideals for relations between men and women still made sense. Yes, all nodded, they do.
But when an intersexed member noted that they do not quite fit persons who are are, in any sexual way, irregular, the assembled host nodded at this too. An exegete offered that Jesus established the ministry of *binding and loosing* for just such hard cases where simple rules lead to paradoxes and absurdities.
Someone wondered aloud, are we saying that the Six Texts are wrong? No, the exegete replied, we are acknowledging that Jesus and the apostles were describing the characteristic life of his Body, the New Israel. They were not writing a code of law for individuals-- where, after all, is it?-- let alone elaborating an ethic for each sort and condition of humanity.
The GAFCONian wondered whether a church that recognizes the eccentricities of 3% could still support the ethos of heterosexuality, marriage, procreation, responsible parenting, etc for the other 97%. His intersexed friend pointed out that all the 3% had once been conceived in the usual way. And he admitted that he too was worried that the population was declining along with trust between the sexes.
At length, the chair asked whether any member had a motion to put before the body. None was offered, and so the synod took up the next topic on its agenda, clergy pensions.
BW
Yes!
Agreed!
Exactly!
Anglican Communion: please read Bowman at 5.07 pm.
Postscript
How did the Church of Cockaigne have the calm, civil conversation about That Topic that has eluded so many synods elsewhere?
It's not as though feelings there never run high. Peter's readers here will recall years of heated debate over the blessing of hounds for fox hunts. Any church can have a silly season.
But still, debates in Cockaigne's churches are calmer than those among say German Catholics. Why?
On one hand, the CoC as a whole is not polarized. Well-heard centrists empathize with the whole range of viable opinion, but speak without prior tribal commitments. Absent polarisation, it is very unpersuasive to retreat to authority claims that others empirically do not accept. After all, if one believes one has a good argument, then one should advance it from the most widely shared premises one can find.
On the other hand, all arguments in the CoC start, advance, and end with God. Cockaigne is a long-secularised country; its Christian minority knows what it believes and why. "How does this argument appeal to my knowledge of God? And if it does not do so, then why should I listen to it?"
That is, they do not accept that an argument from moral sentiment (cf the serpent in Eden) or from the Bible (cf the devil quoting scripture) is necessarily in the service of God unless he is himself the premise of the argument. So if Anglicans there read Francis and Ian, they would likely find the arguments of both to be too independent of the character of the supposed Focus of devotion.
BW
Caleb Day's article may also prove of interest for some (it is from an Anglican and New Zealand background). I found it helpful and am currently reading some of his references as time permits. https://www.academia.edu/23618124/_A_time_to_throw_away_Rethinking_the_gender_requirement_for_legitimate_Christian_sex It is possible you may have to sign up (for free) if you haven't used academia before.
re 'That Subject', Bishop Peter: I have just read a most sickening article by David Virtue (DD) denigrating the eirenic ministry of former ABC Rowan Williams. I do hope no future material from the 'Virtue-on-line' website appears on ADU. It could be very damaging to our 'Unity in Diversity' ethos as Anglicans.
A Consideration on That (Ecclesiastical) Topic
For me, an acid test that an argument from either side very often fails is this: could it be eviscerated by radical social change? Truths about God's ultimate will are robust across all the sorts and conditions of human society, progressive or dystopian.
If one says, for example, that gay sex is ok because it is no longer ruled by Roman social norms, then one has not proven anything. Every age has its dark corners, but the ancients were neither as unimaginative (cf Socrates and Alcibiades in Plato's Symposium) nor as unreflective, nor frankly as depraved as some arguments require. But more to the point, there are bad mores in contemporary societies too-- have you heard of a certain global scandal in the RCC?-- and who can say what horrors future societies might condone? Is gay sex only godly when civil society is good? God's will is God's will no matter what shapeshifting societies might do.
Conversely, some dismiss empirically grounded knowledge about homosexuality because it came from civil societies of today that they do not like or trust. This could make sense, if, but only if, they predict on some reasonable basis the contrary yet persuasive data that will be found in some specified other society. God's order is universal in creation.
Polarised voices tend to have large blind spots about the social premises of their arguments. That, after all, is what polarised them to extremes in the first place. In the RCC's squabble over the Tridentine mass, presentists tend not to like C16 Latin nor reactionaries C20 English.
How should happy warriors interpret their zeal? Christ is the One im whom all things cohere. Zeal polarised and embittered by social differences is not according to godliness.
BW
Please let us know, Jonathan, what you think of what you read.
To arguments like those of Caleb Day, I usually pose the question: does this one merely support broadening the discipline of churches to compass sex in a holy gay life, or does it also propose a God-revealed meaning for that sex in the Body as a whole? Writers and readers alike often muddle the two.
And some voices are effectively arguing, not so much about the patterns of gay holiness, as about the locus and clarity of authority in the Body with respect to morals. In an interview, J I Packer once replied to some of the usual arguments for SSM by saying that such sophisticated readings of scripture dissolved the ordinary believer's confidence in the plain meaning of the text, and that was far too high a price to pay for a trendy ritual innovation. Kindly note that even if one favors the innovation, some authority problems remain to be solved.
BW
Bowman, I will endeavour to make some intelligent reflections on Caleb's paper but it might be a few weeks away! As to "plain meaning" I find I am perplexed about quite a few matters in Christian and Hebrew Scriptures that I suspect require something other than plain meaning. Though it may be better to say, there is a significant core of plain-meaning text which is challenging enough to put into practice, but plenty of other matters that are unclear.
Thank you, Jonathan :-)
"...there is a significant core of plain-meaning text which is challenging enough to put into practice, but plenty of other matters that are unclear."
Fair enough. The meaning of plain meaning is less plain than one might expect.
And anyway the echoes and quotations of scripture (eg Isaiah vii 14*) in words of Jesus and the apostles (eg St Matthew i 23*) lead us toward what a youthful Raymond E Brown SS called the *sensus plenior* (fuller sense).
“The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation” (Sensus Plenior in Sacred Scripture, p 92).
Brent Parker and Matthew Dunn summarise some Catholic (and evangelical) views of that notion--
https://tinyurl.com/przbtem6
https://tinyurl.com/2ch5j37x
* * *
J I Packer's concern for the believer's relation to the scriptures was shared by Benedict XVI, who wrote extensively on the problem and convened a synod in Rome to discuss it. Rowan Williams and N T Wright both addressed that synod.
Reading the ways Francis and Ian use scripture at + Peter's links, I wish that the Communion could achieve something much more like an ecumenical dialogue exploring how believers of several sorts actually read and follow the scriptures today.
* The "stock example" is from John Goldingay, author of Do We Need The New Testament?
https://tinyurl.com/m34ubst4
BW
Mr Carrell: Why just companionship and the relief of sexual urges? So what if homosexuality cannot produce new life?
Only if you are stuck on natural law theory is that a problem,
Don't you understand that plenty of same-sex couples bring up children?
That women can be impregnated by a willing donor or that men can hire a surrogate?
Do you have anything against same-sex couples conceiving (well, one of them af sny rate) children and bringing them up in such households?
If being homosexual is just a natural variation, then it is perfectly natural and good to bring children up in such a household,
Talk to gay people and find out!
TJ
Well, I assume by your silence that you agree that starting a family through surrogacy or AID for same-sex couples is good and in keeping with Christian doctrine and God's will.
Dr Carrell makes complex arguments that people need companionship and acceptance in life as well as fulfilment of sexual desires but so far I have seen nothing from him or from Father Smith on the desires and need of same-sex couples to have children and to bring them up.
Or perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere but I haven't seen it?
Dr Carrell, Fr Smith: please give us your Christian reflections on conceiving and bringing up children in same-sex households. This isn't a theoretical notion, it's a reality for many people, including several I know.
TJ
Well, I assume by your silence that you agree that starting a family through surrogacy or AID for same-sex couples is good and in keeping with Christian doctrine and God's will.
Dr Carrell makes complex arguments that people need companionship and acceptance in life as well as fulfilment of sexual desires but so far I have seen nothing from him or from Father Smith on the desires and need of same-sex couples to have children and to bring them up.
Or perhaps you have addressed this elsewhere but I haven't seen it?
Dr Carrell, Fr Smith: please give us your Christian reflections on conceiving and bringing up children in same-sex households. This isn't a theoretical notion, it's a reality for many people, including several I know.
TJ
No reply to my questions? Then I take it you agree that besides dealing with loneliness and sexual frustration, same-sex relationships among Christians shoukd also be blessed with children through surrogacy for men or AID for lesbian couples?
If homosexual relations are willed by God for some people, then it surely follows that God wants same-sex couples to bring up children.
When is ghe progressive Anglican Church going to say this clearly?
TJ
Dear TJ,
I am well aware that same sex couples find ways to conceive children and/or adopt them and bring them up.
I am not aware of theological arguments which support the conception of children outside of a male and female married couple; and I myself cannot see a way from Scripture towards such argumentation.
Generally I am of the view that every child deserves a mum and a dad to bring them up where that is possible.
It would not appear that these views are your views.
Dr Carrell
Your position makes no sense.
1. You support same-sex relations provided no children are involved, even though you know the Bible condemns homosexual acts. Instead, you argued abstractly looking for a general principle rather than the actual words of the Bible.
2. You make long and complicated arguments based on the needs for companionship and the power of sexual desire - although you know that many heterosexual Christians are single not through choice. Do you think they may have casual affairs as some kind of solace? Or should they live celibate lives?
3. You know that many children are adopted. Why are you opposed to same-sex couples adopting these children on equal terns with opposite-sex couples? Do you consider same-sex relationships inferior?
4. You write: "I myself cannot see a way from Scripture towards such argumentation." Maybe you didn't try hard enough. You argued, supposedly from Scripture, toward same-sex relationships. It is really quite easy to argue that way if parenthood is about nurture and has nothing to do with male-female complementary. If marriage doesn't need complementarity, then surely neither does parenthood? What is wrong with thast argument?
5. If a same-sex relationship is pleasing to God, as evidently you believe, then you ought to believe it can form a family pleasing to God as well.
Or do you suspect that this isn't really so? Do you think a same-sex relationship is harmful to the upbringing of children?
I am sure you know that the rejection of same-sex relationships and gay parenthood is based on two factors: the traditional interpretation of the Bible AND Natural Law.
The traditional interpretation of the Bible holds that homosexual sex is sinful and against God's will. The Bible, of course, makes no reference to same-sex parenting.
The Natural Law argument is that homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered (a misuse of the proper telos of our bodies, as Pope St John Paul has said) and that the family of Mother and Father is an order of Nature with the telos of rearing children. As you know, Natural Law isn't a religious type of argument but based on reason and telos.
But why would a liberal Protestant who rejects Natural Law thinking care about that?
It would be helpful to hear from your regular correspondents Father Ron Smith and BW.
TJ
Dear T.J., may I offer my own opinion on the question of whether - or not - same-sex married couples might, legitimately, seek to nurture children within their familial relationship? I am acutely aware of a particular case of an intrinsically gay man longing to be part of a family with children being part of that arrangement. At the time of his speculation on how this might achieved; it would have been impossibile for him to legally achieve this aim with another man. However, he found a widowed woman who loved him enough to agree to marry him, so that he and her children could share a familial relationship - without actually needing to generate their own children (a psychological impossibility for the man involved. The children are now parents of their own children in stable heterosexual families. They were told of the circumstances of their adoptive father, with whom each of them has sustained a loving relationship which they realise helped in their healthy sense of wellbeing and human development.
This, of course, is not the same as the marriage of a same-sex couple but, I submit; the same desire to nurture children can be present for both parties in a same-sex relationship. If the couple are married, then this both legal and a good way of providing care and nurture for a child/children who may have no other means of living in a family environment with two parents, rather than a single parent. I believe that God would rather that a child/children be brought up with two parents who love them, than, perhaps, with one parent who may love them but find it difficult, on their own, to cope with the responsibility.
The question of surrogacy is a different matter. However, if this is good enough for heterosexual couples, why should it be denied to same-sex couples who long for a family?
Hi TJ
Are you talking about (a) same sex civil unions with children, or (b) an Anglican church's discipline for individuals duly admitted by the civil law to that condition? The former is up to each nation's government; your advice for Anglican bishops faced with the latter would clarify your position.
Blessings
BW
Father Ron Smith refers again to his own marriage family life, which he has often mentioned in this blog. It is not of course a same-sex relationship so I don't understand the relevance of it. Nor am I clear what he means by "psychological impossibility of generating children". All the gay men I have known who were married to women are fathers. This includes Anglican priests who left their wives for men, as well as lay men. Bishop Gene Robinson is a father, so are former Pastor Roy Clements, Rev Jeremy Pemberton and many others formerly married to women.
Father Smith does however state his belief that a same-sex relationship is equally good in God's eyes for rearing children, so evidently he believes it is not wrong or harmful to a child deliberately to be brought up without either a mother or father but instead to have the daily model of a homosexual adult relationship before them. After all, parenthood isn't just about money and chilcare but modeling adult relationships to children and what could be wrong with bringing children up in such an environment and circle of friends? If homosexuality is natural and God's will, how can it be wrong to bring children up in such a world? Dr Carrell seems to have problems with this idea.
Father Smith would presumably reject what the American psychologist Mark Regnerus has said about this in his study of children brought up in homosexual households.
BW avoids answering my question about what *he* thinks about the rightness and fitness of such relationships for bringing up children. He knows of course that many states in the USA have acted against Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to place children with same-sex couples and have sometimes forced their closure on grounds of discrimination against same-sex couples. The US Supreme Court dealt with such a case recently involving the city of Philadelphia.
BW will also know that the Roman Catholic Natural Law Tradition condemns homosexual parenting and that Pope St John Paul outrightly condemned it as wrong. But BW has yet to say whether *he* thinks those relationships are a desirable context for child rearing or if he has the kind of reservations about them that Dr Carrell may have. (But I do not want to put words in Dr Carrell's mouth.)
What the commentators in this blog have failed to see is that if there is, theologically speaking, such a thing as Christian same-sex marriage (I am not talking about civil law which allows all kinds of things, like polygamy and child marriage in the new-old Afghanistan), then ALL the "goods", including the nurture of children,belong to that relationship. You cannot divide and discriminate among them.
And this is the great problem and shortsightedness I have seen in this blog.
You have gone on endlessly about the problems of loneliness and sexual frustration. You offer to give ecclesiastical approval to a sexualized friendship. But a sexualized friendship isn't a marriage. Marriage isn't about our desires, it's about the generation of new life. That is why lesbian couples nearly always have children.
If you don't like children being brought up in a homosexual household - if you suspect it is emotionally and morally harmful to them, as Mark Regnerus and JohnPaul Ii have claimed, then you need to think again about Natural Law and why you reject it as a foundation for theology, as it is for the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
TJ
Hi TJ
Are you advocating (i) something derived from Part II of St Thomas's Summa Theologiae as an exclusive guide to the vocation aspect of salvation downstream from justification and sanctification, and then (ii) inferring from this a created order of marriage organically oriented to reproduction, so that (iii) persons not so oriented are imperfect parents of children?
If not, then what is your position? If so, then how should this influence the discipline of an Anglican church?
BW
A Note on Rhetoric in Christ
Western societies are a bit more polarised into extremes avoiding a centre than they were. Believing that their urgent but seemingly intractable problems can only be solved by conflict, many simply choose their sides and push others to do the same. Even the news and commentary we see has an edge of opposition that puts the rhetors-- the talking heads, the typing fingers, whatever-- on one side or another of that avoided centre.
When commentators here see churches as a mere reflection of that polarisation, they too avoid received consensus, common ground, Christian charity, etc and imitate the militance of their heroes elsewhere in the media. This truculence in the Body, however, is a mistake for four reasons.
(a) It enacts unbelief. See Colossians 1. If the Body were in fact as polarised as the world, then Jesus would have failed to hold even his Body together, the gospel would be false, and we here would all be wasting our time. The Body does pay too much attention to happy warriors, but it is still less polarised than the world because disciples have broader empathy for those with whom they only partially agree.
(b) It surrenders persuasion. If the objective is to persuade, then the method is to show that agreed premises, perhaps with new evidence, imply a conclusion surprising to the reader. Or as the proverbial grandmother used to say, you will catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
(c) It ignores blindspots. Mote-pickers are not so much wrong as log-eyed. Saul of Tarsus was right about much, but what he could not see eventually made him St Paul. Would it have been smart for him to argue with the Light on the road to Damascus?
(d) It lacks service. In contrast with the egoism of the godless, discourse in Christ is in the service of the hearer. As such, disagreement is reparative rather than destructive. We speak, not to coerce others to give up their opinions and adopt our own instead, but to supply truth that helps the Holy Spirit to modify and improve understanding grounded in what they already know.
Now there are beloved disciples who are also, for now, fight-heads. They can somewhat understand these precepts, but know that they cannot follow them. They have the spiritual pathology of this moment in which personalities define identities for themselves by opposing things. For all the reasons above, we cannot and should not try to argue them into the peace of the Lord. But one can say that, as Saul/Paul discovered, our true selves are not something that we own and can defend. We die and live again, as we were meant to be, in the hand of the Lord.
BW
BW,
Why do you always avoid answering a simple question?
Instead of giving an idiosyncratic essay replete with tangential commentary which seems profound on the first reading but is only obscure (and frankly idioglossic) on the third reading, follow instead the dominical counsel: let your yes be yes and your no be no, and anything else is a crime against clarity and communication - as well as evading the question. Your comments are interesting (insofar as I can follow them) but they don't address the actual question.
Just say simply yes or no whether same-sex couples should be bringing up children in homosexual households.
Just say whether Pete Buttigieg and Chasten are doing a godly Christian thing announcing they are "having a baby" (although of course they are not, the child's mother is).
Dr Carrell is apparently uneasy about it but can't say why, or T least he hasn't articulated his concerns.
Fr Smith thinks it's a great idea because he believes homosexuality is not a sin or a shortcoming but God's positive will for some people.
The Catholic Church thinks it is sinful.
The Catholic Mark Regnerus thinks it's bad,
Pete and Chasten (apparently Episcopalians now) have arranged a surrogacy and have proudly announced this to the world.
Thry can't all be right.
What does BW believe?
TJ
Dear TJ
Does it ever strike you that badgering people might disincline them from responding to you?
In particular, in this thread, you have not shown yourself to fairly read what is said (see below, and my next comment in this thread) and you have jumped on what is said in an intriguing and (this is a genuinely admirational comment) in a clever way so that neither BW nor myself can quite pick whether you are on the side of (e.g.) natural law/traditional reading of Scripture or not.
I am quite interested in your own view, your Yay or Nay to matters being discussed.
As a matter of fact I have articulated my concerns about same sex couples bringing up children.
I wrote above: "Generally I am of the view that every child deserves a mum and a dad to bring them up where that is possible."
Dear TJ
Above you wrote: I have added my commentary, the first word in CAPS:
"Dr Carrell
Your position makes no sense.
1. You support same-sex relations provided no children are involved, even though you know the Bible condemns homosexual acts. Instead, you argued abstractly looking for a general principle rather than the actual words of the Bible. YES, principles are important, as Spufford notes.
2. You make long and complicated arguments based on the needs for companionship and the power of sexual desire - although you know that many heterosexual Christians are single not through choice. Do you think they may have casual affairs as some kind of solace? Or should they live celibate lives? ACTUALLY I offered a simple argument from the principle of mercy. It is not merciful to encourage anyone to engage in casual affairs.
3. You know that many children are adopted. Why are you opposed to same-sex couples adopting these children on equal terns with opposite-sex couples? Do you consider same-sex relationships inferior? AS ABOVE re children having a Mum and a Dad.
4. You write: "I myself cannot see a way from Scripture towards such argumentation." Maybe you didn't try hard enough. You argued, supposedly from Scripture, toward same-sex relationships. It is really quite easy to argue that way if parenthood is about nurture and has nothing to do with male-female complementary. If marriage doesn't need complementarity, then surely neither does parenthood? What is wrong with thast argument? PARENTHOOD has everything to do with complementarity.
5. If a same-sex relationship is pleasing to God, as evidently you believe, then you ought to believe it can form a family pleasing to God as well. I CANNOT see where I said that a same-sex relationship is "pleasing to God." I note above that you do not wish to put words in my mouth, yet here you appear to do so.
Or do you suspect that this isn't really so? Do you think a same-sex relationship is harmful to the upbringing of children? ULTIMATELY that answer is going to take society some time - several generations of data etc to arrive at. but I stand by my belief in the importance of a child having a Mum and a Dad where this is possible.
I am sure you know that the rejection of same-sex relationships and gay parenthood is based on two factors: the traditional interpretation of the Bible AND Natural Law.
The traditional interpretation of the Bible holds that homosexual sex is sinful and against God's will. The Bible, of course, makes no reference to same-sex parenting.
The Natural Law argument is that homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered (a misuse of the proper telos of our bodies, as Pope St John Paul has said) and that the family of Mother and Father is an order of Nature with the telos of rearing children. As you know, Natural Law isn't a religious type of argument but based on reason and telos.
But why would a liberal Protestant who rejects Natural Law thinking care about that?" I AM NO expert on Natural Law thinking but I suppose my asertion of the importance of a Mum and a Dad in parenting has some affinity with Natural Law thinking.
This morning, Peter, when I reread Francis and Ian at your links, I found myself trying to detect places where a *zero point* disciple like oh Mary Magdalene could have engaged with their arguments in her own horizon.
Like the other apostles, she was present as the Judaic tradition began to fork. At the beginning of Jesus's ministry, Jews attracted to him were not so different from others who elaborated a body of practice to cultivate holiness.**
But as latent differences began to emerge, the tradition forked. The heartbreaking failures of military messianism made wary rabbis cling to the law as a practical path to holiness. Meanwhile, the Resurrection began a cascade of insights and choices that made Jews on the Way interpret even law as apocalyptic and wisdom in Christ.
Knowing the Twelve, Mary Magdalene would have had some notion of an Israel that was not tied to the Land, but Francis's ideal of councils finding and applying principles might have been hard for her to admire. Meanwhile, Ian's reply about Acts xv could have sounded oddly godless to her, if she heard only pure Robert Gagnon *** philology, and even the Pharisees she knew were not so exclusively focused on law.
That is, she might have recognised Francis's and Ian's arguments as echoing the Judaic world she knew, but she would also have noted how thin and dull they were. Her Jesus-friends lived in an imaginary of apocalyptic and wisdom and cared passionately about midrash. I suspect that she would have been glad to get back to them.
Are we? Not so much. Jews like Daniel Boyarin and Evangelicals like Peter Enns have pointed out for years that Jesus and his apostles handled scripture in ways unthinkable in our churches today. A whole host of scholars have challenged us to stretch our practice toward more faithful imagining. But we remain very comfortable with an understanding of reading that is proper mainly to law.
** This is why those Jerusalem scribes in St Mark vii were surprised that some of Jesus's Galilean disciples did not wash hands as often as they did. Touchingly, Josephus reports that after the high priest had the Lord's brother executed, the Pharisees who knew St James raised the rabble in protest at the judicial murder of a holy man.
*** Here speaking after Daniel Kirk-- https://vimeo.com/142955069
BW
Dear Bowman,
(In the spirit of your most recent comment) I often find myself reflecting on, or even indulging in the temptation to read Scripture as law, to propose for life around me in the church, yet more rules, and to secure my personal journey through life via a plethora of does and don'ts.
To a degree this is a useful way to live (a simple rule can summarise a lot of wisdom; if only certain nations had observed the rule, Never invade Afghanistan; etc) but life is complex, nuanced, innovative and sometimes plain conflicted between two or more people I otherwise count as friends ... so the midrash approach, the telling of stories, the use of parables and so forth seems the better way.
Or, perhaps I am growing older.
I leave it to others whether I am growing wiser!
Bye TJ
The questions I posed are entry-level for a productive conversation on this OP at ADU. If you do not reply to them, that's fine of course, but then we have nothing tractable to discuss.
Blessings
BW
BW,
The questions I asked were in plain English, very "tractable", I thought, and not deflection or avoidance.I had a Catholic education and I know Aquinas pretty well. I've even taught a little.
If you are unable to answer my simple question, "Does God want same-sex couples to start families (through surrogacy for men or AID for lesbian couples) and to bring children up as two men or as two women?", I understand.
Maybe you really don't know the answer. That's fine.
Or maybe you're glad that Episcopalians Pete Buttigieg and Chasten are "having a baby" (who may or may not be the offspring of one of them). If so, your answer is "yes". Or perhaps you have reservations about this? That's Natural Law kicking in.
At least Dr Carrell, as a bishop and authorized teacher in the Anglican Church of NZ, has expressed (but not yet explicated) a certain disapproval of this. But bishops are supposed to be moral teachers and they can't punt difficult questions. It's in their job description.
Now it is possible to tease out a proper understanding of marriage and parenthood which have been lacking in this discussion so far, with the other clarifications hDr Carrell has given about his thinking on "mercy" and "principles" vs. Scripture.
Natural Law thinking isn't that complicated (it's about "seeing with the third eye", seeing along things to their telos or their proper end). Modern Protestant theology (both Barth and nominalist postmodern) gives it very short shrift. But it's central to Catholic as well as Orthodox theology.
TJ
Thank you, Peter, for your 11:53 :-)
It put a question that had been preconscious on my agenda: how did the Lord's reframing of torah, especially halakah, move his disciples from lives in a state presencing YHWH in the Land to somewhat different ones assembling to presence him in say Rome or Xian or most generally "where two or three are gathered in my name?"
It is one good thing to conscientiously regulate conduct with Jesus's words about ritual handwashing, divorce, etc and another to also be faithful to the grand reordering of human action that he achieved in his life as a whole. Nobody means to be faithless to the latter, but failure in that is inevitable unless we understand his mitzvot, not just as instructions (cf assembling kit furniture from IKEA) but as strategy in time (eg moving our lives from one house to another).
How do we know this? Four evangelists wrote gospels. To those, one appended a sequel about the Body and another letters to the Body. All historical narrative. No witness to the Resurrection left us a code of law, a text formulating behaviour abstracted from what the Lord had been doing in his own ministry or was still doing in the house churches known to St Paul.
Gracias
BW
Dear T.J; for your information, I can tell you from personal experience than an intrinsically homosexual person is never disposed towards the act of heterosexual coition. Those 'gays' who actually take part in such activity are, by definition: 'Bi-sexual', often choosing to act in heterosexual ways in order to procreate. Also, an intrinsically heterosexual person would NEVER contemplate homosexual activity! Don't just take for granted something you have not experienced for yourself! This is where misinformation can be prejudicial to the truth.
Father Ron Smith: I don't know what "an intrinsically homosexual person" is or whether such a genus of human beings actually exists.
Or "intrinsically heterosexual persons" either.
Is this your expression? Are you a geneticist? I'm not, I have only read two or three mid-level books on genetics, including one by your NZ scientist Neil Whitehead. If you think "intrinsically homosexual persons" exist, am I right in thinking you mean that human beings' sexual desires are determined by their genome and/or epigenetic events in utero?
Do you have scientific evidence for this genetic claim? I would love to see it as I have examined this question off and on for years now, since Dean Hamer's work c. 1996, but Canadian followup couldn't replicate his claims about the hypothalamus (the Xq23 section, IIRC).
If you are correct in your genetic theory of "intrinsic homosexuality" (and presumably "intrinsic heterosexuality" and "intrinsic bisexuality"), you are saying that homosexual desires can be mapped entirely to a portion of the genome, just as the color of my eyes and skin and the color and texture of my hair are entirely due to my genome and have nothing to do with my upbringing and life experiences.
That is a very interesting genetic claim that you are making. Please cite the literature in genetics that establishes this.
By your speech marks in the sentence "Those 'gays' who actually take part in such activity are by definition: 'Bi-sexual', often choosing to act in heterosexual ways in order to procreate", you are making the striking claim that those well-known clergy (Bishop Gene Robinson in NH, Baptist pastor Roy Clements and Anglican cleric Jeremy Pemberton in England) who were married men and fathers but who left their marriages for same-sex relationships are not actually "gay" but "bisexual" - and presumably guilty of abandoning their marriage vows? This is an extraordinary claim and goes against what Gene, Roy and Jeremy have said about themselves in print, that they are "gay". Jeremy is vehement on this point. Are you denying their own self-description, a privilege you appear to allow yourself?
Anyway, if your genome has shown you that you are "intrinsically homosexual", I would very much like to know which part of the genome determines these desires and the studies which establish this (as they do for eye color etc).
If we can establish your scientific claim that sexual desire is determined genetically and has nothing whatsoever to do with upbringing, environment, trauma or other life experiences (e.g. early sexual experimentation, abuse, exposure to gay porn etc), then there can be no grounds for discrimination and no grounds for believing that bringing children up in same-sex households can have any influence on their sexual desires.
I am also a little surprised by your categorical statement that "an intrinsically heterosexual person would NEVER contemplate homosexual activity". I do not suppose you know much about prisons, where homosexual behavior (both male and female) is relatively common. Do you think most prisoners are actually bisexual? My sister was a prison warder for a while and she often noted sexual binds forming among "the girls". The sexual use of boys by married middle aged men is also quite common in Afghanistan, including among supporters of the Taliban.
I look forward to your scientific input on these questions.
TJ
Dear L.J. I am a priest-theologian not a troll. Perhaps you need to start your own blog.
I meant Xq28, not 23, in Hamer's 1993 study and the subsequent Canadian followup.
By far the largest study ever is the Genome Wide Association study from Oxford of nearly 500,000 persons reported in Nature in August 2019.
This concluded there is no "gay gene" but rather that five areas of the genome are associated with sexual behavior.
This study compared the subjects' whole genetic map and whether they had ever had a self-reported homosexual experience.
The researchers concluded that the genome had an 8%-25% contribution to behavior but could not be used as a predictor of behavior. (Phenotype otoh is of course 100% predicted.) 75%-92% was attributed to environmental factors (childhood upbringing and other environmental factors).
This is what has long been believed: that some individuals have a greater than average propensity to develop same-sex attraction (just as certain personality traits may have a genetic component) but nothing is predetermined in the way that our eye and skin color are. Environments encourage or discourage the development of particular affections and mental states.
And this is exactly what we know from cultural studies. Homosexuality was actively valorized in ancient Greece, and was even integral to the Spartan education of boys, which encouraged the homosexual bonding of an older boy and a younger one in the famous "agoge" of Lycurgus. And it is widespread among the Pashtun of Afghanistan, in the institution of the "Bachi Bazi".
In short, the development of sexual feelings, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is not determined genetically or epigenetcally.
TJ
Dr Carrell,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comments and questions, I appreciate that you have taken them seriously and sought to dialogue. If I may, I would like to add a simple rejoinder to your seven replies.
1. How are Principles related to Scripture? Can a general Principle override or set aside a clear Scripture, or does Scripture modify and correct our understanding of a Principle? (It is easy to find formal contradictions in Scripture, and exploiting these is how progressive theology works.) Do we begin with the goal in mind and find texts that support this?
2. What do you mean by "mercy"? I understand "mercy" to mean the remittance of punishment, not the recognition of justice.
3. If you say "every child should have a mom and dad", then I suppose you must oppose same-sex parenting *on principle. If so, then you reject this as equal to male-female parenting. Is this view based on Natural Law, psychology or Scripture?
4. "Parenthood is everything to do with complementarity", you wrote. But this denies the equality of same-sex relationships to oppose-sex relationships. If gender is irrelevant to marriage, as the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have decided (a growing number of their bishops are in same-sex marriages, as you know), thrn gender is also irelevant to one of the fruits of marriage as recognized in Anglican liturgy, parenthood and the nurture of children. This is simple, ineluctable logic.
5. You deny that you have said "a same-sex relationship is pleasing to God". Fair enough. But did you not attend the blessing of such a relationship when you became Bishop? Did you consider it pleasing to God?
6. Is a same-sex relationship harmful to the upbringing of children? Too early to tell, you reply. Quite so - sociological and psychological studies are very Protean and notoriously difficult to conduct and compare longitudinally (although New Zealand does lead the way with the Dunedin Longitudinal Study I read about recently). But in that case, what harm do you think might come to children, and is it right to experiment with them, as one might with lab animals? Do you stand with Roman Catholic Professor Mark Regnerus (UT) or Episcopalian Pete Buttigieg and his husband Chasten?
7. Natural Law Theory: yes, not well known among Protestants but central to the Catholic tradition, of course. Aquinas thinks Natural Law is a sub-set of Etrnal Law, in which our five human inclinations (including the desire for sexual union and reproduction) are God-given but need to be controlled reason (the will submitted to truth). If you reject Natural Law as the arbiter of social life, to what shall the human will be directed? Is not Progressive Protestantism actually nominalist in understanding "human nature" and does it not reject the foundations of Thomism?
TJ
Post a Comment