tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post1395287561828318600..comments2024-03-29T13:30:56.758+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Ma Whea? Commission: A nightmare or a mare's nest?Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-85983436669676249512014-04-24T19:47:09.293+12:002014-04-24T19:47:09.293+12:00Hi Caleb,
Briefly:
- When you write, " I thin...Hi Caleb,<br />Briefly:<br />- When you write, " I think eisegeting modern ideas of "gender complementarity" onto passages in Gen 1-2 with little or nothing to do with gender is a bad example." a number of questions are begged as any Christian thinking about gender complementarity in any age begins with these two chapters. Exegesis not eisegesis!<br />- It is confusing to read 'image of God' in terms of a social relationship (husband and wife, man and woman) and then be told to avoid the atomising individualism of modern times!<br />- Various human relationships exhibit diversity but are any of them as special as that of marriage between a man and a woman? This relationship is a central concern of the narrative in Genesis 1 and 2 re humanity made in the image of God; and invoked in terms of Christ's relationship with the church in Ephesians 5. In neither place are religious communities, friendships, let alone same sex marriages held up as special.<br />- revelation/interpretation: you are not writing a book so I am not suggesting you have made an error in thinking per se, but what you do say in a brief comment implies that we have God's "revelation" which is good and logical and without fault and man's "interpretation" which is liable to be bad, illogical and faulty. That seems to push the distinction between revelation and its interpretation too far. It is odd, for instance, to have a God who reveals things only for them to be so misunderstood. Might God reveal things which people readily understand? A revealing God intuitively seems to be a God who wants to be understood!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-60265119390292996032014-04-24T10:34:36.002+12:002014-04-24T10:34:36.002+12:00Re: image of God, trinity, gender and whether the ...Re: image of God, trinity, gender and whether the three have anything to do with each other: Firstly, fair enough about reading the Bible as in some sense one coherent story, but it's also dangerous to brush over the differences between the different texts/human authors/testaments. We need to do justice to both the human and the divine side of Scripture. There can be good and bad examples of reading later theology onto OT passages... I think eisegeting modern ideas of "gender complementarity" onto passages in Gen 1-2 with little or nothing to do with gender is a bad example.<br /><br />Likewise, reading Trinitarian relationality onto Gen 1:27. I understand that in later theology, the phrase "image of God" has become a cipher for theological anthropology more generally - drawing on the various ways this phrase is used in Scripture, as well as everything else Scripture says about who we are in relation to God. Fair enough - I'm OK with this so long as you're using the phrase generally and so long as it's based on good exegesis of the relevant passages you're drawing upon. But if you're going to read that general theological understanding onto each individual verse that uses the phrase, and use that to draw conclusions about the other phrases in those verses (ie "male and female"), I think you're getting into more dangerous ground, especially when to formulate this argument you're required to completely miss the original meaning of the passage in its contexts. Besides, there's plenty in the Bible to suggest we're social beings, not neo-liberal atomised individuals, and that we're called to imitate God's social nature - it's not necessary to misinterpret Gen 1:27 in order to argue this (unless of course you want to use this as a circuitous way of reading "male and female" back into humanity and/or trinity).<br /><br />Re: Trinity and gender, I think you have acknowledged in a previous comment (though I can't find it) that the Trinity doesn't translate neatly onto gender binary. I agree... for a start, there's three of them (which may not be such a problem for Barth, but there's only two in my marriage) and only one of the three has a clear and necessary gender (notwithstanding masculine/feminine pronouns used for the other two in Hebrew and Greek). I think there's a far better case for seeing the Trinity as endorsing relationality/diversity in general than for specifically endorsing the relationality/diversity between a husband and a wife, over and above the relationality/diversity of churches, religious orders, friendships and - yes - same-sex marriages. If you want to bring gender (one of the ways we're diverse) into it, Sarah Coakley's article "The Trinity and Gender Reconsidered" argues strongly that a Trinitarian view of gender would be a fluid and non-binary "differentiated relationality" - largely because of how the Trinity doesn't neatly fit into gender binary.<br /><br />We probably will have to agree to disagree about procreation/gender roles, and about how much (if any) burden of proof the "no change to church teaching" side has to defend that stance. (And possibly on revelation/interpretation too - I didn't fully follow what you meant by your brief comment)Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77286323358516217512014-04-22T22:45:43.104+12:002014-04-22T22:45:43.104+12:00Hi Rachel,
That is a good set of questions!
I thin...Hi Rachel,<br />That is a good set of questions!<br />I think they would be best answered in discussion with the couple concerned.<br />Certainly the Bible does not forbid the marriage of an older couple.<br />A couple unable to have children would be able to parent as a mum and a dad through adoption.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-65532677766880838552014-04-22T17:11:57.961+12:002014-04-22T17:11:57.961+12:00“Clearly you see as an absolute, shared assumption...“Clearly you see as an absolute, shared assumption that reproductive intercourse is not identical with marriage and thus and so your critique flows. But is this assumption the problem?” Peter Carrell<br /><br />I am genuinely interested in understanding your perspective better, Peter. <br /><br />If a couple cannot, in their sexual activity, be “open to be reproductive” because they are way past childbearing age, or the male is paraplegic or quadriplegic, or the female has had her uterus removed because it was cancerous, or the male is impotent after a prostate operation, or any other reason… in all these cases, Peter, would you stick to your principles and refuse to marry them?<br /><br />Rachel Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-71010615474854056272014-04-22T11:19:10.663+12:002014-04-22T11:19:10.663+12:00Hi Caleb,
In your most recent three comments I wa...Hi Caleb,<br /><br />In your most recent three comments I want to note two areas where we could continue to argue back and forth, but I accept that there may not be much purpose at this time in doing so ... time is precious and all that!<br /><br />Note 1: revelation and its interpretation ... I am not sure that revelation and our interpretation of it is so easily separable as your words imply (e.g. that revelation could be logical and our interpretation could nevertheless be illogical).<br /><br />Note 2: burden of proof ... yes, it could be that on specific points, certain emphases and so on, the burden of proof is to be equally shared. Nevertheless the overwhelming, clear understanding re marriage, shared across churches, through millennia, maintained still by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, nearly all Protestants and Pentecostals, does set up a situation where the burden of proof for significant change to the status quo is with the changers, not the maintainers.<br /><br />Consider this: suppose we were to agree that Scripture is silent on same sex marriage as a possibility. (In itself that would be a major change for conservatives) Where does that take us? It does not require us to change anything. Scripture which is silent on same sex marriage is even more silent on requirement to permit it. The burden at that point is on those arguing that the church should make change.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80197875734584699142014-04-22T11:12:39.419+12:002014-04-22T11:12:39.419+12:00Hi Caleb,
Thank you for clearly and helpfully sett...Hi Caleb,<br />Thank you for clearly and helpfully setting out main points of difference between us (or "us" as I believe what we are doing is setting out arguments of groupings of Christians, rather than individually-held opinions).<br /><br />Among the things you mention the things I would like to emphasise or press a little further are:<br /><br />1. A Trinitarian reading of Genesis 1 and 2: I appreciate that OT scholars read things differently from (say) Barth. But that, in my experience, is typical of the discipline: Christian OT scholars resolutely read the OT as thought the NT (and subsequent theological reflection) does not exist. Fair enough in the sense that the OT deserves to be read on its own account. Not at all fair in the sense that Holy Scripture is the book of the church which reads it as a wholly Christian book (library of books).<br /><br />2. Procreation and gender: to a degree I may be guilty of switching from (say) primariness of procreation to gender difference as I argue but, perhaps not clearly enough, I have tried to explain that I see the two as intertwined. A male and a female procreate. The procreated child is brought up by a mum and a dad. These roles are not gender indifferent, nor are they simply about who provided the sperm and who provided the egg and carried the procreated one to full term. Marriage (in a sense) is the relationship between a man and a woman having sexual intercourse open to procreation while in a covenanted relationship intended to bind the sperm-provider to being father of the child and egg-provider to being mother of the child. In sum, procreation is integral to gender difference in marriage. My argument swings from one part of the integrity to the other, not from one issue to another issue.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-22341268057219825752014-04-22T10:42:21.128+12:002014-04-22T10:42:21.128+12:00Gender differentiation:
My understanding of sex/g...<b>Gender differentiation:</b><br /><br />My understanding of sex/gender differentiated is much more influenced by contemporary scientific accounts than yours is.<br /><br />You equate sex/gender differentiation with maleness and femaleness. I see this binary understanding as one possible socially constructed understanding of sex and gender. Many societies have constructed binary understandings of sex and gender, but in different ways - the ancient Jewish gender binary looked different to the ancient Greek gender binary, which looks different to the 21st-C New Zealand gender binary.<br /><br />I believe in reality, sex and gender are much more complex: people sit at various places on various spectra. Though most people in our society sit relatively neatly into one sex category and its corresponding gender category (e.g. I'm clearly male, and I'm masculine in some ways), this too is largely socially constructed.<br /><br />You acknowledge diversity exists, but you still feel that essentialist and binary language is useful, because it's the language the Bible uses and it ca be applied quite neatly to most people in our society.<br /><br /><b>Theological understandings of Gender:</b><br /><br />Even putting aside procreation (e.g. for the older couple), you believe binary gender roles (or, as you call it, gender differentiation) is enough to qualify a marriage as being worthy of the church's blessing.<br /><br />In your recent comments, you have specifically related these gender roles to parenting; I'm not sure if this is as far as it goes, or if you also hold to ideas of specific gender roles in other aspects of marriage. You have also still not provided your theological understanding of gender (but you may feel you don't have to - cf. burden of proof).<br /><br />I hold to a 'trajectory' reading of gender in Scripture (explained better in previous comments) which suggests our current responsibility is to eradicate all compulsory gender roles and restrictions (NOT eradicate gender differentiation - see above).<br /><br />I have not been convinced by either (a) other readings of gender that offer support for compulsory gender roles/restrictions, or (b) arguments that marriage is not included in the movement against compulsory gender roles/restrictions (in your words: the priesthood is "gender indifferent" but marriage is not).Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90084464335960600112014-04-22T10:41:31.636+12:002014-04-22T10:41:31.636+12:00Genesis 1 and 2:
You read various passages in the...<b>Genesis 1 and 2:</b><br /><br />You read various passages in these chapters (image of God, not good to be alone, one flesh etc) as referring to an idea of gender complementarity, such that the binary gender roles (male and female, Adam and Eve) are vital to the theological/moral meanings of the passages.<br /><br />In my readings, the binary gender roles are not vital to the theological/moral meanings of any of these passages. The male and female gender identities are present in the passages, and described in certain ways (for a number of reasons), but they are never the focus. For example, the companionship passages in Gen 2 focus on Adam and Eve's similarity to each other (over and against the animals), rather than their sex/gender difference (in common with the animals).<br /><br />Moreover, I believe "complementarity" readings are anachronistic - this is a very recent way of understanding gender, not found in the biblical texts or in theology until modern times. Until recently, gender roles have (implicitly or explicitly) been based on assumptions of "natural" gender hierarchy, not "complementarity."<br /><br />One example where our interpretation differs is in our readings of "image of God." You interpret this phrase as gender-differentiated [which for you means gender-binaried] relationality - you even call this "the Christian reading of these chapters". Interpreting "image of God" as relationality (gendered or non-gendered) is popular among 20th-21st C. systematic theologians (largely influenced by Barth), but not with Old Testament scholars over the same period. Old Testament scholars instead tend to interpret as God's royal mandate for dominion over the earth (based on both close reading of the passage and examination of how "image of God" language was used in other Ancient Near Eastern contexts).<br /><br />For critique of the "relationality" interpretation, and discussion of the "royal" interpretation and its unanimity among Old Testament scholars, see the first few chapters of J. Richard Middleton's <i>The Liberating Image</i>. James Brownson in <i>Bible, Gender, Sexuality</i> does not cover the same ground as Middleton, but he does provide a strong critique of Robert Gagnon's reading of "image of God" (and, indeed, the various other passages in Gen 1-2). Failing that, I discuss "image of God" in a footnote in my essay which you've kindly uploaded (though it's largely the same as what I've said here, with largely the same references).<br /><br /><b>Procreation:</b><br /><br />You think procreation is the primary purpose of sex/marriage, sitting alongside and above its other purposes. I'm not sure how I'd describe it in terms of "primary;" I agree procreation is vitally important to sex/marriage in general, but I do think the church can bless individual marriages that will not lead to biological procreation, provided they meet the other purposes of marriage.<br /><br />You believe it is coherent for our current restriction of marriage to male-female couplings to be defended on the basis of procreation (at least in part), despite Jesus' and Paul's downgrading of the importance of procreation. You suggest that all opposite-sex couplings (despite infertility) are in some way linked to procreation, but same-sex couplings are not. I think this is incoherent, and such a distinction can only be based on gender, not procreation.<br /><br />You think I'm not valuing procreation enough in some of what I say about it. I think you're quite possibly correct with this criticism... but I still don't see how we can coherently "value procreation" in such a way that it allows for infertile or elderly opposite-sex couples open to adopting children, but not same-sex couples open to adopting children! Whenever you try to explain this, you move from procreation to gender roles.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45806388310038469022014-04-22T10:38:39.496+12:002014-04-22T10:38:39.496+12:00I feel like a broken record saying this, but it is...I feel like a broken record saying this, but it is NOT revelation that I am suggesting is illogical or in need of change. Revelation says absolutely nothing about same-sex marriage in 21st-century New Zealand - or about same-sex marriage full-stop. Only interpretation and application of revelation (special and general) says something about same-sex marriage. And it's in interpretations that we differ.<br /><br />I do indeed believe interpretation and application to be "up for grabs" at all times, and in all places. "Up for grabs" is your phrase - please note that by accepting this phrasing I am not saying we should cast aside traditional interpretations and applications lightly. This means even longstanding traditional interpretations should be able to be questioned, and their defenders should be expected to offer a coherent defence for them. They are human interpretations and applications, by humans who are always fallible, and always capable of learning more. To suggest otherwise is surely human pride - as well as decidedly un-evangelical!<br /><br />We've talked a lot on your various blogs over the past few months, and I'm sure it's taken up far too much of both your and my time. Rather than responding point-by-point to everything, I wonder if it might be worth tracing some of the main areas in which we fundamentally disagree - until one of us moves on at least one of these, we're probably unlikely to convince each other.<br /><br /><b>Burden of proof:</b><br /><br />You suggest that by default the burden of proof is with those who are seeking to change tradition, not those who are seeking to defend the status quo against a suggested change. Although there are contemporary experiences of the outpouring of the spirit on LGBTI couples and various arguments against the 'traditional' stance, you still feel that the burden of proof is primarily on the 'changing tradition' side.<br /><br />I think the burden of proof is on both sides. I agree that those seeking to change tradition have a huge burden of proof, but I also think that (as I said above) the tradition bears some burden of proof for defending itself when questioned, and particularly when experience or arguments suggest (even remotely plausibly) that the traditional position may have problems. I believe the arguments and experience have shown very plausibly that the traditional stance has serious problems - indeed, I find the traditional position ultimately unconvincing. If I'm wrong, I think I should be able to ask for a convincing defence of the traditional position - not necessarily from you, but from one or two of the billions of people/churches/academics who hold to it.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37971674190826972072014-04-21T14:10:32.016+12:002014-04-21T14:10:32.016+12:00Hi Caleb
Companionship:
an intriguing part of th...Hi Caleb<br /><br />Companionship:<br /><br />an intriguing part of the narrative of Genesis 1 and 2 is the way in which companionship drives the creation of the woman, according to Genesis 2 (which, at this point, is a strong variation on the account of the creation of man and woman in G1).<br /><br />What are we to infer from this?<br /><br />It is possible that the inference is "companionship" is a characteristic of marriage. A further inference is then that companionship between any two people justifies marriage between those two people.<br /><br />But the specific companionship in G2 is not any other human being, it is "woman". Companionship at this point is the social dimension introduced to human existence by humanity being made up of men and women. The aloneness of Adam is not met by another human being, e.g. as a friend, let alone as a lover. It is specifically, concretely met by a person of different gender. The missing dimension to human as male is a female human. Each becomes who they are re gender by the existence of the other.<br /><br />For the narrative to then move to a declaration about a man and a woman leaving their parents to become one flesh is to make a specific point about the distinctiveness of humanity made diverse re gender being brought back into unity by sexual intercourse so that man and woman form one flesh, one human entity.<br /><br />From this perspective marriage is more than companionship in the sense of removing loneliness through having a helpmate close at hand. It is a profound movement of reconstitution of differentiated humanity, a movement which enables human creation itself to occur. From the one flesh comes the life of the next 'adam' or human being, so one fleshness mimics the action of God.<br /><br />Hence the Christian reading of these chapters as humanity's diversity in unity as imaging the very Triune being of the Creator. But you have previously dismissed this as eisegesis not worthy of comment!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53359010357571196912014-04-21T14:00:05.035+12:002014-04-21T14:00:05.035+12:00Hi Caleb
The status quo:
First, as a point of int...Hi Caleb<br />The status quo:<br /><br />First, as a point of interest re conducting exegetical enquiry, "the best of recent Old Testament" scholarship is a highly subjective criterion for assessing the work of other, older scholars.<br /><br />The missing point in your argument is this: God has not set the church today an essay topic, "Heterosexual or same sex marriage: discuss reasons for and against on the basis of observations made about Scripture, tradition and science." If God had done that then your probing argument, with its attempts to say what I am saying (i.e. the church and its traditional understanding of Scripture) is illogical might have some merit and a dispassionate observer might award you victory in the debate.<br /><br />However I am not aware that God has set up the debate in such a way that the status quo is up for grabs if those asserting it are found to be arguing illogically.<br /><br />My awareness is that God has spoken to us in Scripture about how we are to live out our sexuality and the result is the status quo. That status quo might have reasons for it we do not understand from the mind of God; it might be the result of God being illogical; it might be what it is because we think we see clearly now what one day we will regret. But either way, it is not necessarily something to be overturned by pointing out the illogicality of the arguments adduced to support it. Revelation may or may not be logical. What do you say if in this case revelation is illogical?<br /><br />However I am not thinking the arguments are illogical. God created humanity as male and female, equipped between them to bring about new life through sexual intercourse, and able as an extension of differentiated gender roles in reproduction to offer differentiated gender roles in parenting as mum and dad. Marriage is the name we give to this relationship where we ask the prospective mum and dad to be committed to each other for life, to share all property, and to constrain their sexual indulgences to each other.<br /><br />To extend this understanding of marriage to a gender indifferentiated couple both incapable of producing children and of being differentiated mum and dad parents to children produced by other means (e.g. adoption) is a change to the understanding of marriage endorsed by Scripture and by tradition.<br /><br />It is not a change which is in the same category as marriage for an older couple incapable of producing children but capable of being gender differentiated parents of adopted children since that form of marriage is provided for in Scripture and tradition.<br /><br />The logic, providing we begin with Scripture as presupposition, remains logical. The illogic is to propose a change to marriage which fails to start with what Scripture endorses.<br /><br />Obviously a lot more can be said about Genesis 1 and 2 than space in comments permits. We need to neither overrate not underrate the significance of these chapters, not least because of our Lord's citation from them. (I am not, by the way, suggesting that you are guilty of either error). A possible overrating is to take aspects of these chapters' narrative about marriage, produce a check list, and then a knock down argument.<br /><br />As an instance, ... next comment<br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-50298426899267292822014-04-21T13:41:54.422+12:002014-04-21T13:41:54.422+12:00Hi Caleb
On procreation: I am happy to read your c...Hi Caleb<br />On procreation: I am happy to read your clearer and more fulsome appreciation of the relationship between procreation and sexual intercourse in marriage. It lies in the new words you bring to the table of discussion but it does not lie in the words you re-cite, ""We believe in sex we're co-ordinated towards mutual pleasure, [and] expressing and building intimate bonds. Sometimes, [some of us are] also attempting to participate in [or inadvertently participating in] the miracle of procreation [by which I and, until recently, all humans came into being]."" In my view those words make procreation somewhat incidental to sexual intercourse in marriage: my own view is that we enter marriage in order to be open to the life which proceeds from it, necessarily from the sexual engagement between husband and wife. This is not about "sometimes" this and "sometimes" that but about always being open to the gift of life.<br /><br />However, as stated above, you have brought other things to the comment which are more to my way of thinking.<br /><br />Incidentally, for the record, as a priest permitted to conduct marriage ceremonies, I would not conduct a wedding for a couple otherwise of child-bearing potential who declared their intention was not to have children; nor, for that matter, would I conduct a wedding for any couple who said it was not their intention to consummate the marriage.<br /><br />Would I conduct a wedding for a couple not of child-bearing potential? Yes, in principle, because this is permitted by Scripture (see Romans 7:3-4; 1 Corinthians 7:39). In practice I would like to find out more about the situation (because, sadly, many second marriages do not work out well).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-36014476799594036692014-04-21T09:53:56.358+12:002014-04-21T09:53:56.358+12:00So, I'm not sure how I'd answer your quest...So, I'm not sure how I'd answer your question about "the primary purpose," but no answer to it can possibly (ipso facto) justify the church's current position. Here are some of the main ways we might answer it:<br />- If procreation is an absolute essential purpose of every sexual relationship (still more if it's essential to every sex act), then someone known to be infertile should not be allowed to marry, gender aside.<br />- If the latter purposes of marriage are sufficient for a Godly marriage without reproduction, then there is no justification here for the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couple.<br />- If all marriages must be "open to children," but this can include adoption, fostering, being part of the 'village that raises a child" (and, yes, with today's technology we can add IVF to this category): again, there is no justification for the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couple.<br /><br />Any possible fourth answer that does justify the church's status quo would need to import into the discussion something that distinguishes infertile opposite-sex couples from same-sex couples and this something would be about gender, not procreation.<br /><br />You are trying to have your cake and eat it too by applying "procreation is primary" against non-opposite-sex couples but not against opposite-sex couples.<br /><br />Despite the importance of procreation to humankind and most marriages, and despite your attempts to justify the status quo because of procreation, you do not actually support the status quo because of procreation but because of something else about gender. Your last comment to Rachel makes this particularly clear.<br /><br />In answer to your question to Rachel about where the illogic is, this is where I see it: you're begging the question by bringing prior assumptions into your discussion of reproduction - and these prior assumptions are not, incidentally, based on reproduction but on gender roles.<br /><br />If you (a) consistently argued for the status quo because of your understanding of gender roles, or (b) argued that no same-sex or infertile opposite-sex couples can marry because they can't procreate, or (c ) suggested all marriages must be open to children, and infertile and non-opposite-sex couples can be open to children in other ways, there would be no illogic (I would disagree with you on the first two, though).Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-37123947218847862272014-04-21T09:53:16.723+12:002014-04-21T09:53:16.723+12:00Peter, I thought I had successfully articulated an...Peter, I thought I had successfully articulated an understanding of marriage that is highly respectful of the miracle of procreation, while honest that it does not apply to all sex or even all marriages. And I certainly never said sex is just for pleasure, but also (as you put it) strengthening love and binding the couple together, and creating a relationship able to raise children (among other contributions to the Kingdom).<br /><br />Perhaps I failed to make that understanding clear, so I'll copy+paste what I said, with a few annotations… perhaps you can read it again, bearing in mind my intention: <br /><br />"We believe in sex we're co-ordinated towards mutual pleasure, [and] expressing and building intimate bonds. Sometimes, [some of us are] also attempting to participate in [or inadvertently participating in] the miracle of procreation [by which I and, until recently, all humans came into being]."<br /><br />Re: the rest of your questions to me:<br /><br />It is true that, roughly speaking (i.e. if we class everything from clitoris to uterus as one "member"), the same members of the body are used for procreation, mutual pleasure and nurturing lifelong Godly relationships (as well as urination. We should also remember the other body parts used in sex, and their other purposes). It is also true that there is a lot of overlap on the Venn diagram between procreation, mutual pleasure and nurturing lifelong Godly relationships (though there are also areas where the three do not overlap, for better or worse - and this was true long before contraception and IVF).<br /><br />So, I do agree that sex is intimately connected to procreation, and i do not wish to sever the two from each other entirely. I just want to say that procreation is a purpose of sex in general for humankind (and all animals), but not necessarily a purpose of every sex act or sexual relationship - which I believe is already the (Protestant) church's position.<br /><br />Whether reproduction is the "primary" purpose of sex is an interesting question, but I don't see how it can justify the church's current position whereby any man and woman (with sufficient capability and without being otherwise attached or related to each other, etc) can marry, but no non-opposite-sex couples can.<br /><br />From my readings of Genesis (though I do think it's a mistake to see Genesis as the be-all and end-all, or supreme trump card, of our theological anthropology… Genesis was written with specific purposes which condition what it says and does not say about humankind) … Gen 1 seems to imply that the primary purpose of sex (in both senses of the word) is indeed procreation - the ability of humans to be fruitful and multiply. They have this in common with the animals (Gen 1:20-22), though with an added purpose of such fruitfulness - so that they are able to exercise God's image in benevolent rule throughout the entire community of creation (1:26-28).<br /><br />Gen 2 adds extra "primary purposes" for sex/marriage, which do not mention procreation at all: an antidote for aloneness (Gen 2:18), non-subordinate mutual help (Gen 2:18), companionship and unity (2:21-24), kinship bonds forged through sex (one flesh, 2:24), etc. These purposes also do not require any particular sex or gender roles, despite the attempts of some to read them in such a way that they do. It's also worth noting that Jesus and Paul draw on these purposes (and add others) but do not mention procreation.<br /><br />(I should note that Phyllis Trible's and Karl Barth's "gender complementarity" exegesis of these passages, as expressed by Sue Patterson at the Theology of Marriage conference, goes against the best recent Old Testament scholarship, which I have attempted to reflect above - though i do need to research more, particularly on Gen 2).<br /><br />TBC...Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-29557079496319380552014-04-18T10:17:42.023+12:002014-04-18T10:17:42.023+12:00Hi Rachel,
Clearly you see as an absolute, shared ...Hi Rachel,<br />Clearly you see as an absolute, shared assumption that reproductive intercourse is not identical with marriage and thus and so your critique flows.<br /><br />But is this assumption the problem?<br /><br />That among the requirements for marriage is openness to intercourse being reproductive? An associated requirement - theologically, I realise that technologically one argue differently - is that marriage is between a man and a woman. An associated benefit is that children are born into a parenting arrangement that consists of a mum and a dad.<br /><br />What, theologically, is illogical about this understanding?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79814848440044247122014-04-18T10:02:35.576+12:002014-04-18T10:02:35.576+12:00“Or perhaps she just logically assumes the male an...“Or perhaps she just logically assumes the male and female organs were created for a purpose, one perhaps to obvious to ignore. And that purpose is procreation whether or not is able to happen for all couples. Not a new insight but a logical one.” Arowhenua/Jean<br /><br />“Precisely!” Peter Carrell<br /><br />To which confused distraction I repeat: The mistake that Mollie Hemingway (and now Arowhenua/Jean and Peter Carrell) make is a simple one of logic: she and they assume that reproductive intercourse is identical with marriage. Obviously it is not. It's a tired, old misidentification unworthy of being dragged up once again as some sort of new insight…. <br /><br />Marriage equality questions the misidentification of marriage with reproduction. Just because dogs have four legs doesn’t mean that only dogs can be classed as four-legged which is the Hemingway/ Arowhenua/Carrell confused, illogical position.<br /><br />RachelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9135846059000374242014-04-16T21:22:24.143+12:002014-04-16T21:22:24.143+12:00This focus on sexuality reminds me of the schoolbo...This focus on sexuality reminds me of the schoolboy's experience of a frightening myth that nocturnal emissions are 'occasions of sin' - to be repented of, with the threat of hell and damnation. Dear God!Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78591843559541402202014-04-16T19:06:00.838+12:002014-04-16T19:06:00.838+12:00Hi Caleb,
Hemingway is not being naive about what ...Hi Caleb,<br />Hemingway is not being naive about what works for (say) 95+% of the population.<br /><br />Life is more complicated for a few. Does that mean we have an all encompassing definition of marriage to account for all permutations of the human condition, or do we respond to those permutations in other ways?<br /><br />I suggest that more value can be given to procreative sex in marriage than you give it.<br />- some remarks you make above re sex for pleasure, only occasionally for procreation are remarks we can make in an age of reliable contraception, which begs the question whether we are understanding Christian marriage according to feats made possible by technology or according to revelation through God's Word (cf. Roman Catholic theology of sex as that which is always open to life being created).<br />- if the end of marriage (in nearly all cases) is the production of children and their nurture in a loving, stable, unified environment, then sexual intercourse is an important means of strengthening love between husband and wife, of binding them together as a couple whose relationship when they have children will be severely tested, that is, while individual acts of sexual intercourse may prove to be non-procreative, the whole course of the sexual relationship can (and should) be shaped by the intention to have children, to bring them up in a loving environment, and to continue to strengthen the home via the continuing marriage of the children's parents.<br />- if sex is just for pleasure why not have as much as possible with as many people as possible? Absurd, I know. So perhaps sex is not just for pleasure but for nurturing a relationship. By why is this particular form of nurturing tied to the specific members of the body designed for procreation? Is not God's creational design for sex primarily for procreation?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76618655619072376452014-04-16T18:09:20.628+12:002014-04-16T18:09:20.628+12:00I haven't read Hemingway's full article, b...I haven't read Hemingway's full article, but a few comments on the section you quote:<br /><br />"there’s precisely one bodily system for which each of us only has half of the system" - This betrays a naivete about the simplicity of sex/gender. It's not that simple for 0.1-2% of people, even on purely physical grounds. Even among straightforward male-female married couples, many don't have the bodily system between them - we call that infertility, and we still bless the marriages.<br /><br />"a single bodily end" - again, Nope. That's not what Christians actually think (except Christians who oppose all sex for non-procreative ends, oppose contraception and believe post-menopausal couples have no reason to continue having sex).<br /><br />We believe in sex we're co-ordinated towards mutual pleasure, expressing and building intimate bonds. Sometimes, we're also attempting to participate in the miracle of procreation. A Christian married gay couple having sex doesn't violate the procreative purpose of sex any more than my wife and I using contraception.<br /><br />"In every other respect we as humans act as individual organisms except when it comes to intercourse between men and women — then we work together as one flesh." - That's modern individualism, not Christianity. We work collectively in many ways for many ends. Sex/marriage makes us "one flesh" regardless of whether procreation occurs.<br /><br />"Coordination toward that end — even when procreation is not achieved — … is what marriage law was about … If you doubt the truth of this reality, consider your own existence, which we know is due to one man and one woman getting together." - This conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The fact that we all exist due to one man and one woman getting together doesn't say anything about the necessity of procreation (let alone not-necessarily-procreative-male-female-couplings) to marriage.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-76600850516157691342014-04-16T17:18:38.098+12:002014-04-16T17:18:38.098+12:00Sure thing Peter : ) cheer JeanSure thing Peter : ) cheer JeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-80280860787011266722014-04-16T16:57:29.255+12:002014-04-16T16:57:29.255+12:00Hi Ron / Jean
I suggest further discussion of any...Hi Ron / Jean<br /><br />I suggest further discussion of anything Jean has written on her blog should take place on her blog.<br /><br />Continuing discussion about the post above or the contents of comments made here is welcome.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77774654759727330432014-04-16T16:34:51.092+12:002014-04-16T16:34:51.092+12:00Father Ron, I am a bit disappointed after all your...Father Ron, I am a bit disappointed after all your proclaimations of christian love that you took a sentence off my blog and used it to convey a message contrary to the post. I do not know your motivation for doing so.<br /><br />Why did you not use the piece in the same post:<br />"It was Shakespeare who wrote ‘Though justice be thy plea, consider this— That in the course of justice none of us should see salvation. We do pray for mercy,….” Meaning if we focus on true justice (doing no wrong) for all let us pray very hard because none of us will see heaven without mercy (unwarranted forgiveness). And in the bible we read, “Mercy triumphs over judgement. (James 2:13)”<br /><br />or<br /><br />"God through Christ could be both just and merciful because Christ took the payment for all human wrongs."<br /><br />Do you not believe the wrath of God for our sins was put upon Christ on the cross? Do you really believe this is not a primary part of the Easter story? Is this not the love Jesus demonstrated when he died for us?<br /><br />And please, I am evangelical, orthodox, charismatic and protestant, but really I am just a follower of Christ.<br /><br />Blessings JeanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-17958805251951115662014-04-16T13:09:11.390+12:002014-04-16T13:09:11.390+12:00I think we are agreed, Ron, on the need to take si...I think we are agreed, Ron, on the need to take sin seriously.<br /><br />As I understand Hebrews' overall point, it is no light thing to refuse to be the beneficiaries of God's love.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90331297462577248732014-04-16T12:52:11.970+12:002014-04-16T12:52:11.970+12:00"The Bible is quite clear about God's wra..."The Bible is quite clear about God's wrath being visited on our sins.<br /><br />Hebrews 10:26-7, for instance, makes the point that to wilfully sin after receiving knowledge of the gospel of God's gracious love demonstrated means, 'there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume adversaries.'<br /><br />How much more so is the prospect of those who reject the gospel straight up!"<br /><br />Peter, with due respect: The need of repeated confession of our sins (to daily-Mass goers, a daily occurrence) bespeaks the reality of the fact that we sin on a daily basis. Unless of course, one has attained to perfection in the meantime.<br /><br />We now have a High-Priest who intercedes for us - on a permanent basis - not just on Ascension Day.<br />The real Good News of the Gospel is this inescapable fact; that Jesus died to save us sinners - not those who have no sin! They may not need salvation.<br /><br />God's wrath has been overcome by a supreme act of God's redemption - showing unceasing love - for All Creation. We can. of course refuse tio be beneficiaries of this Love.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86060966389432943232014-04-16T12:29:40.782+12:002014-04-16T12:29:40.782+12:00Hi Ron,
The Bible is quite clear about God's w...Hi Ron,<br />The Bible is quite clear about God's wrath being visited on our sins.<br /><br />Hebrews 10:26-7, for instance, makes the point that to wilfully sin after receiving knowledge of the gospel of God's gracious love demonstrated means, 'there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgement, and a fury of fire that will consume adversaries.'<br /><br />How much more so is the prospect of those who reject the gospel straight up!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com