tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post4918489613280888464..comments2024-03-29T17:55:30.203+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Urgent ReadingPeter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-9467119231088558252014-04-22T11:33:26.066+12:002014-04-22T11:33:26.066+12:00Hi Caleb
I agree there is a lot to explore in Hell...Hi Caleb<br />I agree there is a lot to explore in Hellenistic culture which definitely had its 'dark' side on anyone's reckoning of it.<br /><br />Yet The Symposium encompasses a marriage like relationship between Pausanias and Agathon so I suggest Hellenistic culture has examples within it akin to stable same gender partnerships today.<br /><br />Paul resolutely maintains his distance from such possibilities being affirmed. This is unsurprising because what he says is consonant with what we find in the Old Testament. Paul is a Jew moving in a Hellenistic world with the critical faculties of a Pharisaical rabbi!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10038022240342017072014-04-22T11:07:13.226+12:002014-04-22T11:07:13.226+12:00Re: onus of proof, see my response a few minutes a...Re: onus of proof, see my response a few minutes ago on <a href="http://anglicandownunder.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/ma-whea-commission-nightmare-or-mares.html" rel="nofollow">>the other thread</a>.<br /><br />Re: gender roles in ancient Hellenistic cultures... I don't agree that "the germ of the possibility of gender indifference was present." The Anglican Communion at the moment (notwithstanding majority opposition to same-sex marriage and significant opposition to female leadership/teaching) is a lot closer to "gender indifference" than ancient Hellenistic cultures. So was the early church, where Paul greeted women as church leaders and relativised human distinctions like slave/free, Jew/Greek, male & female.<br /><br />So I don't think there was a "cue" of "gender indifference" for Christianity to take up or not take up... There was a cue of rampant, often exploitative promiscuity among ancient Greeks ... some of this was same-sex, but it was required to work within the gender hierarchy, rather than trangressing it. I'm not surprised Christianity didn't take up that cue. Robert Jewett, in his commentary on Romans, suggests some members of the Roman church may have been (male and female) slaves who knew all-too-well what it was like to be subject to the sexual whims of their masters. Paul's two options of celibacy or monogamous marriage with mutual submission (at the time, always opposite-sex) was a definite improvement.<br /><br />What I am advocating is a removal of the restriction of marriage to male-female couplings, along with the removal of other gender restrictions. This can be described as "gender indifference" ... it's not an ideal term but I more-or-less accept it: I don't think any aspect of our identity is indifferent to any of our roles, but I do think gender should be indifferent to whether we are eligible to be considered for marriage relationships and leadership positions.<br /><br />On the contrary, it's not possible to see ancient Greek same-sex sexuality (even minority views like Aristophanes' myth in the <i>Symposium</i>) as denoting anything like "gender indifference."<br /><br />You seem to be treating all same-sex sexuality across all times and places as one concept, and saying therefore that there was a precedent for what I'm suggesting in Paul's world that he could have accepted. But I don't think there was any precedent for Christian same-sex married couples in Paul's world - in fact, as I've said before, I think Paul's statement in Gal 3:28 is the closest precedent in the ancient world.<br /><br />Again, more detail will have to follow in a future comment - I've procrastinated enough for this morning!Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-18992723096957244572014-04-21T13:31:55.696+12:002014-04-21T13:31:55.696+12:00Hi Caleb
With respect, it is you who are fighting...Hi Caleb<br /><br />With respect, it is you who are fighting for the doctrine of marriage and one aspect of it being set aside: I am trying to defend that which has been the case in Scripture and tradition. The onus remains with you to prove the change is justified not on me as an ordained person sworn to uphold the doctrine of the church as received.<br /><br />I appreciate your reminder re gender roles in ancient Greece/Hellenistic culture: point taken by me. Nevertheless I suggest that the germ of the possibility of gender indifference was present in Hellenistic culture, illustrated, as one instance, by the act of intercourse being depicted in art with man-man as well as man-woman. Christianity did not take up the cue ... I wonder why?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10153989077280176522014-04-21T10:06:15.468+12:002014-04-21T10:06:15.468+12:00Again Peter - please be more precise with your lan...Again Peter - please be more precise with your language. You're fighting for one aspect of the doctrine of marriage (the male-female gender requirement).<br /><br />Peter and Bryden, intriguing though your discussion about majority/minority opinions and truth is, that's not what I was talking about with my reference to the 1 and the 99. I wasn't saying anything about opinions or whose opinion should prevail. I was saying that if you're going to refer to the experience of humanity for your understanding of sex/gender, you should refer to the experience of all humanity, not just the 99! And if you did so, you would end up with an understanding of sex/gender that was less a simple binary, more complex spectra (with most people fitting relatively clearly on one side of the spectrum or the other). Perhaps I didn't need to use the 1/99 reference to make this point).<br /><br />Peter, responses to your earlier questions will have to wait a bit longer I'm afraid! For now, suffice it to say: Aristophanes' myth in the Symposium doesn't articulate gender indifference, and it certainly doesn't articulate the dominant ancient Greek view (nor Plato's own view). Despite Aristophanes' myth and your reading of Greek art, it does seem Greek society/sex was characterised by much less "gender indifference" and much more strict and hierarchical gender binary than ours.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67682371587696597622014-04-18T13:13:02.702+12:002014-04-18T13:13:02.702+12:00It does seem odd to me, Bryden, that in a week of ...It does seem odd to me, Bryden, that in a week of renewal of ordination vows, including a promise to uphold the received doctrine of the church, that I am fighting for the corner of the doctrine of marriage as though defending it is a quixotic quest to save an illogical, irrelevant, unscientific, outmoded, non-biblical teaching which never should have been given to the church in the first place :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-39916136827824095162014-04-18T12:09:07.892+12:002014-04-18T12:09:07.892+12:00Thank you Peter for this delightful juxtaposing of...Thank you Peter for this delightful juxtaposing of marriage doctrine and sacramental discipline. Point made.<br /><br />The troubling counter however might be this: our contemporary world is bedeviled (literally probably) by the right of opinions we are socially deemed to be allowed to hold. And yet every opinion cannot literally be right.<br /><br />Just so, many of our contemporary debates, dilemmas and disputed matters drill down to questions of authority (as I’ve often said on ADU). Hidden too in that word is the indication of source or authorship. Consequently, to ask <i><b>whose</b></i> opinion is not an idle question. Nor should we fail to see the outcome of the opposite approach. If every opinion is seemingly allowed to prevail (which is the inherent logic of our deemed social world), that way leads to nihilism - which of course we are witnessing every day in multiple ways nowadays.<br /><br />The point therefore of these thoughts is not only to adjure to the logic of your own comment. It is to add to your mix the essential question of authority. Thereafter too it is to ask - notably on this Good Friday - what form that authority should take. For the point of the complex enactment of God’s rule through Jesus’ incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension and Return is that here we have quite simply the unique declaration and demonstration of the Creator’s authority, as witnessed to in Holy Writ. Where the Church fails to align itself with this authority and this rich form of authority, then we are in deep trouble indeed.<br /><br />One final thing to underscore these thoughts - h/t to George Weigel, citing Flannery O’Connor, whose work I thoroughly enjoy and admire. He writes:<br /><br />“In a 1955 letter to her friend Betty Hester, Flannery O’Connor looked straight into the dark mystery of Good Friday and, in four sentences explained why the late modern world often finds it hard to believe:<br /><br /> The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it emotionally. A higher paradox confounds emotion as well as reason and there are long periods in the lives of all of us, and of the saints, when the truth as revealed by faith is hideous, emotionally disturbing, downright repulsive. Witness the dark night of the soul in individual saints. Right now the whole world seems to be going through a dark night of the soul.”<br /><br />Kyrie eleison!Bryden Blackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15619512328964399016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70685210194899585402014-04-18T08:30:52.225+12:002014-04-18T08:30:52.225+12:00Hi Caleb
A further note, re your point about God ...Hi Caleb<br /><br />A further note, re your point about God caring for the 1 in 100 and thus taking care re 'minorities.'<br /><br />Precisely because that is true, my work on these issues is about our church holding together and not casting any one out. Further, our discussion is focused on one or two matters but says little about other matters such as how we act with love and mercy and reach out to the 1 in 100.<br /><br />But what I am focused on in these comments is our doctrine of marriage. On matters of doctrine and related practice I am not aware that God's revelation to us in Scripture implies that we work out doctrine according to the interests and concerns of the 1 in 100. Nor, for that matter, according to the concerns of the 99 in 100. We work out doctrine according to what we agree together is true. But what we agree together is true is likely to have some kind of joyful reception by the 99 in 100 (even better, of course, if received by 100 in 100).<br /><br />Take another matter altogether: some push for 'open communion' so that baptism as a requirement for receiving the body and blood of Christ is not imposed. A driver in the argument is the open hospitality of Jesus himself at meals, and a clear implication of open communion is that at a communion service no one, not even the unbaptised need feel left out.<br /><br />We could say, 1 in 100 motivates this change to the church's doctrine on communion and the relationship between baptism as initiation into the church and the eucharist as the sacramental meal of the church.<br /><br />In fact, kind and merciful though such an approach is, it is an odd way of understanding baptism and communion. In colloquial terms, it puts the cart before the horse. In linguistic terms it mangles the meaning of the word 'initiation' in relationship to baptism. Etc. That is, what is important about baptism and communion is what is true. Whether 1 in 100 (or even 99 in 100) feel left out by the application of the requirement of baptism in order to receive communion is irrelevant to the truth.<br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83109042822610174552014-04-17T21:02:13.320+12:002014-04-17T21:02:13.320+12:00Hi Caleb re your 3.28 pm
Have you read Plato'...Hi Caleb re your 3.28 pm<br /><br />Have you read Plato's Symposium?<br /><br />There I suggest you find acknowledgement that relationships need not necessarily be gender differentiated.<br /><br />In Greek art, depicting homoerotic scenes, is the 'passive' partner ridiculed? Or is the viewer of such art simply confronted with male-male sexual acts as an everyday, gender indifferent matter?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10727249581107501022014-04-17T20:57:54.724+12:002014-04-17T20:57:54.724+12:00Hi Caleb (responding to your 3.13 pm)
You need to...Hi Caleb (responding to your 3.13 pm)<br /><br />You need to do more than 'believe a strong argument against gender restrictions in marriage, church and society can be made exclusively from Scripture'. if you wish to persuade the church, the evangelical wing in particular, you need to demonstrate this is so rather than ask us to rely on your belief.<br /><br />Thus appeals to science should be excluded, as well as appeals to God speaking to us from beyond the closing of the canon. Then you would need to draw out from Scripture that among its clear statements on marriage is a clear statement or at least recognisable, widely received deduction that marriage in God's eyes is indifferent to gender.<br /><br />My wager is that you cannot do that. At best thus far you have shown instances where marriage, despite being described in terms of men and women, has not required children to be produced.<br /><br />But it is a long way from that to demonstrate from the Bible that marriage is gender indifferent (the same document, let us remember, that - without guidance from modern studies shaping its interpretation - prohibits sexual relationships between people of the same gender).<br /><br />You have too many hurdles to overcome for your statement to move from belief to demonstration.<br /><br />A much more secure route is to argue that the Bible has shortcomings in the face of modern knowledge and we need to leave aside those parts of it which are no longer relevant for advanced societies with new knowledge about life, sex, gender and desire.<br /><br />The dilemma then is that the route thus taken is not remotely 'evangelical' in terms of Scripture being read as the authoritative witness of God.<br /><br />Describing my argument re image as 'eisegesis' does not deal with the argument. God the Trinity creates new life out of the love which binds the Three in One together. Babies come from the love which binds husband and wife together. The synergy between marriage and the communion of the Trinity is stronger than you reckon. <br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34154078248349571502014-04-17T20:45:21.054+12:002014-04-17T20:45:21.054+12:00Hi Caleb
Would it be too much to ask you not to pu...Hi Caleb<br />Would it be too much to ask you not to put words in my mouth which I have not said (" ... worse than useless")? That is not and has not been the conclusion I have sought to draw.<br /><br />What I have sought to underline is the Bible's own conclusion that marriage is between a man and a woman. Other relationships are not 'worse than useless' but where they claim to be 'marriages' between people of the same gender I am arguing that the claim involves a misuse of the word 'marriage' which should be reserved for the special distinctions of a man and woman, one flesh, open to procreation relationship.<br /><br />I do not think I 'need to explain why and how this difference means' anything about 'male-male marriages or female-female marriages.' But what I think you need to explain - for it is you who is arguing the case for changing the received doctrine of the church (something I and other clergy in the diocese swore before the bishop and God the other day to uphold) - is how two men or two women make a marriage despite the requirement of a man and a woman. <br /><br />(I am pressing you, incidentally, re 'marriage' as a unique one flesh joining together of the essentially different man and woman. If you want to argue that loving friendship between two men or two women should be blessed by the church, that is another story and we could explore that on another day. <br /><br />Pit your advanced gender theories against Gray all you like: humanity is divided into men and women (with a few exceptions), hence our public toilets and bathing changing rooms reflecting that agreed, universal, accepted division. Most weeks I walk with my mate, a bloke. No problems for my wife. Rightly she would wonder (and he would wonder) if I insisted on walking each week alone with his wife. Life is binary!<br /><br />Gender roles: absolutely. A mother is a mother and not a father. A father is a father and not a mother. I am husband and the woman I am married to thereby is my wife and vice versa. It is plain odd to hear a bloke talk about his (male) wife. I am tempted to say it is a perversion of the language but perhaps it is not appropriate to use 'perversion' in this context so let's just say it is a mangling.<br /><br />There are gender roles. It does not mean that there are no roles which are gender free. There are plenty. But when it comes to marriage and family, God made us male and female, and motherhood and fatherhood, husband and wife flow from those basic and somewhat binary distinctions to our bodies (and, to pick up Gray's point, to our internal minds and souls).<br /><br />Finally, when you say, "Appealing to the Bible's "male and female" against the scientific data is equivalent to appealing to the biblical creation stories against evolution." raises a lot of questions. I'll just say this: when I try to understand my wife as a woman, or my daughters in contradistinction to my son, I don't go looking to scientific data for assistance. The Bible, by contrast, is quite helpful :)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-59846827876750941572014-04-17T15:28:54.061+12:002014-04-17T15:28:54.061+12:00I hadn't seen your most recent comment when I ...I hadn't seen your most recent comment when I wrote my last two.<br /><br />I believe your comment that "Gender indifference in sexual relationships was known in the ancient days of the early church" is very much incorrect. Ancient sexuality, including that which happened between older (or powerful) men and younger (or less powerful) men, was characterised by rigidly hierarchical gender roles. Anything or anyone (e.g. the passive participant in male-male relationships, or any relationship not characterised by gender hierarchy) was unanimously ridiculed and condemned, precisely for violating that society's very strict and hierarchical gender binary.<br /><br />This helps explain why all recorded same-sex relationships in the ancient world were characterised by power imbalances: there was no shame in taking male lovers, so long as you remained the dominant/penetrating/male role. Men in powerful positions could subject slaves or boys to the humiliation of the passive/penetrated/female role while leaving their own patriarchal status intact. It also explains why female-female sex was discussed and approved of so much less; a woman taking a dominant 'male' role was considered abominable. (There was no sense in which sexual relationships could be free of dominant and passive roles)<br /><br />The closest thing to an endorsement of "gender indifference" in the ancient world is Gal 3:28. The eradication of patriarchal, oppressive gender roles from marriage is a new thing God has done after ancient times, though I believe it is a faithful application of Paul's vision.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-63581579082630612622014-04-17T15:13:53.274+12:002014-04-17T15:13:53.274+12:00Re: the "nub of the argument" - I believ...Re: the "nub of the argument" - I believe God has done new things with the church beyond the closing of the canon. I believe we should discern these new things on the authority of Scripture first and foremost, but we can also be assisted by other sources of revelation. In your terms, this means we should change our mind because we recognise that we've misheard God's voice from within the canon, though we may be assisted in this recognition by God's voice outside the canon. I would find it very difficult to endorse change based entirely on the latter. But I do not believe removing restrictive gender roles from marriage does rest entirely on the latter, any more than removing restrictive gender roles from church leadership does (nor abolishing slavery, supporting trade unions or taking action on climate change, for that matter).<br /><br />As I said earlier, I believe a strong argument against gender restrictions in marriage, church and society can be made exclusively from Scripture (indeed, I believe it's the most convincing way of reconciling Scripture's seemingly diverse witness on gender). This Scriptural argument does not require our other sources of revelation, but it is strengthened by them. For example, my interpretation of Scripture does not fly in the face of the best science on sex and gender, nor the experience of healthy Christian gay couples. Your interpretation of Scripture does.<br /><br />I won't bother responding to your eisegesis of "one flesh" and "image of God."Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-24476770029221052572014-04-17T15:13:31.865+12:002014-04-17T15:13:31.865+12:00Peter, you are sticking to what most Christians ha...Peter, you are sticking to what most Christians have believed God has been saying to us for centuries; a rather important difference. (Even then, this supposedly "traditionalist" view has changed immensely over time. Eg. the acknowledgement of sexual orientation as in some ways a real [albeit socially constructed] thing… or the move away from language of "perversion" and "sodomy" towards language of "mental disorder," and then "struggle with same-gender desire"… or the rise of "complementarian" logic instead the "natural" hierarchy of men over women).<br /><br />As you say, "the church has only acknowledged that fertility is not necessary for marriage between a man and a woman;" for the most part the church has not "deem[ed] that neither is a man and a woman necessary for a marriage." Precisely!This is because that the church's opposition to same-sex pairings is not (now, if it ever was) based on fertility and procreation but on ideas of gender roles. The rest of your paragraph reinforces this: as you note, the church's current understanding of marriage suggests an elderly opposite-sex couple are equipped to raise children (whether unexpected births or adoptions) because of a "bonded relationship between the one equipped to be a father and the other equipped to be a mother". Gender roles!<br /><br />The fact that you refer to John Gray's book (which is a joke among people who have actually studied gender) speaks volumes. The simplistic binaristic idea of sex and gender encapsulated in that book and your recent comments is in no way borne out by the best examinations of creation using our God-given reason. "Mars" and "Venus" is a dominant ideology justifying patriarchal dominance of men, women and those whom you call "the tiny minority" (remember, we serve a God who leaves the 99 for the one). Appealing to the Bible's "male and female" against the scientific data is equivalent to appealing to the biblical creation stories against evolution.<br /><br />I don't think there is much point responding to the details of your defence of a binary gender system, because your defence has made it very clear that you do not know or understand the science of gender/sex and the reasons to reject binary understandings of them.<br /><br />It is worth noting, though, that even if gender is "basically binary" the way you describe, observation of difference (even essentialist difference) is not the same thing as justification of division and restriction. You have given some reasons why the (supposedly essential) difference between men and women brings advantages to marriage; I even agreed (though I removed the essentialism). But you still need to explain why and how this difference means male-male marriages or female-female marriages are worse than useless.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-1094927065306458212014-04-12T14:34:55.981+12:002014-04-12T14:34:55.981+12:00Hi Caleb
A further thought: I suggest a strong wea...Hi Caleb<br />A further thought: I suggest a strong weakness in your argument if it continues to appeal to Scripture (but I note above that it seems that, in the end, yours is not an appeal to Scripture) is that it overlooks the potential for God through Paul and other apostles to have introduced new ideas about marriage re gender.<br /><br />As you know, Paul and others were familiar with customary relationships between older men and younger men. That is, they lived in a wider world which did not conform to a uniform, standard account of sex occurring only between men and women. Gender indifference in sexual relationships was known in the ancient days of the early church. Yet not one move is made, not one sign given in the pages of the New Testament of the thought that marriage might at some future point be gender indifferent. By contrast, many hints are given in the NT of the end of slavery in a world marked by lack of boundedness between master and slave; just as the account of ministry is not a uniform account of impermeable boundaries between men and women re ministry roles.<br /><br />Put another way, to make the claim that God has spoken beyond the closing of the canon is to invoke an argument which is not evangelical: it might be Pentecostal (by way of claim that the Spirit is now speaking thus and so to the church) or ecclesiastical (by way of claim that the church has now agreed that thus and so is a new understanding, differentiated from past understanding via Scripture and tradition). Both claims are possible; both claims could express truth. But both claims require something more than a few people thinking they are right on a matter. Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-6342266608457341382014-04-12T14:24:55.531+12:002014-04-12T14:24:55.531+12:00(Cont'd) Hi Caleb,
The significance of gender ...(Cont'd) Hi Caleb,<br />The significance of gender for marriage is assumed rather than compelled via Scripture. But it is significant. The idea of marriage being 'one flesh' of a man and a woman implies a special combination of difference; further, the difference here is not just any difference (as in Jim is short-tempered and John is patient and calm) but the difference of male and female, perhaps nicely and recently expressed in the book title, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. The diversity of maleness across men and of femaleness across women does not alter the fact that when a man and a woman get together as one flesh they are combining significant difference. Further this significance is underlined in the biblical account of creation and with Trinitarian eyes we read that account as offering the two-into-one as an image of the Three-in-One God (the image being of diversity in unity, don't worry about the maths of two not equalling three!).<br /><br />As for lack of companionship through marriage or the fulfilling of lustful desire and 'worse' re gender configuration, it would be a curious argument which argued from the Bible that no other arrangements for companionship (friendship?) were possible and that all lusts must be fulfilled (think upon many prohibitions against adultery, fornication, use of prostitutes.<br /><br />In any case, you admit the nub of your argument lies outside of the Bible: it is honest to claim that God has done a new thing beyond the closing of the canon. By what authority do you discern this to be so? (Appeal to slavery and female episcopate is simply interesting as an appeal: it proves nothing about another matter, and it begs many questions whether the church changing its mind on these matters is because God has spoken from outside the canon or because the church has recognised that it misheard God's voice from within the canon.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58180499166093858072014-04-12T14:09:34.254+12:002014-04-12T14:09:34.254+12:00Hi Caleb
Since I am sticking up for what God has b...Hi Caleb<br />Since I am sticking up for what God has been saying to us for centuries, there is a LOT of responsibility on you to convince those who think like I do (which, broadly speaking, is the majority of current Christians, to say nothing of nearly all past Christians). But you are the one seeking change ...<br /><br />I suggest the church has only acknowledged that fertility is not necessary for marriage between a man and a woman. It is quite unclear whether the church has yet re-considered this approach if it is going to be used as a reason for deeming that neither is a man and a woman necessary for a marriage. Further, I also suggest that on close inspection the church has a debate going on within it re potential for fertility v. fertility. Even an older couple, finding themselves unexpectedly pregnant, would, on the traditional understanding of marriage, be ready to embrace family life, have a bonded relationship between the one equipped to be the father and the other equipped to be the mother.<br /><br />God created us male and female. That binariness, without acknowledgment of diversity, is inherent in the story of creation, and it is exactly matched to the necessity re reproduction of there being a male contributor and a female contributor to conception. That males are then diverse (cf. Esau and Jacob re character and interests), also females (not every woman in the OT was willing to drive a tent peg through a man's skull!) suggests that gender is a mix of binariness and diversity. Then, yes, some find themselves in a male body with female characteristics and vice versa and a few shades between. But not of that changes the essentially binary character of gender, noting that even for a person in a man's body to talk about feeling they are really a female is still to invoke the basic binariness of gender.<br /><br />This binariness is not surprising given a Judeo-Christian view of wholeness of body, mind and spirit. Only maleness and femaleness is required for life so we are not introduced in the Bible to third or fourth genders. The assumption is that men have male bodies and woman have female bodies, sexual intercourse occurs between them and life results. That we acknowledge, in a tiny minority of people, a variation on that account of gender does not change the essential binariness to gender, as created by God and as experienced as necessary for the continuation of life. (cont'd)Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-67820078755881968852014-04-12T12:21:23.041+12:002014-04-12T12:21:23.041+12:00Continuing...
You've introduced the idea that...Continuing...<br /><br />You've introduced the idea that perhaps some roles are gender indifferent and others are not. Fair enough. But from my perspective the ball's in your court to show why a certain institution (marriage, for example) is not "gender indifferent." The only argument you've offered is the procreative possibility of male-female unions, but those arguments fall down as they're actually not about gender but about sex, and not all male-female couples have the necessary sex characteristics for procreation. You only employ those arguments against same-gender couples, which suggests there is something else going on on the level of gender rather than sex.<br /><br />Re "secret knowledge" - I found it bizarre when another commenter accused me of Gnosticism, but I think I understand it now if this is also where he was coming from. Now that I understand it, I can refute it as an unfair criticism. A different (and newer) interpretation is not the same as a Gnostic "secret knowledge" interpretation. Would you have accused Wilberforce of "secret knowledge"? Or the advocates of female ordination?Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-62973730838255392182014-04-12T12:20:15.247+12:002014-04-12T12:20:15.247+12:00It's putting quite a lot of responsibility on ...It's putting quite a lot of responsibility on me (and you) to say that simply because I've failed to convince you of something, we therefore know what God has been saying!<br /><br />Re: procreation; I will acknowledge that my phrasing was not particularly reverent to the miracle of procreation by which I and (almost) all people and animals throughout history came into existence. But I didn't have IVF in mind at all when I wrote it. I'm not arguing anything from the fact that (now) "sex is not necessary for fertility". In fact, I wouldn't even put it that way - sex <i>organs</i> are still entirely necessary for procreation, even if sexual <i>intercourse</i> is not. My contention was that the church has long since held that fertility is not necessary for marriage (long before IVF). If I recall correctly, you also acknowledged this point in your paper at the Theology of Marriage conference.<br /><br />I've tried to clarify in a couple of comments the difference between (a) reality and significance of gender difference and (b) restriction of marriage to male and female partnerships. I oppose (b), not (a), and I've offered ethnicity as an analogy of how we think along these sides already on another marker of human diversity. I actually think I'm acknowledging better than you the reality and significance of gender difference, as I'm acknowledging its complexity, diversity and (multi-)spectrumed character instead of inaccurately portraying it as a simple binary by which everyone is a man or a woman, and a man inherently possesses a certain personality (and, e.g., parenting style) and a woman another.<br /><br />I don't think you're acknowledging that there's not a simple line from significance of gender to gender restrictions on things like marriage. You need to form an argument to show not only that gender is significant, but (a) a certain sex/gender configuration (one male, one female) is not only significant but <i>necessary</i> for sex/marriage, and (b) that the lack of this gender configuration is in fact worse than someone not called to celibacy being alone (Gen 2) or burning in lust (1 Cor 7). An argument from silence (ie the fact that all the sex and marriage endorsed in Scripture is between men and women) is not enough, because it doesn't allow God to do a new thing after the closing of the canon, and I believe God <i>has</i> done new things, such as abolition of slavery and the female episcopate.<br /><br />My argument for what you call the "indifference of gender differentiation" is based on the same logic as the arguments for the indifference of gender to whether someone is ipso facto eligible or ineligible for other social roles like ordination. I don't know if I can expand further upon it. I believe the most coherent interpretation of the Bible's diverse materials on gender is to say that it offers a trajectory towards relativisation of human divisions such as gender, class and ethnicity - best encapsulated in Gal 3:28 - and liberation of those oppressed in various ways as a result of these divisions. (Please note this is not an eradication of difference - which is in itself oppressive - but of oppressive division). I think this argument can be made entirely from Scripture, but is strengthened with reference to the rest of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, including contemporary scientific examination of sex and gender (I believe evangelicals and orthodox Christians should take into account the whole Quadrilateral but prioritise Scripture).<br /><br />Would you agree with this understanding of gender, and to what extent? You haven't articulated your own understanding of gender.<br /><br />TBC...Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-7116635439244278772014-04-11T06:02:30.752+12:002014-04-11T06:02:30.752+12:00Hi Caleb
Responses:
a. I am not arguing for restri...Hi Caleb<br />Responses:<br />a. I am not arguing for restrictions re parents and their gender: in today's world that would be too hard to work out via law. I am arguing against a notion that somehow indifference to gender of parents is an evangelical/orthodox position. Nothing you offer draws any kind of reasonable argument from Scripture and tradition to that position.<br /><br />b. There is a danger your argument ends in absurdity when you write, "Sex can obviously offer certain advantages in terms of the possibility of biological procreation; if two people have the right mix of internal and external sex characteristics and fertility, they can have children." Let's be clear: with the exception of our Lord Jesus Christ 100% of all children born through aeons of time, until about 30 odd years ago, were born through a man having intercourse with a woman. There was no 'can' about sex. It was sex was necessary for conception; conception required sex; there was no conception without sex. That we are now in a position where (e.g.) a man can provide sperm to a test-tube, woman can receive the sperm via a third party procedure offers a wonderful possibility that a man and a woman marrying in good faith re intention to bear children can be assisted in fulfilling that desire. To then argue from this gift of fertility to married couples that since sex is not necessary for fertility so fertility is not necessary for two people of the same gender to be parents is to offer an argument that technology changes value of gender in marriage. Whatever that argument constitutes re validity, it is not, repeat NOT an evangelical/orthodox argument from Scripture and tradition.<br />c. Put another way: to make your argument evangelical/orthodox you would need to establish via Scripture and tradition that God's intention for creation, for populating creation, for marriage is actually, despite a host of appearances through the biblical narrative, indifferent to gender differentiation. You have not done this. Which is quite good because it means that God has been transparent re his will instead of hiding it as secret knowledge only to be revealed in the 21st century!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-58654945281907951572014-04-10T14:37:07.927+12:002014-04-10T14:37:07.927+12:00Peter, my rephrasal in the second comment was supp...Peter, my rephrasal in the second comment was supposed to be a backtracking of my earlier clumsy and innaccurate language about one parent being as good as another - that's not actually what we're discussing; as you say, "This is not a comment about general parenting skills."<br /><br />I never denied that gender diversity (or ethnic diversity, for that matter) matters in family life. I denied that we should make restrictions on families based on genders.<br /><br />I think ethnicity is an excellent analogy for the advantages (and alleged necessity) of parents having certain gender identities. A Maori parent brings something to the mix of parenting that a Pakeha parent cannot (generally*) do. I did not have the privilege of a Maori parent, or what they can bring to the mix of parenting. I also did not have the privilege of a Chinese parent, an LGBTI parent, a Hindu parent, an upper-class parent or a parent who can play a mean guitar solo. Like I said - no two parents can cover the full gamut of human diversity. It's also worth considering the diversity within each gender. I had a parent who embodied one particular expression of masculinity; I did not have a "blokey" dad or a "rugby/farming/hunting/cars" dad or a "smiling assassin businessman" dad or a "metrosexual" dad - or mum for that matter! However, I had two excellent parents and I'm very much glad they were allowed to marry and have me.<br /><br />I wouldn't pretend my dad is as good as my mum at being a mum; I also wouldn't pretend my Pakeha dad is just as good as my Maori uncle at being a Maori parent - even though he's just as good at being a parent! (This is only a problem if we've decided in advance that it's necessary to have a Maori parent and a Pakeha parent, instead of any two good parents; the way you've decided in advance that it's necessary to have a mother and a father, instead of any two good parents).<br /><br />Sex can obviously offer certain advantages in terms of the possibility of biological procreation; if two people have the right mix of internal and external sex characteristics and fertility, they can have children. Please note that we still allow couples without this "right mix" to marry and to adopt children (regardless of whether we know whether they have the right mix when they marry. I, for example, could later turn out to have a "rogue ovary" that not only makes me not straightforwardly male, but makes me unable to procreate).<br /><br />Gender, however, I see as being on an equal standing to ethnicity in what it offers to parenting, and who should be allowed to be a parent. Diversity brings a lot of good to any partnership, including parenting (though a certain degree of homogeneity can have advantages too). But I don't think prohibitions of couples without certain markers of diversity are justified; on either gender or ethnicity.<br /><br />* I've replaced "inherently" with "generally" because "inherently" can tend to imply biological essentialism and clear-cut boxes without overlap or exceptions; which is not an accurate reading of either sex, gender or ethnicity.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-75338159333660516172014-04-09T21:34:00.668+12:002014-04-09T21:34:00.668+12:00re Caleb's comment about Same-Sex Parents bein...re Caleb's comment about Same-Sex Parents being only marginally different from heterosexual parents; <br /><br />It was good to see on tonight's telecast on TV1, that the protocol allowed the Royal Couple and Prince George to meet up with a couple of Same-Sex parents and their daughter - amongst the other, heterosexual, couples with children, enjoying their company.<br /><br />Top marks for Plunket (N.Z.'s Child Welfare Agency) for making <br />this special arrangement.<br /> Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78953981219590393872014-04-09T19:41:50.047+12:002014-04-09T19:41:50.047+12:00Re parents, Caleb:
The argument at stake here is ...Re parents, Caleb:<br /><br />The argument at stake here is whether gender difference matters. You do not quite say that it does though you do recognise that there is a difference between a mum and a dad.<br /><br />I am suggesting that gender difference in parenting does matter: having two dads is not as good as having a dad and a mum because a mum brings something to the mix of parenting that a second dad cannot (inherently) do. This is not a comment about general parenting skills: on that score two dads are as good as two mums are as good as a mum and a dad. But if we allow that a dad and a mum make for a better overall set of parents than two dads or two mums (because the latter two sets cannot provide the diversity the first set can) then we are at the beginning of acknowledging that gender diversity matters in family life ... from that we might get to marriage!<br /><br />But I have no idea, Caleb, whether you are willing to recognise the inherent advantage to two parents being a mum and a dad.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-53035623905575621592014-04-09T19:18:44.015+12:002014-04-09T19:18:44.015+12:00Hi Caleb
A number of theological arguments boil do...Hi Caleb<br />A number of theological arguments boil down to 'Did God really say?' and the analogy with the serpent's question in Genesis 3 applies.<br /><br />If you don't think the analogy applies to an argument, the opportunity is here to show how the argument moves away from 'Did God really say?' to something more solid such as 'What God actually said is ...'<br /><br />A couple of responses to your points about gender:<br /><br />If gender is on a spectrum, does that make any difference to moral arguments about relationships? It is not clear that it does make any difference, not least because, arguably, there should be as many blessed relationship kinds as there are gender identities. Perhaps there should be, but it is becoming very very difficult for me - thick as I am - to see how that would be argued from Scripture.<br /><br />If you think your dad is as good at being your mum as your mum is (the effect of your argument from ethnicity above) then I can but wish you joy in the world you live in.<br /><br />I have a great dad and a great mum (thanks be to God) but I don't think they would mind me saying that neither would pretend to being as good at being the opposite type of parent as the opposite type actually is.<br /><br /><br />Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90313058616885965732014-04-09T19:08:15.221+12:002014-04-09T19:08:15.221+12:00I should clarify what I said in my last comment ab...I should clarify what I said in my last comment about "just as good as" - of course nobody would disagree. You weren't saying mums or dads are any better than each other; just that they're inherently different.<br /><br />What I should have said is: A child is most blessed to have both a Maori and a Pakeha parent. But they're also blessed to have two parents of the same ethnicity. Most of all, they're blessed to have two good parents. No two parents can cover the full spectrum of human diversity (gender, ethnic, class, personality, skills, etc) but any two parents equipped with the right skills, resources and support can be great parents, or at least try their best to be.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-32481691823562010412014-04-09T18:52:15.678+12:002014-04-09T18:52:15.678+12:00Peter, again, how is the word "homophobia&quo...Peter, again, how is the word "homophobia" [note: not the ad hominem "homophobe"] disallowed on your blog but serpent analogies are A-OK? I don't mind the strongly-worded critique, but I mind the double-standards.<br /><br />Michael, I don't recognise my essay in your response. I don't feel the need to respond and defend the straw man you're criticising.<br /><br />Peter, re: question 2... as I tried to explain above, there is a difference between gender differentiation and:<br />(a) simplistic binary understandings of gender as two categories rather than a complex spectrum (or spectra)<br />(b) restrictions based on gender identity.<br /><br />Again, I think ethnicity is an excellent analogy, both for an alternative view of gender, and for a response to your question about mums and dads. Maori people and Pakeha people are different, certainly (but different in complicated ways, with plenty of individual variation and exceptions); but Maori parents and Pakeha parents are just as good as each other. Likewise, mums and dads.<br /><br />This perhaps goes some way towards answering question 1 too.Calebhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13619381698748105116noreply@blogger.com