I hope that people who are interested in a discussion of same-sexuality will not decide to dismiss Fr. Haller’s book simply because of Dr. Radner’s review. I suggest reading it and coming to your own conclusion.

I think that Tobias Haller’s Reasonable and Holy is an attempt at a theology of human sexuality that affirms committed same-sex relationships. Many will disagree with Haller, but it provides a good starting point for discussion.

It could be that we simply disagree about what a Theology of Human sexuality would entail. I find I agree with James and Dr. Radner (!) that *Reasonable and Holy* is an argument against the normality of heterosexuality, but not a Theology of human sexuality. It contains “fragments” of theology, but not a coherent and comprehensive description of such a theology in total.

I will admit that if one can show that procreation is incidental to human sexuality, than the case for the normality of heterosexuality is severely weakened. But 1) while he assumes he has made a good case for this decoupling, I don’t believe he has; and 2) this is exactly the point of our critique of his “theology” - it is only a tearing down, not a building up.

[And indeed, if his case against the integral coupling of procreation and human sexuality fails, the possibility of a theology of human sexuality with a homosexuality as a conponent becomes very unlikely.]

Daniel,

Can you give us a synopsis of the arguments posted and how they are different from the “we already believe homosexual sex in this instance is OK” argument? 

I did notice rather than respond to the objections that Dr. Radner raised, you simply asked us to read the book ourselves.  Can you respond ot the objections or get Fr. Haller to respond to Dr. Radner’s objections?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 15 May 2010 10:45 AM

Daniel,

Can you give us a synopsis of the arguments posted and how they are different from the “we already believe homosexual sex in this instance is OK” argument? 

I did notice rather than respond to the objections that Dr. Radner raised, you simply asked us to read the book ourselves.  Can you respond ot the objections or get Fr. Haller to respond to Dr. Radner’s objections?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil-

I still recommend reading the book. However, if you want Fr. Haller’s response to Dr. Radner’s review, you can find it at Reasonable and Holy. There you will also find a review - from the Anglican Theological Review - by Charles Hefling from Boston College’s theology faculty.

Daniel

Daniel:  I checked out Haller’s blog, to which you refer us.  I checked out Hefling and noted that he is a TEC priest who is agreement with TEC’s and Haller’s perspective on SSB.  Despite all that, however, his review suggests to me that Radner is largely correct in his diagnosis of Haller’s book.  Hefling says quite plainly that Haller’s book is a “response” to the Church’s traditional position and does not outline a “grand theology of sexuality.”

My job is that of legal research librarian and a huge part of my job is assessing the character and credibility of information.  Radner is a very respected Anglican academic.  His review carries a lot of weight.  Haller’s title “Reasonable and Holy” also suggests a very defensive book - exactly what Radner suggests it is.

There are two issues here - one is the character of Haller’s book.  All accounts suggest that it is defensive only (i.e. its purpose is simply to cast doubt on the Church’s catholic teaching on sexuality, rather then to suggest a complete and holistic alternative theology).  The second issue is that of how well Haller does.  Folks who already support Haller’s positions like his book and find it convincing.  But those who did not already agree with Haller, do not find his book credible nor convincing.

Remember that the burden of proof in this area lies squarely on the side of TEC liberals.  Haller’s book, and the review you direct us to, indicates that those already in agreement with Haller’s arguments find his arguments convincing (no surprise there).  But that doesn’t count.  What Haller needed to have done is convince someone like Radner (very well respected Anglican academic who hold to the catholic teaching on sexuality) that his arguments are at least credible.  That Haller has failed to do.

Fr. Haller has posted on his other blog (In a Godward Direction) a brief defense of his position. In it he makes a point which I have made before. The burden of clear and convincing proof (perhaps even proof beyond a reasonable doubt) might just as well be placed on those who hold the conventional position on same-sexuality in the same way that it is placed upon the prosecution in a criminal court. To condemn relationships when there is what Dr. Radner describes as a “tissue of maybe” would certainly not be acceptable in a US court. Why is it acceptable in the Church?

Dr. Radner is right - and Dr. Hefling agrees - that Fr. Haller has not provided in his book a complete theology of human sexuality, but then neither he nor I claimed that he had. I see it as an attempt - perhaps unconvincing - to explore how same-sexuality can have a place in a scripturally grounded understanding of human sexuality. Clearly more work needs to be done in this area, but I think Fr. Haller has made a contribution to that work and I continue to hope that people will take the time to read it and not just repeat Dr. Radner’s criticisms. Dr. Hefling was the editor of Our Selves, Our Souls and Bodies: Sexuality and the Household of God (1996) which also has some valuable contributions to the work, including an essay by Rowan Williams. The book is out-of-print, but good used copies are available.

Daniel:

The burden of clear and convincing proof (perhaps even proof beyond a reasonable doubt) might just as well be placed on those who hold the conventional position on same-sexuality in the same way that it is placed upon the prosecution in a criminal court.

Not in the holy, catholic and apostolic church, it shouldn’t.  The traditional argument has already been heard and been found convincing by the Church catholic.  If you want to use the courtroom analogy, Daniel, you have a situation in which the courts have already conclusively resolved the issue in favor of the traditional position.  Now you have a small group of people who are claiming that the court made the wrong decision.  Do you then demand that the prosecution must remake its case?  No, of course not.

Let’s try a different analogy.  Let’s suppose that we are speaking of a deadly disease, and over many years of study and tests and experiments, the consensus of doctors is that Drug X is the right treatment for the disease.  Then comes a very small group of doctors who claim that Drug X is not helpful at all, and that instead Drug Y is best.  Yet, these doctors have provided no credible scientific evidence for Drug Y.  Instead, all that this small group of doctors can do is re-assert that in their opinion Drug Y is better, and suggest that Drug X may have some problems with it.  The medical establishment reviews the evidence from this small group of pro-Drug Y doctors and finds it utterly lacking.  Would you suggest that the small group of pro-Drug Y doctors should NOT have the burden of proof?

Basically, Daniel, you have Christians universally agreeing upon what Scripture says and what moral theology the Church must hold in this area.  Then, at a specific time in history, a tiny group of affluent members of a few denominations, following the secular culture in which they live, decide that the rest of Christians through time and space are all wrong.  And you are suggesting that the burden of proof is NOT on them?!?!?!????  You can believe that if you want, Daniel, but don’t expect those who support the concept of a “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” to agree that one little group of Christians can redefine Church tradition willy-nilly, ignore everyone else, and yet still imagine they can be in unity with the Church.

James-

Does it matter at all that those who are in favor of a new understanding of same-sex relations are affluent? Of course, all of us in the US on both sides of the issue are affluent and the most vocal voices for the traditional position in Africa are probably more affluent than the average person in their countries. And does being in the minority mean that we can’t be right? William Wilberforce was affluent and was in the minority in his struggle against the slave trade and neither of those facts had any bearing on whether or not he was right. To be frank - even blunt - your raising of the affluence issue is unworthy of you.

I have been struck by the way in which arguments have been dismissed because Fr. Haller and others came to their theological work already inclined to accept same-sex relations. A similar statement could be made about the arguments of many who condemn same-sex relations. We all start from somewhere with, perhaps, a positive experience with same-sex coupes or a negative one. To say that the starting point, the initial experience invalidates anyone’s theology is, IMV, a mistake. For Anglicans the question could be put this way: Does this theology rest upon a reasoned interpretation of Scripture that takes into account the tradition of reasoned interpretations in the past and in other contemporary contexts? We disagree about whether Fr. Haller’s work merits a positive answer to that question. 

Daniel

Daniel,

When trying to change accepted teaching, it is always, always the responsibility of those who wish to change the teaching to show how their new teaching is more true to the received revelation than the current teaching.  Peter convinced the Church in Acts 15 that relaxing much of the dietary laws for gentile converts to Christianity was closer to the received revelation.  If you will remember, he quoted Amos, Jeremiah, and Isaiah and “it seemed good to the apostles and the elders with the whole church….”  The default position was that gentile converts should have to live the mosiac law just as good Jews did.  Peter and James (and others, perhaps) convinced the “whole church” otherwise.
The civil rights struggle was successful because The Rev. Dr. King spoke from within the Christian Tradition in a way that convinced many in the society that their preconceived notions of race were wrong.  “There is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, Male nor Female….” 
You yourself said:  “Clearly more work needs to be done in this area.”  That indicates that you agree that the necessary work has not yet been done, yet you do not balk at TEC (and others) acting as if the work has been done and the Church accepted this new “understanding.”

If you want to continue your law analogy, those who support SSBs are the prosecution and those defending the traditional teaching of the Church are the defendants.  The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not on the defense.  If you want to look at it from a civil trial standpoint, those seeking change are the plaintifs and those supporting the traditional teaching are the defendants.  Again, the burden of proof is on the plaintifs, not on the defendants.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that TEC moved on to action when the reasoning behind the action was not yet there.  Peter Whalon even agrees that the theology has not yet been properly done that supports same sex blessings, yet TEC continues to ordain those involved in sex outside of marriage and to bless those relationships.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Daniel:

Does it matter at all that those who are in favor of a new understanding of same-sex relations are affluent?

Yes it does, for a number of reasons.
First, affluence can purchase some great marketing.  Second, affluence buys influence.  Why do you think, Daniel, that there are so many people who are concerned about the influence of corporate money in election campaigns?  Why do you think that so many of California’s voter initiatives are sponsored by one or two wealthy individuals or corporations?  Affluence can give an intellectually bankrupt idea legs.  Do you really think that anyone would listen to the kind of theological argumentation that Haller makes if he was not part of an affluent Province?  Do you really think that the Anglican Communion would be in the pickle it is currently in if the economic statuses of TEC/ACoC/New Zealand and the Churches of Nigeria/Uganda/Rwanda were reversed?  Money talks, and so, yes, the fact that the small group advocating for changing universally held teaching is affluent matters a lot.

Third, affluence often corrupts Christians.  An affluent society tends to become self-absorbed, narcissistic, and overly focused on personal autonomy.  I would suggest to you that all of these descriptors attach themselves to TEC’s sexual advocacy at the present time.

I am not suggesting that it is their affluence which makes TEC and its liberal supporters wrong.  But it is certainly very germane to the conversation.

I have been struck by the way in which arguments have been dismissed because Fr. Haller and others came to their theological work already inclined to accept same-sex relations.

Nobody is dismissing them for that reason, Daniel.  Rather, as you will see by reading the many posts here and in other threads, the charge is that TEC’s “scholarship” in this area is always premised on the starting presumption that “X is good and ought to be blessed” and then there is a scattershot attempt to gather evidence to support this conclusion.  It is advocacy-based, not scholarly-based.  This is in marked difference to an approach that says “let’s take a look at the evidence presented us in the Scriptures, and let that evidence speak to us, and THEN come to our conclusion.”  It has also been suggested many times that the burden of proof is on TEC to convince those outside of the small group of liberal Christians that homosexual behavior is supportable in Scripture.  So far, all that we have been shown is writings as that described earlier in this paragraph, and when we point this out, you respond by pointing us to complimentary articles which were written by others in this small group.  I understand, Daniel, that there is a small group of affluent Western liberals who believe that homosexual behavior ought to be blessed.  What I still have not seen is any evidence of an overall non-advocacy based scholarship that has been peer-reviewed and found credible by those outside of this small group of affluent Western liberals.

I cannot disagree that affluence can corrupt or that the more affluent may have more access to communication media. However, given the reality that there are affluent people on both/all sides of this issue, it seems hardly relevant. I have avoided raising the money issue in relation to some of the well-funded conservative groups for that reason.

Daniel,

I think that C. S. Lewis said it best in The Screwtape Letters when he discussed letting a man grow to middle age where he thinks he is finding his place in the world, but in reality the world is finding its place in him.

Yes, there are affluent people on both sides of this issue, but when I look at the issue, it was raised, not by the poor either in the US or the global south, but by the wealth in the US.  All the groups that formed and all the financing that was raised by the conservatives in this group were in response to the departure of TEC from traditional Anglican faith and practice. 
The focus on secular means and the raising of funds to fight (for or against) the issue leads me to believe that the issue has more of the “spirit of the flesh” than the Holy Spirit in it.  Look at the results of this debate and re-read Galatians 5 to see if there is more party spirit, envy, strive, etc. or if there is more patience, love, joy, peace, etc..

I believe that a secular outlook has taken over the leadership of TEC and this results in the gospel being reduced to social justice (particularly from a progressive definition of social justice).
YBIC,
Phil Snyder