James Wirrell - 10 May 2009 05:54 PM

Craig:  I am not sure if this helps, but I think that many use the words “homosexual practice” to make it clear that they are distinguishing between homosexual “orientation” and acting on that “orientation” (i.e. “practice”).  I think that Lambeth I.10 tried to distinguish between these two concepts also - hence the language structure of, on the one hand saying “those who experience themselves as drawn to X are loved by God” while on the other hand saying that “X is contrary to Scripture”.  Similarly, I think that many conservatives could affirm a number of the “non-sexual” qualities found in a same-sex relationship.  I see this use of language (imperfect though it is) as trying to distinguish exactly what is thought to run counter to Scripture, from what can be affirmed.  I wonder if Shawn and others could suggest a more respectful or helpful way to draw this distinction.  But perhaps this is more properly the subject of another thread.

I also try always to refer to the actions rather than the persons, and for the same reason. It is the actions that are prohibited. The desire is simply IMO a temptation to do what one ought not. To put the shoe on the other foot, I am a thin-skinned, easily affronted person who finds it much easier to remember and resent a perceived slight than than to forgive it. However, the fact that my feelings are easily hurt does not excuse me if I cherish grudges and vengeful thoughts, or worse yet, actively retaliate against the person who hurt me. I can’t help being thin-skinned. I can (by means of God’s grace) choose whether to obey the temptation and become bitter, or obey God and forgive the person. If I do fail to obey God, then I need to repent. And the same choice is before any Christian, experiencing any temptation.

Karen

Katie and Karen,

I don’t know if either of you have children in your life, either of your own or nieces and nephews or maybe through your parish.  During this past year, I spent a lot of time with the youth at the parish with which I was discerning.  I taught Journey To Adulthood with our younger group, ages 11 - 13.  One of the boys, who was 11 or 12, would come to class and talk about the way he was constantly teased at school for being gay.  So much so that he had thought of taking his own life….already at age 12!!  Yet, at the same time, he would also say that this is how God made him and that God loves him.

Now, the two of you seem to be more interested in sexual intercourse, sexual practices, ceremonial law versus moral law, etc.  I hope you can picture this young man.  He has been to a lot of foster homes and he now has two parents, two men, who have adopted him.  They have extended a love to him that the heterosexual couples in his life before could not extend.  They opened their family to him and through that, he has been able to begin to heal. 

Now, you may choose to believe whatever you wish to believe, but remember that it affects people.  It affects children.  It affects families.  So, if you want to focus on sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex and that’s what’s most important to you, then do so.  If you want to worry about the difference between ceremonial law and moral law, then do so.  But then have the courage to go up to a child like this with the pain that he has felt….have the courage then to go up to him and tell him that his family is evil and sinful.  Because that is what we hear when you go on and on and on about the differences between “practices” and “orientation” or “ceremonial law” and “moral law”.  All we hear is you finding ways to justify calling our families sinful and evil.

The Church is supposed to be engaged in a listening process to hear the stories of gays and lesbians.  I hope you will listen.

In Christ,
Shawn

 

And I know you sift among the 613 commandments and selectively enforce the ones that agree with your biases, otherwise you would be demanding the death penalty for violations of the first seven commandments as is commanded in Scripture. The fact is that supposed literalists, in my opinion, sift through all the commands to find the ones they like. Indeed Richard Hooker noted the same tendency among the literalists of his own day.

Well, I wouldn’t put it like that. I am reasonably certain, based on the New Testament accounts, and Jesus’ statement that it’s what comes out, not what goes in, that makes one unclean, that the OT dietary laws don’t apply to me as a Gentile believer. There are two commandments—observance of the Sabbath and the prohibition of charging interest—I am quite uncertain about whether they apply to Gentiles, but if I am able to ascertain that they do, I need to repent from the fact that I have not been following them, and begin to do so. The former of these would have quite a large effect as I would have to figure out something to replace the bonds in my retirement accounts, and I’m not at all sure what else would be an equivalent asset. But I digress. My point is, I don’t just say to myself, “I don’t like that commandment, so I’m going to ignore it”. In that sense, I think your opinion of us literalists is, in most cases, an inaccurate one. In not demanding the death penalty for offenses that would have been punished that way in ancient Israel, I am following the example of St Paul. There was a man in Corinth who was sinning with his mother in law or stepmother. In OT times this would have been punished by stoning, but St Paul says this individual should be expelled from the congregation until he repents, not killed. I take it from this that expulsion is the penalty among Christians, for what would have been capital offenses in the Kingdom of Israel.

The first place to look for the distinction among the three is the Articles of Religion, Article VII I think (no BCP handy at the moment).  You will see there the beginning of a hermeneutic approach to Hebrew Scripture.  I would also recommend Bishop Burnet’s “Exposition of the 39 Articles” in which he identifies the moral law as the 10 commandments.

Richard Hooker, of course, developed a simple but straightforward hermeneutic for assessing the relevance of scripture for present times.  And he did that in reply to the ultra Calvinists of his own day.  The Preface and Books I and II deal with law and with scripture.  I tend to follow his example. (If you have not read Mr. Hooker I have published a “cliff notes” of the Laws, “Hooker’s Blueprint”)  He was particularly skeptical of the tendency of the extreme Calvinists to seek sentences of scripture for proof texting.  But all in all Anglicanism has never embraced a fundamentalist-evangelical-literalist view of Scripture’s authority.  The present skew in that direction in the WWAC is the result of the latitudinarians leaving the mission field to evangelicals.  Our Bad.  None the less it is not our foundational place.

It is a convenient gloss to say that since you are a Gentile Hebrew laws do not apply to you.  I like that.  That allows us to toss out all of Leviticus, for example.  Paul is more complex and explicitly in Galatians eschews the transformation of the Gospel into a new law.  F-E-L’s seem to ignore that entirely in their rush to find new laws to make in the Gospel and Epistles.  And frankly the whole impulse behind the Ridley Draft and its predecessors is to make law.  There is little difference for me between those who promote hysteria about homosexuality, expressed in loving committed mongamous relationships, and those who promoted it about circumcision. Paul’s wish in Galatians, that they just cut the whole thing off (or castrate themselves in some translations) pretty much speaks for me.  The question it seems to me is, was that God speaking or Paul?

Michael,
I would like to read your blueprint on Hooker.  Where can I find it?

Shawn Strout - 11 May 2009 07:21 AM

Katie and Karen,

I don’t know if either of you have children in your life, either of your own or nieces and nephews or maybe through your parish.  During this past year, I spent a lot of time with the youth at the parish with which I was discerning.  I taught Journey To Adulthood with our younger group, ages 11 - 13.  One of the boys, who was 11 or 12, would come to class and talk about the way he was constantly teased at school for being gay.  So much so that he had thought of taking his own life….already at age 12!!  Yet, at the same time, he would also say that this is how God made him and that God loves him.

Now, the two of you seem to be more interested in sexual intercourse, sexual practices, ceremonial law versus moral law, etc.  I hope you can picture this young man.  He has been to a lot of foster homes and he now has two parents, two men, who have adopted him.  They have extended a love to him that the heterosexual couples in his life before could not extend.  They opened their family to him and through that, he has been able to begin to heal. 

Now, you may choose to believe whatever you wish to believe, but remember that it affects people.  It affects children.  It affects families.  So, if you want to focus on sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex and that’s what’s most important to you, then do so.  If you want to worry about the difference between ceremonial law and moral law, then do so.  But then have the courage to go up to a child like this with the pain that he has felt….have the courage then to go up to him and tell him that his family is evil and sinful.  Because that is what we hear when you go on and on and on about the differences between “practices” and “orientation” or “ceremonial law” and “moral law”.  All we hear is you finding ways to justify calling our families sinful and evil.

The Church is supposed to be engaged in a listening process to hear the stories of gays and lesbians.  I hope you will listen.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,
When you accuse me of calling whole families sinful and evil, you are putting words in my mouth. I have called specific actions sinful. What I would tell a boy who says “I am gay” (if he asked me) is that God does indeed love him, but that the specific desire he feels is a temptation which he should resist, and that God will help him to do so if he asks. I also have to wonder, what is an eleven-year-old doing worrying about his sexual orientation? At that age, I hadn’t even started being curious about sex.

Karen

However, there are many in the deaf community who would recoil at the very thought of being “repaired”.  They do not see their deafness as an impediment but a gift.  Admittedly, that is hard for me to understand because if I were to lose my hearing, it would feel like a great loss to me.

I am very familiar with this argument. I’ve seen the arguments about if parents have the right to have their deaf children treated with cochlear implants, etc. This is why I pick this particular example. If we can’t agree on the asymmetry of hearing and deafness, we will not be able to even begin to speak about sexuality.

Jesus looked at the world and saw the asymmetry. He didn’t let it stop him from reaching out to that world, but he didn’t accept it as given, either. He healed the blind, the deaf, the “disabled;” even the greatest asymmetry of all—he raised the dead!

Michael,

Your faith in human reason is charming.

Michael Russell - 11 May 2009 09:56 AM

 

And I know you sift among the 613 commandments and selectively enforce the ones that agree with your biases, otherwise you would be demanding the death penalty for violations of the first seven commandments as is commanded in Scripture. The fact is that supposed literalists, in my opinion, sift through all the commands to find the ones they like. Indeed Richard Hooker noted the same tendency among the literalists of his own day.

Well, I wouldn’t put it like that. I am reasonably certain, based on the New Testament accounts, and Jesus’ statement that it’s what comes out, not what goes in, that makes one unclean, that the OT dietary laws don’t apply to me as a Gentile believer. There are two commandments—observance of the Sabbath and the prohibition of charging interest—I am quite uncertain about whether they apply to Gentiles, but if I am able to ascertain that they do, I need to repent from the fact that I have not been following them, and begin to do so. (snip)

The first place to look for the distinction among the three is the Articles of Religion, Article VII I think (no BCP handy at the moment).  You will see there the beginning of a hermeneutic approach to Hebrew Scripture.  I would also recommend Bishop Burnet’s “Exposition of the 39 Articles” in which he identifies the moral law as the 10 commandments.

You are correct, it is Article VII. However that article also points to a difference between Ceremonial, Civil and Moral laws, without specifying how to tell which category a particular law falls into. I suppose the Ceremonial ones are those having to do specifically with the temple, sacrifices and priesthood, but I don’t know that for sure. I particularly don’t know how to distinguish between Civil and Moral laws.

Richard Hooker, of course, developed a simple but straightforward hermeneutic for assessing the relevance of scripture for present times.  And he did that in reply to the ultra Calvinists of his own day.  The Preface and Books I and II deal with law and with scripture.  I tend to follow his example. (If you have not read Mr. Hooker I have published a “cliff notes” of the Laws, “Hooker’s Blueprint”)  He was particularly skeptical of the tendency of the extreme Calvinists to seek sentences of scripture for proof texting.  But all in all Anglicanism has never embraced a fundamentalist-evangelical-literalist view of Scripture’s authority.  The present skew in that direction in the WWAC is the result of the latitudinarians leaving the mission field to evangelicals.  Our Bad.  None the less it is not our foundational place.

Are these “Cliff Notes” available online, or is it a book? If so, I will see whether a copy is available.

It is a convenient gloss to say that since you are a Gentile Hebrew laws do not apply to you.  I like that.  That allows us to toss out all of Leviticus, for example.  Paul is more complex and explicitly in Galatians eschews the transformation of the Gospel into a new law.  F-E-L’s seem to ignore that entirely in their rush to find new laws to make in the Gospel and Epistles.  And frankly the whole impulse behind the Ridley Draft and its predecessors is to make law.  There is little difference for me between those who promote hysteria about homosexuality, expressed in loving committed mongamous relationships, and those who promoted it about circumcision. Paul’s wish in Galatians, that they just cut the whole thing off (or castrate themselves in some translations) pretty much speaks for me.  The question it seems to me is, was that God speaking or Paul?

I don’t say wholesale that the OT law doesn’t apply to me as a Gentile believer. I said that the sexual prohibitions do apply, because we were specfically told so by the Jerusalem council. IOW, that continued applicability is part of “the Apostles’ teaching” which we all promise to “continue in” every time anyone gets baptized at our parish. Other OT laws may apply as well, but since I don’t know how to tell Civil from Ceremonial from Moral (unless I was right about the Ceremonial above), I don’t know in each case whether a particular one does or no. Hence my uncertainty about interest and the Sabbath.
Karen

Michael,
I would like to read your blueprint on Hooker.  Where can I find it?

Craig,

  Give me an address and I will send it to you.  It is now $16 + 4 S&H, actually less I think than the Amazon.com prie.

Shawn Strout - 10 May 2009 08:41 PM

Craig Uffman - 10 May 2009 07:14 PM

To be clear, I ask of those who have spoken about homosexual practices:

In response to Shawn’s plea that one look at the relationship as an integrated whole rather than focusing on one particular practice, is it possible to affirm all the other things he described as family except that one practice?  Is that the problem?  Or is it more than that?

Hi Craig,
(snip) [The C of E] have allowed persons to enter same-sex unions as long as they agree that they are celibate in these unions.  Is this really what this is all about?  Does anyone really believe that this defines our relationships?  I’m not suggesting that they are not being honest.  For all I know, they may be completely non-sexual in their relationships.  But would conservatives really be willing to let two men get married or two women get married if we all promised not to have sex?  Absolutely not.  That’s because we know that our relationships are more than sex.

So, again, I say if you are going to call “homosexual practices” evil and sinful, then come to the parishes that I serve in and look into the faces of the children whose parents are in a same-sex relationship and tell them, “Your family is sinful and evil.”  Because it is the very same thing.

In Christ,
Shawn

A household of two men or two women living together, and possibly raising children (as may frequently have happened in the past, with unmarried aunts or uncles raising their orphaned nieces or nephews), would not be morally objectionable so long as the parties were celibate, though I would not call the relationship a marriage.  However, I have enormous doubts about how long any two persons who are sexually attracted to one another, would in fact remain celibate while living in the same house. If a man and woman got married with the intention of being celibate, and later changed their minds and decided to become sexually active, there would be no moral issue. But the same couldn’t be said if two men and two women in a similar situation were to change their minds.

Karen

Charlie Clauss - 11 May 2009 10:08 AM

I am very familiar with this argument. I’ve seen the arguments about if parents have the right to have their deaf children treated with cochlear implants, etc. This is why I pick this particular example. If we can’t agree on the asymmetry of hearing and deafness, we will not be able to even begin to speak about sexuality.

Jesus looked at the world and saw the asymmetry. He didn’t let it stop him from reaching out to that world, but he didn’t accept it as given, either. He healed the blind, the deaf, the “disabled;” even the greatest asymmetry of all—he raised the dead!

Hi Charlie,

Was that the point of the healing miracles?  To rectify “asymmetry”?  Or was it to show the religious leaders of his day that God’s love extends to all of humanity?  In most of the situation, Christ is deliberately healing on the Sabbath as a message to the religious leaders of his day who were insisting upon moral purity as the standard of righteousness.  Christ was showing that through His touch, we are all brought back to full relationship with God.  If it had been his desire to rectify “asymmetry”, then why did He not do mass healings?  Why not simply heal every leper in Israel?  Every lame person?  Every blind person? 

I think you are right that if we cannot agree on this, it will be harder for us to move forward.  You talk about “asymmetry”, and I can only imagine what standard you would use to suggest what is symmetrical and what is asymmetrical.  It would be a culturally contextual standard.

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,
When you accuse me of calling whole families sinful and evil, you are putting words in my mouth. I have called specific actions sinful. What I would tell a boy who says “I am gay” (if he asked me) is that God does indeed love him, but that the specific desire he feels is a temptation which he should resist, and that God will help him to do so if he asks. I also have to wonder, what is an eleven-year-old doing worrying about his sexual orientation? At that age, I hadn’t even started being curious about sex.

Karen

Hi Karen,

Why don’t you try that some time?  Do you know any twelve year olds who are struggling with their sexuality?  Any teens?  Any adults?

And once again, your mind goes right to the sexual act.  Truly, I wonder if conservatives have sex on the brain more than liberals.  This young boy was being accused of being gay because of his mannerisms.  For liking things that are “most boys” don’t like.  For all of the other things that make him “asymmetrical” to his peers…to borrow Charlie’s terminology.  It has nothing to do with sex.  It has to do with his life.

This is the point I am trying to make.  Being gay is not about sex. Its about identity.  Its about how we relate to the world around us.  If you can imagine for one moment waking up and not being heterosexual, you might begin to understand.  Don’t let your imagination just stop at sexual attraction or “sexual practices”.  Imagine it more fully.  Then, maybe you might just begin to a get a glimmer of what it means to be gay or lesbian.

In Christ,
Shawn

Was that the point of the healing miracles?  To rectify “asymmetry”?  Or was it to show the religious leaders of his day that God’s love extends to all of humanity?  In most of the situation, Christ is deliberately healing on the Sabbath as a message to the religious leaders of his day who were insisting upon moral purity as the standard of righteousness.  Christ was showing that through His touch, we are all brought back to full relationship with God.  If it had been his desire to rectify “asymmetry”, then why did He not do mass healings?  Why not simply heal every leper in Israel?  Every lame person?  Every blind person?

Jesus healed for a variety of reasons. My point is that for something to be healed, there needed to be a condition that was not right.

Jesus was the pointy end of God’s mission to redeem the Creation, to rectify the asymmetry at the root. Through his cross, he would ultimately do what you suggest: “mass healing”!

Hi Charlie,

On this we can certainly agree! 

In Christ,
Shawn

Shawn,

I wonder if you can help us out here. Given the fact that participants on this site represent a range of understanding regarding the fact of homosexuality, how we talk about it and the language we use is going to be problematic.

From your perspective, is there acceptable “non-affirming” language that folk with whom you disagree can articulate their understanding so as not to give undo offense but be continue in honest conversation?