I suggested that we use the "tried and true" method of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason (correctly defined) to investigate whether God blesses homosexual unions.
Unfortunately, TEC doesn't seem to be willing to to that. I first became "politically aware" within TEC during the debate on ordaining women. After looking at how the reappraisers (those who wish to change our theology and practice on a number of fronts) do things, I offer the following synopsis of the Reappraiser Method:
- Pick a topic where society (or "our" society) and the Church are at odds (women in leadership, gender neutral language, homosexual sex).
- Start to question the long held practice and faith of the Church
- Since there are now those who question this aspect of the practice (minimize questioning the faith) of the Church, we are no longer of one mind on the issue.
- Since we are no longer of one mind on the issue, we should be free to explore alternative views (minimize practice here)
- We've explored many alternative views and believe that we should be free to, provisionally, allow for the practice of "x" (ordaining women, using inclusive language, blessing same sex unions). If the Church objects, do it anyway and dare the Church to discipline you.
- If the Church fails to discipline you, continue to do what you are doing.
- Point out that we, as Anglicans, believe that how we pray influences how we believe.
- Since we (or a large number of us) are now praying "X" it is an authentic expression of the Faith of the Church.
- Call those who will not go along with the innovation you propose "bigots" and point out that they are "old fashion" and not "keeping up with current thought." Minimize them and their influence.
- Legalize the desired change in the canons.
- Make the old practice (male only ordination) illegal in the Church.
- Go back to step 1
Right now, womens' ordination has completed all eleven cycles. "Inclusive language" is somewhere in step 10. Blessing same sex unions (and ordaining those involved in such) is somewhere in step 9 and will probably reach 10 at the next General Convention.
This is NOT reflecting on scripture. tradition, and reason before acting. This is acting first and then getting political support for your actions prior to doing the required reflection and getting the Church to buy into what you are selling.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
12 comments:
And just to get the other side of the story on record, I'll point out what "reasserters" do:
1. Josef Ratzinger, 1986:
"Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."
2. Josef Ratzinger, 2005:
"[The Instruction Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies] says the church "may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture. The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women.""2. Pope John Paul II, 2005:
"ROME (Reuters) - Homosexual marriages are part of "a new ideology of evil" that is insidiously threatening society, Pope John Paul says in a new book published Tuesday. In "Memory and Identity," the Pope also calls abortion a "legal extermination" comparable to attempts to wipe out Jews and other groups in the 20th century."
3. Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, 2005:
"Asked about allowing same sex couples to adopt children, the Cardinal answered, "This would destroy the child's future, it would be an act of moral violence against the child."and, speaking of gay marriage:
"Cardinal Trujillo also spoke of conscientious objection. "This means a person can use his or her right to object out of conscience and refuse to comply with this crime which represents the destruction of the world." "
3. From the NYT, 2007:
"A poisonous piece of legislation is quickly making its way through the Nigerian National Assembly. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Chillingly, the legislation — proposed last year by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo — has the full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria’s powerful Anglican church. Unless the international community speaks out quickly and forcefully against the bill, it is almost certain to become law."
4. From MCJ, 2009:
"Face it, my conservative brothers and sisters still in TEC. You are no more the legitimate representatives of TEC. A sodomite in a clown costume is."
Wait, we're not done!
5. From the NYT, 2007:
"A poisonous piece of legislation is quickly making its way through the Nigerian National Assembly. Billed as an anti-gay-marriage act, it is a far-reaching assault on basic rights of association, assembly and expression. Chillingly, the legislation — proposed last year by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo — has the full and enthusiastic support of the leader of Nigeria’s powerful Anglican church. Unless the international community speaks out quickly and forcefully against the bill, it is almost certain to become law."
6. From MCJ, 2009:
"Face it, my conservative brothers and sisters still in TEC. You are no more the legitimate representatives of TEC. A sodomite in a clown costume is."
7. The Anglican Church of Nigeria, 2009:
"the fellowship of Christian patriots in collaboration with Christian association of Nigeria (CAN) and the church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) flagged off the service of stand up for Jesus Festival of praise and thanksgiving held at the National Christian Centre Abuja on Saturday.
It brought to the fore the war against homosexualism, lesbianism and same sex marriage being waged by the church lead by the primate of all Nigeria Anglican communion Most Rev Peter Akinola,"
and
"Rev. Father George Ehusani, a former Treasurer of CAN said homosexuality as inherently disordered and that as far as Christian Religion is concerned it is a CRIME because instead of promoting the family it destroys it. He said Christians and Pastoral leaders have the primary responsibility of leading Homos from hell to heaven and bring them to sanity.
....
"While rounding up the programme, the Primate of all Nigeria, Anglican Communion, The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola said the Homosexual problem is not peculiar to Anglicans or Christians alone, according to him, it is a global human problem, he said all hands should be on deck to teach and sensitize people on what evil same-sex union has brought to mankind.""
(So is this "reflecting on scripture. tradition, and reason," then?
Inquiring minds want to know! And they also want to know exactly how anybody can "discern" anything with people who are convinced of their opponents' "moral evil" at the start?)
bls, you are playing smoke and mirrors by highlighting tendentious or sarcastic quotes. The tone with which an argument is made is a Biblical issue, so your criticism of sarcasm or hyperbole aimed at LGBT is fine, but...
The view of LGBT behavior as a deviation from God's plan is the starting place, because Scripture, tradition and reasoned reflection support it.
Look, I have an autistic son. At some point in church history, he would have been seen as "demon possessed." So reflection continues, but not apart from Scripture and tradition. But "science" proves very little at this point - the research is so hopelessly polluted by ideology that it is hard to get a clear read on LGBT, at least not clear enough to overthrow Scripture and tradition in the life of the church.
I would agree with you that there are problems with the argument that "Gays are destroying marriage," when it is really our winking at serial divorce among "straights" that has done the harm. So there is stuff of which critics of LGBT need to repent.
But that repentance does not extend to overthrowing the Biblical exposition of marriage, which, apart from anything written about LGBT, makes an affirmative case for male-female marriage. And Jesus is not "silent" on that - he quotes Genesis to defend it.
BLS,
If you want to cherry pick quotes, we can play that game, but I think it would be more telling what some of the more millitant activists said.
I am talking about the method that many use to get their agenda passed. Open a debate and then use the debate to put "facts on the ground" in support of your position. It happened with women's ordination, with "inclusinve language" and with blessing same sex unions.
What we need to do is to discern things before we act and that discernment should be as wide as possible - particularaly when the rest of the Church asks us not to go forward.
Acting before we reach agreement is not what Christians do. It is what Activists do.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I don't think you guys understand that this is and has been the church's general attitude towards gay people. I could find literally thousands more quotes along these lines; they're not out of the ordinary at all. So I ask again: do you really believe that anybody who speaks like that actually intends to "reflect" about anything?
And no, Christians don't always wait until they "reach agreement" before acting; there have been hundreds of schisms which show this is decidedly not the case - and even in cases where schism didn't occur, Christians have gone their own way on many issues. Quakers don't have Sacraments; Protestants (mostly) don't pray to Saints; some denominations forbid alcohol; etc.
And Phil, you seem not to understand my point: that your claim about "what reappraisers" do (although now I see that you've amended it with the word "many," which just goes to prove my point) can be matched up exactly with the kind of laundry list I just laid out. (And I wouldn't even say "many," as you do, BTW. "Activists" of the kind you describe are in no way even a large minority in TEC. You're speaking in unsupported generalities, and your own credibility suffers.)
OK. Let's get down to brass tacks. These are the facts:
1. The Church catholic has always held that homosexual sex is sinful. There has never been any teaching or decree from the Church saying otherwise.
2. There is a small group of Christians who wish to get the Church to say that homosexual sex is blessed in some contexts.
3. This group argued for their positions for decades, but each time the question was brought up at General Convention in TEC, the answer was that we should not bless homosexual unions or ordain practicing homosexuals.
4. Tired of not being able to convince the Church they were right, many clergy activists started blessing homosexual unions and some bishops started ordaining practicing homosexuals - against Church teaching.
People have spoken badly about homosexual people because of the sin of homosexual sex. But that still does not give people who are trying to change the moral teaching of the Church (which they vowed to uphold) the right to change it "because some people dissed us." Two wrongs never make a right.
It is not the discussion that I find distasteful or wrong. It is the action in contravention of received teaching that I find to be sinful. (This also applies to the reasserters who have left TEC to join other parts of the Anglican Communion.)
What I am sketching here is not an attitude, but the method I see. Push and push and push. It is interesting that I used to be considered something of a liberal because I favored the ordination of women. My views on the ordination of women and on the ordination of practicing homosexuals has not changed. But now I am considered (by many) to be on the extreme right wing of the Church! I have not changed, the Church has changed. It has alienated those more conservative that I and embraced those who were more liberal than the liberals of the 70s and 80s and it has done so using the method I laid out in this post. That is my point.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
"But that still does not give people who are trying to change the moral teaching of the Church (which they vowed to uphold) the right to change it "because some people dissed us." Two wrongs never make a right."
Well, I'm not saying that, either. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that "reappraisers" were and are not living up to their part of the bargain.
And as you'll note in my other post - Church teaching is, in fact, changing on this topic, as it has changed on many other topics. And it isn't just "activists"; it's the Episcopal Church's official position. Again:
"....we reaffirm Resolution D039 of the 73rd General Convention (2000), that "We expect such relationships will be characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God," and that such relationships exist throughout the church."
You disagree, which is fine. I disagree with things that the Episcopal Church, does, too. But that doesn't make either of us right - or the church, either. As Article XIX says plainly, "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith."
Sorry, I meant that "'reasserters' were and are not living up to their part of the bargain."
These terms are so tiring to work with....
It seems that you acknowledge that TEC has changed the teaching (or is changing the teaching) of the Church regarding sexuality. I've been saddened by the actions of some reasserters who have violated catholic order to defend catholic teaching. I believe that to be the wrong tactic.
The people who are changing the teaching of the Church are acting against the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." (vows for the ordination of priest and deacon), emphasis mine.
My point is that they acted on their new understanding before the teaching of the Church was changed. That is the reappraiser method - to act before discernment.
So, if General Convention has the authority to change the teaching of the Church on sexuality (an assertion I deny), can it change the teaching on the Resurrection, the Trinity or on the Incarnation? It seems that many priests and bishops think that they, themselves, have the authority to change the teaching of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
"It seems that you acknowledge that TEC has changed the teaching (or is changing the teaching) of the Church regarding sexuality. I've been saddened by the actions of some reasserters who have violated catholic order to defend catholic teaching. I believe that to be the wrong tactic.
The people who are changing the teaching of the Church are acting against the "doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them." (vows for the ordination of priest and deacon), emphasis mine.
My point is that they acted on their new understanding before the teaching of the Church was changed. That is the reappraiser method - to act before discernment."
I'm not following this; you seem to be arguing both that "TEC has changed the teaching of the Church" and, in the third paragraph, that "they acted on their new understanding before the teaching of the Church was changed."
It's got to be one or the other; either the Church has changed the teaching or it hasn't. And if they are changing the teaching, then obviously the doctrine/discipline changes with it. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in our Church; we don't claim infallibility. We changed the teaching on Women's Ordination, too - something you say you support. But how can you, if you think the "doctrine, discipline, and worship" has always to remain the same?
I agree that core doctrine should remain the same, BTW; the issue of same-sex partnerships, however, is not in any sense "core doctrine."
And once again: if you don't want to be referred to in the same breath with the "reasserters" I've mentioned above - and clearly you don't - please stop generalizing about "the reappraiser method." It's becoming very annoying.
Post a Comment