One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

Supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians in The United Methodist Church drape the central table in black cloth during a demonstration on the floor of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference

Was perusing Lectionary Homiletics for December as part of my weekly sermon preparation. Noticed how many contributions are from Ed McNulty. Wonder who that is? Do a search. Come across a website that might tell me more. Turns out to be the blog of a very liberal Presbyterian minister who serves a congregation in a town located in northeast Tennessee. Hey wait a minute. I recognize that town. That’s where my wife was born and grew up! And we even visited that church once around Christmas. Even then recall we thought it was a good and interesting experience but we probably would not go back next time we were in town.

Took a few minutes to look over this pastor’s blog. Curious about where he comes from. What his basic views are.

Look – I went to Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond which is across the street from Union Theological Seminary / Presbyterian School of Christian Education. Cross-registered and took several classes at the historic Presbyterian seminary. Regularly attended their chapel services. Had plenty of Presbyterian friends. Yeah many of them were pretty liberal.

They had nothing on this guy in Tennessee. Compared to him they are staunch traditionalists.

The point is not to knock this active and passionate Presbyterian pastor who happens to serve in my wife’s home town. Just giving some background.

Among his other big causes – which include 9/11 trutherism for which I have little respect or patience along with Peak Oil an issue with which I do have some sympathy – is equality in the Christian church for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender(?) persons. Fair enough. That is his prerogative.

(In this post I will not specify his name or congregation or URL of his blog. Not out of contempt or disrespect. But because this is not personal - this is not about him but about something he wrote and what it represents. Plus this is one of those times where I would rather not invite conflict.)

Among other things he shares his response to a questionnaire regarding Amendment 10A which has something to do with changing the rules about ordination to Christian ministry in the P(resbyterian)C(hurch)-USA:

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? That question fosters co-dependence and bullying. We need to treat people like adults and expect adult behavior. If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy. Some even have been defrocked. You do the right thing and let the chips fall. I think once the church passes 10a we will become stronger. We certainly will be more in the spirit of Jesus.

This response is the one that jumped out at me the most. Try to follow the reasoning and then I will address the larger implications.

1. People say they will leave if we make this change? That is a form of co-dependence and bullying.

There is some truth to this. People at University Baptist Church occasionally play the “don’t do this or I will leave” card and it can be a form of emotional blackmail. Although this is a difference between “don’t make this change in the time and style of Sunday morning worship” and “don’t make this change in whether or not we ordain people in same-sex relationships to the Christian ministry”.

2. If people really have that much of a problem with this change then they will leave. No one is forcing them to stay or go.

Well that is not entirely true is it? If you belong to an institution or organization because of what it stands for and it makes what you regard as a fundamental change that you believe turns its entire purpose upside down then there is a sense in which yes you are being forced to leave because to stay is a violation of your conscience yes? How many liberals or rather leftists said they would leave the United States if George Bush was re-elected president? Gee why did they say that? Were they being forced to leave? In one sense no – no one was putting a gun to their head. But in other sense yes – because to them it means “I can no longer in good conscience remain a citizen of this nation”. How can someone who presents himself as so liberal and open-minded and understanding and all that good stuff not understand something so basic? That people are forced to leave because to stay represents a violation of their basic convictions? And this pastor cannot say “oh come now that’s no violation of your Christian convictions” because whether that is so or not is not the point. The point is how these persons and congregations view the proposed change.

This above is the most significant part of this pastor’s argument and we will return to it.

3. So we lose some people and churches. Yeah but have we not lost people and churches because of the current policy?

Well first of all consider the Episcopal Church. Have they lost more or gained more what with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop? Are same-sex couples suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to be baptized? Are people who think same-sex relationships are morally neutral suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to become members? No? Yeah sure a few people are attracted to liberal churches and liberal denominations. But far more leave and/or never seek to join because they are either repulsed or just plain uninterested.

And while we are at it just how many people and churches have they lost because of the current policy? Care to throw out a number with some hard evidence behind it? Or is he just blowing rhetorical smoke?

But that is a weak argument. Ultimately one should do something because it is right not because it is popular. This pastor is aware of that. Well – sometimes. In fact he plays both the we’ll gain more than we lose and the we just need to do the right thing cards in the same paragraph.

We do have to grant one point. If by we’ll be stronger he means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will no longer be conflicted because of this issue then yes that is probably correct. After the dust settles and many people and churches leave then yes they will have tremendous unity on this otherwise divisive issue. They will be known for their stand and people will join them or not.

Now back to that very significant statement If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy.

This is the painfully obvious point and question.

If the church stands for something that goes against their conscience and convictions and therefore people will be free to leave… and the church currently stands for something that they think is fundamentally wrong… then why don’t they leave?

Why do you seek to radically change this organization/institution to suit your convictions? Why not join some other organization/institution? Why not form your own?

If you do not care for the terms of your marital relationship why does the other person have to leave and you get to keep the house?

Ah… perhaps therein lies the answer.

It is easier to take something that someone else created – not to deny that you may have helped along the way – and change it. That it is to create something new and different that reflects your desires.

See – generations of Presbyterians have lived and given and served and died to help create this denomination. Because of what it stands for. And if change it such that these people think it is radically different – no longer traditional biblical Presbyterian Christianity – then that bothers them very much indeed. They do not want to give up what they built – and yes I recognize that liberals in some sense helped build this house and we can debate the difference that makes or not – to people who want to change it into something they regard as fundamentally different in character and purpose.

But the liberals want to take over change the denomination – and it is about much much more than same-sex relationships and one only has to read this pastor’s blog to recognize that the issue of same-sex relationships is the tip of a much larger theological and ideological iceberg – in ways that traditionalists cannot endure and say oh well no one’s forcing you to stay. So the traditionalists what? give up the churches and seminaries they helped to build? the organizations into which they poured their lives?

They have to leave the house and either move into some other house or starting building a new one from scratch.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the Episcopal Church once again. When Episcopal parishes say “we cannot live with the leadership and directions of this national church” they are not allowed to keep the buildings which they built and paid for (mostly or entirely – yes I am aware of how dioceses play a role in building up parishes). To the victors go the spoils. The losers have to start again.

So why don’t liberal Presbyterians just leave and form their own new denomination? Heck one can even let liberal Presbyterian congregations keep their facilities. Heck we can even let them keep a seminary or two. If they can keep them running.

No – what we see is these innovators would rather take over and co-opt something and change it to be more in line with their point(s) of view.

Melkor did not create the orcs. He could only take what Iluvatar created – men and elves – and change them into orcs. Melkor was not able to create anything original of his own.

Parasites do not produce or create so much as they co-opt other life for their own purposes. No I am not calling liberal Christians parasites. But I will dare suggest that this “we will start doing things you did not imagine when we first got married but you have to leave and we keep the house” attitude is a form of parasitism.

Honesty compels one to suggest some counterarguments.

a. We are not trying to turn our denomination into something different. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. (Diana Butler Bass makes this argument explicitly – although inconsistently because she often appeals to changes in current social and cultural attitudes.)

One must then ask “at what point in the history of the Presbyterian church did a majority of Presbyterian Christians hold these views on Christian faith and practice?”

b. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. You are the ones who have been taking our denomination in a new and wrong direction.

This sounds like the same argument as #a and perhaps it is but it relates to the fundamentalist takeover / conservative resurgence (depends on one’s point of view) in the Southern Baptist Convention. See – liberals are not the only ones who attempt to radically change something. My intent is not to bash the Southern Baptist Convention nor to defame evangelical/conservative friends and brethren. In fact I have started to identify again – partly – with Southern Baptists over the last few years. My goal is to understand their point of view. Moderate Baptists believed that the conservative movement of the 1980′s that was pretty much accomplished by 1990 represented a departure from historic Baptist Christianity. Obviously more conservative Southern Baptists do not see it that way. They believed liberal-moderate denominational leaders and seminary professors were the ones who were beginning to drag the denomination in a wrong direction.

One important difference is that the Southern Baptist Convention by definition could not take buildings and facilities away from more moderate Baptist congregations. Oh we can complain about professors losing their jobs and takeover and radical transformation of denominational institutions and structures. And as a matter of fact moderate Baptists to a large extent did end up having to create something new pretty much from scratch. I know. I went to one such seminary and most of my professors had been forced or pressured into leaving their positions at Southern Baptist seminaries.

(While we are it at surely the reverse is also true – that some conservative Baptists have felt compelled to leave a moderate Baptist congregation.)

But let me reiterate what I think is a key point and a compelling question.

Why do people who represent a minority viewpoint seek to transform an organization/institution/denomination so that it is more in line with their distinct convictions – rather than just leave and start their own?

In fairness I must acknowledge that there may very well be – indeed I assume that there is – a good answer to that question. But I have not figured it out yet.

Funny how everything works together.

I was mildly annoyed when 3 teenagers who attend Church of the Nations said they needed me to take them home in the church bus – which had left 10 minutes earlier. Sigh. Which meant not being able to give a report during deacon’s meeting. I was not planning to go to deacon’s meeting but apparent our deacon representative had not been receiving our regular emails. Argh.

Got back in time. Gave report. Left meeting early about 2:00 p.m.

If all of that had not happened I would not have heard what may be the single best discussion of the nature of sin I have ever heard. Although I listen to Ancient Faith Radio I have never listened to Steve the Builder. He was ostensibly discussing homosexuality – but the podcast is not only about that and that is not where I think its value primarily lies.

The Christian faith does not give us a definitive answer in the “nature/nurture” debate on any human frailty. Genetically caused disabilities are as much a trait of the fallen world as weaknesses visited upon us by lack of nurture and love. The issue for the Christian is the fact that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). What is the “glory of God”? It is living in perfect love and communion with God and other human beings.

But we don’t live in perfect love; we are born into corruption, futility, and death. We are conceived by fallen flesh and born into a fallen world. We are dealt a set of fallen DNA from conception. The moment we leave the womb, we are placed in the arms of a broken person, then taken home to a place where broken people are working out their salvation with fear and trembling at best, or with no fear of God at worst. From our first interactions, we are mishandled, neglected, and broken in ways we did not choose and often cannot consciously identify. The sins of the fathers are visited upon the following generations, not as punishment but as inevitable consequence. We are all broken.

I do not like telling people “go do this or read that” because I believe so strongly in (a) human freedom and (b) the authority of the Holy Spirit. But on this occasion please take the time to listen to this podcast or at least read through the transcript.

Addendum: In the interest of fairness let me share that my friend Joshua (theologically conservative and politically liberal) did not care for the piece much at all. If I may summarize (which means I am not doing full justice to his critique) (1) it fails to distinguish sin-as-condition from sin-as-acts (2) what was sin in 1st century might not be sin for us today (3) it sounds paternalistic (4) its understanding of people (who want to be) in same-sex relationships is skewed and limited.

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been to Binghamton many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait the rector’s wife was associate pastor so guess maybe they do. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in positions of religious leadership and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

I stand corrected. Very corrected.

Several weeks ago I wrote a short post expressing appreciation for gay conservatives. What I did not write but was thinking was “so why can one find gay conservatives but apparently not conservative lesbians?”

Well – thank goodness for the Gay Patriot who demonstrated my ignorance. He directs our attention to a post on the blog of Cynthia Yockey a “newly conservative lesbian”. She has a sharp mind and is a strong dynamic writer. Good stuff. And I love the graphic she uses in her header – although I have been spectacularly unable to show it here.

Intellectual honesty and courage.
Pass It Along.

This may surprise some people.

I am becoming increasingly aware of gay conservatives – and frankly I appreciate them. Not entirely easy to articulate exactly why.

I first noticed Charles Winecoff via Big Hollywood. Excellent articles. Intelligent. Rational. Willing to expose question and critique the rhetoric and behavior of liberalism in general and the gay community in particular. Interestingly most of the “rabid right wing conservatives” who respond to his writings leave comments that are grateful and respectful.

(Charles graciously added me as a friend on Facebook. Thank you! His recent and powerful article on “Bigotry of the Obamatrons” has strangely disappeared and I have contacted Big Hollywood to find out why.)

I had previous regarded “gay Republicans” with some suspicion. Stealth Democrats trying to undermine the Republican party from within? But despite the pressure they must feel from more socially conservative Republicans nevertheless they persist in defending core Republican/conservative principles and in criticizing the leftist-statist policies of the Obama Administration.

There will be legitimate(?) disagreements between social-religious conservatives and political-economic conservatives. (And of course there are many who are socially-religiously as well as politically-economically conservative.) What about elective abortion and same-sex marriage? Frankly I do not support these. But with the election of President Obama and the ascendancy of the Democrat controlled Congress the stakes have become too high.

Freedom is at stake. Prosperity is at stake. Security is at stake. The future of our nation is at stake.

Others may disagree with me and that is fine – but I am willing to set aside the social issues in order to unite around political-economic issues. Which means we need to include and even embrace gay conservatives as much as possible. Even if we continue to “agree to disagree” on at least some social issues.

(For the record I think the Log Cabin Republicans are wrong about the marriage amendment in California. And extremely wrong about “hate crimes” legislation. Which is why I am more sympathetic to the newly formed organization GoProud. Their contact and former Log Cabin political director Christopher Barron said,

Essentially, there’s no voice for gay Republicans or gay conservatives in particular in D.C. right now. Log Cabin has been completely and totally absent here in D.C. for months and months. It has simply moved way too far to the left and is basically indistinguishable from any other gay left organization.

Visit also Gay Patriot when you have a chance. Solid stuff.)

By the way – why does it seem there are no lesbian conservatives?