I read these words from Spong (h/t nakedpastor) and I love him even more for them. At the end he calls for people to join him in giving up on dialogue and embracing equality for homosexual people in the church. I'm not there yet. I still need to work through the church. I still need to engage in the dialogues, but I do feel quite envious of his stance. Here is the beginning of his manifesto:
I have made a decision. I will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone. I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility. I will no longer discuss with them or listen to them tell me how homosexuality is "an abomination to God," about how homosexuality is a "chosen lifestyle," or about how through prayer and "spiritual counseling" homosexual persons can be "cured." Those arguments are no longer worthy of my time or energy.
I will no longer dignify by listening to the thoughts of those who advocate "reparative therapy," as if homosexual persons are somehow broken and need to be repaired. I will no longer talk to those who believe that the unity of the church can or should be achieved by rejecting the presence of, or at least at the expense of, gay and lesbian people. I will no longer take the time to refute the unlearned and undocumentable claims of certain world religious leaders who call homosexuality "deviant." I will no longer listen to that pious sentimentality that certain Christian leaders continue to employ, which suggests some version of that strange and overtly dishonest phrase that "we love the sinner but hate the sin." That statement is, I have concluded, nothing more than a self-serving lie designed to cover the fact that these people hate homosexual persons and fear homosexuality itself, but somehow know that hatred is incompatible with the Christ they claim to profess, so they adopt this face-saving and absolutely false statement.
I will no longer temper my understanding of truth in order to pretend that I have even a tiny smidgen of respect for the appalling negativity that continues to emanate from religious circles where the church has for centuries conveniently perfumed its ongoing prejudices against blacks, Jews, women and homosexual persons with what it assumes is "high-sounding, pious rhetoric." The day for that mentality has quite simply come to an end for me. I will personally neither tolerate it nor listen to it any longer. The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves. I will no longer seek to slow down the witness to inclusiveness by pretending that there is some middle ground between prejudice and oppression. There isn't. Justice postponed is justice denied. That can be a resting place no longer for anyone. An old civil rights song proclaimed that the only choice awaiting those who cannot adjust to a new understanding was to "Roll on over or we'll roll on over you!" Time waits for no one.
26 comments:
Good for Spong. Now, how about applying this level of common sense to all theology.
I thought it seemed rather harsh intitially - but on reflection I think he is right. Whether we are quite ready to go this far on gender and sexuality issues in the CofE I'm not sure. There is still the Anglican concept of 'gracious presumption' to contend with - but on the other hand tolerating intolerance is, in the end, self-defeating.
Emotionally being rather fearful of conflict I'm still more likely to think one thing (ie agree with Spong) but do the other (ie not follow it through in practice) - which in the end is hypocrisy, isn't it? Makes me feel rather ashamed as it's not me paying the price of prejudice.
Hi Drew_Mac
Thank-you for your thoughtful comment. I am afraid that I find myself in much the same place. In fairness, though, I think perhaps Spong has tried for many, many years through argument, and I sense he has come to the end of his tether with it.
Someone tweeted this to me:
That sounds like a cop-out to me. Justice & equality demand that we strive to help others realise God's all inclusive love.
I think perhaps whilst we can know Spong is right, do we have to give up on dialogue?
L
I find it very hard to love Spong for these words. In fact I find them intensely depressing. I can understand how difficult it sometimes is to feel you are hitting your head against a brick wall, but it means he has given up on his brothers and sisters in Christ (like me) who may not share his views. On this issue I find myself between a rock and a hard place. To me scripture still has authority, though I would by no means regard myself as a fundamentalist nor even a conservative evangelical. but I descovered that, if scratched, the evangelical part still shows. In spite of serious attempts to get to grips with the issue at college, I found it impossible to understand the Bible in the way some others would wish me to. I do NOT "hate gay people" (pace Spong) nor do I hold many of the views he ascribes to "Right-wing" Christians, but I still have issues, and if Spong is successful in persuading others not to engage in dialogue, then it is hard to see how ANY semblance of Christian unity can be maintained.
Hi Revsimmy,
Sorry that this depresses you. I would be very interested if you could explain where you feel the Bible is against homosexuality. I have found that when I look properly at the scriptures it seems to be about temple prostitution - do you not feel that is true? Also, as loving homosexual pairings weren't socially possible, and the only opportunity was casual homosexual sex, would we expect the Bible to say anything about our current dilemmas?
What do you feel about these?
http://epistle.us/hbarticles/clobber1.html
http://www.sisterfriends-together.org/the-bible-and-homosexuality/
Part of me wishes I could pull that off, but I know if I did, those who emphatically disagree with me would never come with me down that road of faith and I will have only caused more hurt.
Where did you get that prayer in the sidebar? I'd love to put that on my blog as well, but I'd also like to properly cite its source.
An alternative approach:
http://www.ep.tc/problems/38/cvr.html
I don't think it is about 'giving up' on anyone. I'm happy to engage in mutual and respectful dialogue with anyone else - on that I think Spong is still wrong. Yet in the end the price of such dialogue cannot be having a church which continues to treat its female and GBLT with inequity and injustice.
I think there are limits to tolerance (not love) simply because ultimately intolerance destroys the tolerance it is offered. If all we are doing is talking then we can 'agree to differ' but once we are considering actions and behaviour then we must chose. Issues of gender and sexuality are not merely talking points. They involve behaviour and they are matters of justice as well as free speech.
Eigthsacrament - here is the link
Hi Ron,
Yeah, that is too painful to be funny!
Drew_Mac
I am completely with you.. I think we have to act in accordance with justice. Have you seen Bishop Alan's blog today?
Lesley. Thank you for your comments and questions. The links you provide rehearse pretty much the scriptural interpretations I looked at when I did the study around 12 years ago. At that time I found the exegesis of the Leviticus, Romans and 1 Corinthians passages unconvincing, and still do. I concede that the Sodom narrative is more to do with the violence of the gang-rape, to say nothing of the infringement on hospitality. But I remain unconvinced that other passages are specifically to do with cultic prostitution.
The argument that is often advanced that Jesus said and taught nothing about the subject (and that this silence implies indifference on the subject) I would suggest could argue precisely the opposite, that is that it was NOT a controversial subject between Jesus and his various audiences because they agreed on the prohibition (on behaviour) in Leviticus and elsewhere. Jesus does, however, derive theological (and anthropological) points concerning marriage from the Genesis 1 & 2 narratives.
Drew. I agree that this is all about behaviour. What depresses me about Spong is that he (unlike you) HAS, I believe, given up on others. He doesn't want any conversation with those who disagree with him (rather like Daniel Dennett, in Lesley's earlier post, who refuses to engage with those who hold religious faith). He believes they have nothing of any worth to say to him, nor he to them.
I wish these texts were not used and perceived as "clobber" texts. There is quite a large part of me that wishes I could find the more liberal exegeses of these texts more convincing. But I'm not there. I struggle between the acknowledgement that this is NOT simply an academic discussion, that it involves real people and their lives (and I hope that doesn't sound patronising - it's not meant to be); and the fact that I still take scripture to have authority in moral and ethical matters. Help!
For the record, when I did the study my tutor accused my conclusions of bottling out of the lines of argument I made in the rest of the assignment. Perhaps they were right.
Hi Revsimmy,
Thanks for your comments. There are two things that confuse me about those like yourself who genuinely seek to find a loving solution to this dilemma, perhaps you could answer them...
The first is this. Let us put to one side for a moment the scriptures and whether their interpretation can say that homosexuality is ok or not, and take a step back....
Do you think that the scriptures would say that heterosexual sex is ok outside marriage? I'm guessing no. So if the scriptures say that homosexual sex is wrong, isn't that what we would expect? After all there was no provision for homosexual marriage at that time, and in that culture. So can we really search the scriptures that were written 2000 years ago and answer a question that has only been possible to ask in the last few decades. ie the question is whether homosexual marriage is ok..?
Secondly, it seems clear to me that although Jesus based his ethics partly on scripture, he also relied heavily on results and motives.. should we not do the same? I wrote a bit about this here
Well Lesley, your last comment here ruined a perfectly good "day off" (whatever that is) 'cos I spent it with this issue whizzing around in the back of my mind. And here I am trying to frame my response to you in the middle of the night :) So here goes...
You guess right about my interpretation re sex outside marriage, of course. This brings us to the issue of how we define marriage, which for me comes back to Genesis 1 and the use Jesus makes of it in Matthew 19 when he discusses marriage and divorce. Here, I'm afraid, the contra-argument used at http://www.sisterfriends-together.org/adam-and-eve-and-steve-genesis/ doesn't really come near hitting the mark, for the following reasons.
Genesis 1:27 makes an important statement that "God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." For me, that suggests that it is (only) in the complementarity of male and female that the image of God can be fully seen in humankind. It resists the notion that God is male (even though you might think so to hear some people talk). It also helps me resist the notion of some traditionalists (especially on the Catholic end of the spectrum) that the maleness of Jesus is essential rather than incidental when it comes to the issues about women as priests and bishops and the "representation of Christ at the altar".
Jesus' words in Matthew 19:4-6, where he quotes Genesis 1:27, imply to me that he understood God's intention in marriage was to reflect his nature in the complementarity of male and female. Of course, being fallen human beings we often fall far short of this and we are all totally reliant on the grace of God. Nevertheless, you may be able to see why I find it difficult to see "homosexual marriage" as truly marriage in the above sense.
You may find it ironic, as I do, that the very texts that have most helped me come down firmly on one side of the women's ordination debate have actually made it much more difficult for me to accept the non-conservative stance on the sexuality issue.
With regard to your second point: Jesus was most definitely concerned with underlying motives and with end results. But to me, Jesus always seems to have taken scripture as his starting point for ethical thinking. This is perhaps not surprising, since this was common ground with his audience. Where Jesus parted company with many of his opponents was with the interpretation and application of that scripture, opting for the humane and loving path rather than using it as a club or a marker. But I don't anywhere see Jesus ignoring scripture, even when he points beyond it to himself, as he often does in John's Gospel. I think, though, that use of scripture in ethics is a whole other conversation.
Well, Lesley, here are some thoughts and struggles of a recovering conservative evangelical. I hope it hasn't rambled too much and that it helps you see where I am coming from. Thank you, as always, for some stimulating conversation.
"I think, though, that use of scripture in ethics is a whole other conversation." - Well, I agree with that. How about no use. It's astonishing that you can base your opinion of the personal sexual interests of your fellow humans on this woolly interpretation of writings from an ancient superstitious society that had a quite different view of sexuality. If you, today, think you can infer what they meant from what they didn't say, then you are doing no better than simply making stuff up that fits your own personal feelings.
This is theology. And Lesely, you wonder why Dennett doesn't pay it much respect?
Hi Revsimmy
Sorry to keep you up. I'll reply later...
Hi Ron,
Revsimmy is one of the good guys, so chill. He has found amazing riches and benefits through scripture that have transformed his life (odd as that my be). The scriptures, even to a nasty sceptic like me, have healing powers - perhaps because they have some good humanist psychology in them, or perhaps because they are God breathed. Either way, if you experience that you become disinclined to throw away the bits you don't like or don't understand, because at some point those bits may be enlightening on your journey.
This isn't my approach, but I respect it, as I respect your approach. It isn't (in my opinion) mainstream academic theology and not the sort that I am suggesting that Dennett considers. Although, I would hope he as a philosopher would be able to appreciate that this is simply another philosophical stance.
L
x
Dennett does consider it a philosophical stance. But one he thinks is flawed, and so he criticises it as he would any philosophical opinion he disagrees with. This is unfortunate for theists who are sensitive and hold their view in such high regard that it has some special privileged, or think it shouldn't be robustly criticised, or are offended when it is. But we can only butter up a disagreements so much without them being misunderstood as tacit agreement. And this I see as one of the problems of the CoE - so concerned with unity, and 'being nice', both laudable, but sometimes misplaced when robust language and an immunity to being offended is more helpful. And personally, as will come as no surprise to you, I have difficulty being concise and understood as it is; it really wouldn't do for me to mince my words.
In fact I'd agree with a quote on revsimmy's blog from Bishop Alan, "A theologically based point of view cannot be validated merely because it uses God-talk and Scripture, appeals to conventional understanding from former ages, or is passionately and sincerely held.", and with much of all of that post of revsimmy's. I simply go one step further and say that scripture isn't a good guide for interpreting sexual relations at all; and I still remain astonished that people think it can be.
Revsimmy - apologies for talking about you in the third person, but I was answering Lesley's points. By all means come back at me. Your blog looks interesting and look forward to reading more.
Hi Revsimmy
I think that Genesis is merely noting that we are male and female. I don't think it is insisting that we have to have sex with each other, otherwise you would have to treat singleness in the same way as homosexuality.
As for the texts where Jesus is asked for divorce, I believe he is advocating equality. If the man divorced his woman then she had no means of supporting herself. I think he is emphasising that they should recognise that male and female were both created by God (perhaps rather than emphasising the 'helper' bit or the coming from a rib bit or the man naming woman bit). And that they should not be heard hearted and turn the women out. This is particularly evident in Mark 10:11-12 where Jesus makes two nonsensical statements. In the first he refers to a man committing adultery against a woman. This was not possible - eg if a married man had sex with an unmarried woman, the wrong was done to her father and not to his wife. In the second statement he refers to a woman divorcing her man. Again impossible. This leads me to think that the scripture you quote in Matthew had everything to do with equality and nothing to do with the nature of marriage.
I think legalism is the danger with elevating rules over motives and results. As shown in the Pharisees and I think John 5:39 speaks to this..
I think Jesus in Mark 7 seems to throw away the food laws. I believe the scripture prevented touching either women when they were bleeding or lepers. I think he at least bent the Sabbath laws. He did not recommend that the woman caught in adultery was stoned as the law required. His disciples fail to fast. He seems to say 'You have heard it said but I say to you..'
What do you think?
L
Ron,
You are brilliant, that made me laugh. I too enjoy some of Bishop Alan's comments:
One joy of Chirtsianity is exactly that it doesn't consist of a stick of artificial ideals, but some simple stories and principles (the golden rule, sermon on the mount, love is strong as death, the good Samaritan, the Lord is risen and gone ahead of you) that make life worth living for ordinary people who discover them and allow themselves to be grabbed by their power and beauty. And when they do this, the find the Lord standing alongside them, and everything lifts off... It's not rocket science!
L
"One joy of Chirtsianity is exactly that it doesn't consist of a stick of artificial ideals" - Do all Christians know this? I wonder.
"It's not rocket science!" - perhaps to some it is.
"I think that Genesis is merely noting that we are male and female. I don't think it is insisting that we have to have sex with each other" - I might as well remain an atheist then.
You are on good form today Ron. Have you told your wife that you have been thinking about Lesbians all day?
Perhaps you are right, my theology on sexuality could be improved!
By the way, when I was listing all the rules that I perceive that Jesus broke I had the words 'He's a very naughty boy' going through my head from 'The Life of Brian'...
Ooo that reminds me, I did a funeral the other day and started by saying 'Thanks to all of you who have come such a long way to remember before God and to celebrate the life of Brian' (oops)
Maybe I have seen too much Monty Python.
Ahh. The Life Of Brian, and endless source of meaningful quotes. I have a hypothesis I'd like to test: You can tell how liberal a theist is by how little offense they take and how much humour they find in The Life Of Brian.
I love fun funerals. Graham Chapman's seems to have been good. I've been trying to think up good ideas for mine:
- recording in coffin, "Hello. Hello. Bloody hell it's dark in hear...", for the duration and into the curtains and beyond..."Hey! I'm not dead!..."
- Lid opens part way through, and I pop-up on a spring.
- A bulge in the lid of the coffin, with apologies from the vicar that I died during sex and rigor mortis set in before they could get me off. (I might need a vicar with your balls for that one)
I keep meaning to mine the TV comedy classics for more, there must have been many over the years. Playing a selection of clips might be a good alternative to prayers.
You'll have to start a post were you and your colleagues can relate fun funerals.
Mmm.. don't you think your friends and family might like to grieve?
I must say the undertakers are hilarious - very black humour. But I think the priests take it pretty seriously, I must admit I have cried at some stage for everyone who I have buried or cremated. Normally when I am writing the eulogy..
Ron
Ah, hoist by my own petard! I would concur with Lesley's initial response on my behalf, though it is rather more than simply "I have found the scriptures helpful." Glad you found the blog interesting, even though it is now a long time since I posted anything new. It is sometimes difficult to find inspiration and opportunity to write coinciding in this job. I must try to find some time to write some new posts.
Lesley
Again thanks for the coonversation. I don't think I was suggesting that Genesis was insisting we had to have sex with each other. I also agree with you over the main point of Jesus' teaching on divorce, but I don't see that this precludes both Genesis and Jesus also making theological and anthropological assumptions and points regarding the nature of marriage.
I think grieving is a strange and personal thing. I was working away when my father died, and friends couldn't understand how I was apparently unemotional. I was okay through the funeral. I broke down when it came to helping my mother sort out my father's stuff.
The last few funeral's I've been to have been quite joyous affairs - both CoE, and surprisingly to me, and RC one. Plenty of tears, but also anecdotes and laughter. Seems to be far more celebration of a life led than a life lost.
I think something personal and characteristic from the deceased is also helpful - a parting message, the suggestion that they're still their in your consciousness.
Up to a few years ago I used to dread funerals, until a few came close together and they were all quite good.
How the heck did we get to funerals from homosexuality. Sorry, quite off topic.
Post a Comment