tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post6646725219676648896..comments2024-01-07T00:04:51.972-08:00Comments on Humble Wonderful: Vaughan Roberts and same sex attraction - Where to from here?Tonyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-72019003192030683182012-12-14T16:05:07.304-08:002012-12-14T16:05:07.304-08:00"I don't think its an entirely arbitrary ..."I don't think its an entirely arbitrary signifier of identity though. There is an uneasiness with the body and pleasure, ...a protestant over-celebration of marriage ... old-fashioned patriarchy."<br />Point taken. I agree that the theology itself isn't arbitrary, but would want to argue that the way it is deployed is (i.e. hammering gays and not the military). After all, why should homosexuality, or inerrancy, or abortion, or complementarianism be used as " kind of litmus test of blind faith" and not another doctrine, like pacifism, which appears more strongly in Jesus teaching? The reasons ultimately must simply be cultural. <br /><br />By the way, Reading a really interesting blog by a guy at an obviously fairly liberal seminary. You really should check this out. There is some very,very funny stuff on this blog, but also some fairly thought-provoking points. <br />http://fuckyeahtheology.tumblr.com/Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-58907146826363751442012-12-14T14:56:26.883-08:002012-12-14T14:56:26.883-08:00Daniel, I had no problems with the grammar; better...Daniel, I had no problems with the grammar; better than my own I'd say. I'm very much enjoying digesting the ideas you've raised. The article you linked to was great as well.<br /><br />There definately is something operating to produce Christian denouncement of homosexuality other than the fidelity to their text that they claim. <br /><br />Consider the comments by Jesus used to criticise homosexual acts. They are Jesus' words to the Pharisees regarding the question of divorce and remarriage. (Jesus says no.) Its a ridiculously long bow to argue this says anything about homosexuality at all - however its used by Christians for that purpose who aren't even opposed to remarriage itself!<br /><br />Personally I think its good exegesis to say that Jesus is specifically answering a question of justice in his culture and not making a rule for all marriages for all time. It seems consistent with his ministry that he would be motivated by the abandonment of women in his time when women relied on the support of husbands and not laying a yoke on the shoulders of people in different circumstances (such as women trying to leave abusive husbands).<br /><br />However that careful and considered exegesis is thrown out the window in regard to homosexuality even in this exact instance of the text. I could go on (and just might in another blog). My point is that the Christian problem with gayness is so weakly associated with their text it seems obvious it has other driving forces.<br /><br />I don't think its an entirely arbitrary signifier of identity though. There is an uneasiness with the body and pleasure, depraved as it is. Then there is a protestant over-celebration of marriage as way of knowing God - a vocation equal to the priesthood. Lastly there is old-fashioned patriarchy which requires discrete and universal gender categories (male headship anyone?). <br /><br />Gayness embodies desire, romantic love or just mundane companionship over dutiful pro-creative sex and holy vocational marriage. More importantly gayness disrupts male-female hierarchies. There is a lot of ideas bound up in anti-homosexuality that will take some time to untagle for Christianity. Some churches have already done that work but others have no inclination to. <br /><br />I do agree though that this issue has also become a kind of litmus test of blind faith. Its become important to hold on to a moral objection that is pointedly not justified by reason. It's sometimes like opposition to homosexuality is a kind of circumcision - an act that is moral for its own sake (as identification) rather than for any reason at all. It is probably no accident that this cross chosen to bear as "master signifier" is one that is weightless for many Christians and excessively heavy for a minority. <br /><br />Thanks for your great comment.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-59504054051757020772012-12-12T16:37:27.634-08:002012-12-12T16:37:27.634-08:00Note: sorry about the appalling grammar. Hope it i...Note: sorry about the appalling grammar. Hope it is still readable. Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-62640879780632792842012-12-12T16:34:53.993-08:002012-12-12T16:34:53.993-08:00I really like Stanley Hauerwas' comments on Ch...I really like Stanley Hauerwas' comments on Christianity and LBGT people with regard to the military. <br /><br />He argues that resentment against homosexuals comes from a broader cultural uncertainty about our moral convictions.<br /><br />"This moral confusion leads to a need for the illusion of certainty. If nothing is wrong with homosexuality then it seems that everything is up for grabs. Of course, everything is already up for grabs, but the condemnation of gays hides that fact from our lives. So the moral "no" to gays becomes the necessary symbolic commitment to show that we really do believe in something."<br /><br />Some of the article is quoted in here (I have the full article floating around somewhere)<br />http://nearemmaus.com/2012/05/14/stanley-hauerwas-destroyed-my-hermeneutical-paradigm/<br /><br />Someone once said that the logical outcome of postmodernity is tribalism. As the postmoderns showed us, if we cannot apprehend objective truth as objective truth, then we have no definitive framework for ascertaining morality. Given the huge diversity of belief we see and the lack of a way of validating any one moral imperative, the reasons we select one belief over another is, to a large extent, arbitrary. Given this, the easiest way of justifying a moral system is to define yourself over and against others (i.e. my tribe is better than yours). <br />I think this is what Hauerwas gets at, and why Christians attack gays but not the military machine. Because nationalism, and being against homosexuality have become 'master signifiers' - arbitrary signposts that allow a group to define themselves, by defining yourself over and against others, in a less homogenous society where it is becoming increasingly harder to do. Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-18773538514915862822012-10-29T01:07:39.434-07:002012-10-29T01:07:39.434-07:00Simon, Thanks heaps for that summary. I disagree w...Simon, Thanks heaps for that summary. I disagree with Vaughan as you say, but I sure feel like I would enjoy talking with him. He seems to be a very thoughtful commentator. <br />I also take your point about the matter of translation. I was referring to those who don't feel they "have to make sure we get the translation right" as you say because they trust in the holy spirit to have governed that process as much as it governed the selection of the canon and the original writing. I think you would agree that in their case that their texts magic is very strong (stronger than even the Korans). Worth noting there are a lot of diversity in how translation is treated... and where the miraculous authority of scripture stops.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-15962317332737237442012-10-28T19:30:34.847-07:002012-10-28T19:30:34.847-07:00Hey Tony I've looked through the chapter on ho...Hey Tony I've looked through the chapter on homosexuality from Vaughan Roberts' book, "Battles Christians Face". <br /><br />He looks at the change of social attitude to homosexuality and the stats on how many experience ssa. He makes the point that "human sexuality is more complicated than is commonly imagined and is perhaps best seen as making up a complex spectrum" (pg 105).<br /><br />He looks at causes for ssa, stating straight up that "there is no clear consensus as to why people experience same-sex sexual attraction" and <br />concluding that "no theory of causation fits every individual" (pg 107).<br /><br />He then goes on to look at "How Does God View Homosexuality?" This is obviously where you may differ greatly, but you will be encouraged to see that his message, though not condoning homosexual practise, is one of God's universal love and welcome. One quote that seems to summarise what he says is, "We are not to feel guilty or condemned because of our temptations, whether homosexual or heterosexual, but nor should we express them sexually, except in heterosexual marriage" (pg 108).<br /><br />He moves on to then explain this position in detail and gives an overview of the Biblical framework in which he reaches this understanding. He explains the "Christian Worldview" covering Creation, Fall, Redemption and New Creation and showing how these big picture ideas relate to homosexuality.<br /><br />He then tackles some of the key verses and passages in Scripture that specifically address the subject of homosexual behaviour. Now although you might disagree with his use of these texts as relevant for today, you'll be pleased to note he tackles them not simply in a "see the bible says it there" sort of way, but asks the questions of if this passage is worth using or how to apply it. For example, he does look at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, but concludes, "The sin the rabble threatens is gang rape, which is obviously unacceptable whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. These passages should not be used to argue against homosexual sex in general" (pg 113). Despite this though, he does explain how various passages do clearly teach that homosexual practise is "a departure from God's creation design for sex" and states that "the Bible is entirely consistent on the subject; homosexual practise is only ever mentioned negatively".<br /><br />This is an important point to make, because as you say in your blog, "I disagree...that his scriptures are all that clear on the issue of homosexuality". Even amongst those that believe the Bible is true and authoritative, there is a growing opinion that homosexual practise is ok with God. I think that actually simply reflects poor knowledge of Scripture rather than an enlightened modern understanding of how to interpret the Bible. <br /><br />But anyway, back to the summary...<br /><br />Vaughan goes on to explain some encouraging "Truths to Remember" including "The gospel is liberating", "Suffering is expected", "Change is possible" and "Friendship is vital".<br /><br />Up until this point, Vaughan's audience has primarily been Christians who experience SSA, but he concludes the chapter with "A Challenge to the Churches". He makes three points saying, "Renounce prejudice", "Don't compromise on truth" and "Live as God's family".Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-68586193550794132012012-10-28T18:53:34.869-07:002012-10-28T18:53:34.869-07:00Just a comment on your last point, "those Chr...Just a comment on your last point, "those Christians who believe the bible is a magic book, generally believe its magic is preserved despite translation, which is even more magic than saying it mustn't be translated in my opinion."<br />I don't understand this. I the idea that the words are inspired by God (not dictated by God), resulting in truth about God that is authoritatively true, then why does translating that truth somehow make it less from God?<br /><br />For example, Paul writes, "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." (Romans 3:23-24). Now if he made that up, then who cares? If he was inspired or led or directed to write that by God, then we should sit up and take notice. But he originally wrote it in Greek, so is the translation into english any less God's Word? I don't think so. We have to make sure we get the translation right, but the "magic" part is that the truth comes from God, not that the actual ink on papyrus is magic. <br />Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-55496009162212759852012-10-28T05:05:17.094-07:002012-10-28T05:05:17.094-07:00Simon,
I had a little chuckle at the description o...Simon,<br />I had a little chuckle at the description of my conscience as that "silly little voice in your head". I think that's a very apt description. I just think that you and me both have a very serious responsibility to heed our silly voices. I don't think my conscience is super-wise so much as it is all I've got.)<br /><br />There are many, many Christians who do not consider their scriptures to be a magic book. I say as much in my blog on that topic. That is precisely why the term magic book is absolutely important. I use it to distinguish a special relationship that some Christians (no less than Muslims or Mormons it seems to me) have with their text. In that special relationship the Bible is more than a book ABOUT God, it is exactly in the form it is with no missing parts, something OF God, akin in a way to a face of God. <br /><br />This magic book idea can be seen when people refer to the letters of Paul as if they were the words of Jesus, or even say that Jesus wrote the whole bible. That's right they don't even bother to say that God wrote it all. They directly attribute it to Jesus - who after all is God. That's a magic book. It is one thing to argue that God says/said the bits in the Bible which it says God says. That's an argument over historicity. Only magic can mean that God says what Paul says.<br /><br />What I wouldn't call a magic book is when the Bible is seen as a document that points to historical events, stories, memories, experiences of God - that is ABOUT God. In this understanding Paul is a theologian/minister, John (authoring Revelations) is making a prophecy, Luke is more of a historian and so on. They are not Jesus or God. In fact the question of why Jesus didn't write any scriptures becomes feasible when we don't have a magic book. <br /><br />This stills challenges us to respond to the events and opinions recorded in the bible. That's a challenge many respond to by becoming Christians. A vibrant Christianity is definitely possible without a magic book. Its just that amongst reformed and evangelical Christians, magic book Christianity is more popular.<br /><br />As for comparing the Bible to the Koran, those Christians who believe the bible is a magic book, generally believe its magic is preserved despite translation, which is even more magic than saying it mustn't be translated in my opinion.<br /><br />Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07412650446530771853noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4894764035439419656.post-2456295228743329982012-10-27T22:21:29.319-07:002012-10-27T22:21:29.319-07:00Hey Tony, great blog. I do think the stalemate som...Hey Tony, great blog. I do think the stalemate sometimes comes down to first principles - whether God is real and has spoken or whether he hasn't. I must say that your constant use of the term "magic book" is slightly condescending. I don't believe in a book that is magic and I don't think Vaughan does either. But I do believe in a God (who you might define as a "magic being" who can communicate and that communication be faithfully recorded in a book. There is a vast difference to that, compared to say Islam that believes the Koran can not be translated at all or the "Golden Plates" of Mormonism. Maybe the tablets that held the 10 Commandments could be said to be a "magic book", but I think you shouldn't lump them all together under that title that clearly intends it to be seen as slightly silly (like me calling your conscious a "silly little voice in your head").<br />Simon Camillerihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14813561936965631699noreply@blogger.com