Does Christianity enable this?
Does mainstream Christianity promote this (albeit unconsciously)?
***
Jesuit friend, Tom Weston, observed:
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”
Dear R,
Thanks for your
email. It's always good to hear from you.
On some level, I think
Biblical/theological conviction against same sex marriage always affects
friendships between heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Whenever one group imposes a
"formal framework of isolation" on another group, "the
isolated" feel diminished. (Note: The word "isolation" means
"to confine to an isola/island," which is to say "to
maroon.")
http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-hideous-power-of-injudicious-words.html
Often, heterosexuals who
promote "marriage limitation" do not perceive consequent damage
because homosexuals and lesbians are often gracious enough to indulge the
prejudice and presumption of "true believers."
The essential presumption of
"the righteous" is this: "We heterosexuals have an inalienable
right to warm ourselves at humankind's warmest hearth... and you
don't."
Never.
Ever.
Not under any circumstance.
This intransigence is further
complicated by the orthodox belief that Christianity intends to "save
homosexuals from the eternal fire of Hell."
However, this "salvific
argument" begs significant questions concerning "authority" as
it relates to the Old Testament, to Paul, to Yeshua and to the interplay among
them.
Notably, most Christians
disregard Old Testament laws that are now out of touch with the sensus
fidelium.
Paul's epistles, however, are
enshrined in the New Testament and, therefore, our treatment of "the 13th
apostle" is intrinsically more problematic.
Consider this parallel.
At least in hindsight, Paul
was wrong to encourage slaves to accept their station in life.
It is now clear that Paul's
teaching was not godly guidance - and certainly not "eternally" true.
(An illuminating line of thought can be predicated on "the
mutability/evolution of truth" in Paul's teaching. Clearly, divine
revelation did not end with "the closing of the Canon.")
In historical context, I
understand Paul's "justification" of slavery: Slavery was "the
way of the world" and humankind had not yet conceived a social order
without "the peculiar institution."
When "something" is
universally diffused in the very air we breathe, no one thinks of shutting down
the supply. (The danger of CO2 as a greenhouse gas was first posited in 1896
and we still can't conceive shutting it down. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-danger-of-carbon-dioxide-as.html)
If Paul's justification of
slavery had remained in place forever -- if slaves had not gotten
"uppity," and radical Christians had not illuminated orthodox
benightedness -- the universal normalization of slavery would have endured, and
with it a God-damned injustice.
My hunch (and admittedly this
kind of conjecture is not worth much) is that Paul himself was homosexual, and
thus unusually eager to repress the "thorn" between his legs.
A radical convert to The
Way, Paul was also imbued with unique missionary passion to project his own
self-defensive beliefs.
Missionary passion can be a
good thing but often creates much ado about nothing, or, at minimum, much ado
about very little.
And so Paul -- unlike Yeshua
-- makes a (thorny) point of condemning homosexuality. (At least in passing, I
should mention an articulated doubt that Paul's intent was to condemn
homosexuality as we now know
it. http://www.gaychristian101.com/does-romans-12627-condemn-homosexuals.html)
We can learn from the prophet
Ezekiel who pondered the Old Testament's most frequently-cited reference to
homosexuality and concluded: "(T)his was the sin of your sister Sodom: She
and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the
poor and needy."
To me Ezekiel's judgment on
Sodom -- a judgment that made no reference to homosexuality -- seems
well-suited to contemporary Christian America.
But instead of focusing the
shortcomings of "The 97%," American Christians proclaim The
Story of Sodom in a way that condemns "The 3%." (Enter Sarah
Palin and Michelle Bachmann; Exit Ezekiel.)
This convenient
self-exculpation (and concomitant psychological projection - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) is not only wrong but morally subversive. "
The bedrock fear of Christian
Pharisees is this: "If we stop condemning others, we may have to
condemn ourselves." (Ironically, the moment we stop the former, we are
exempted from the latter.)
In any event, it is always
dubious when "the church" emphasizes biblical themes that Yeshua
himself never mentioned.
Consider these vantages.
In the earliest gospel, Mark
flatly condemns divorce.
Nowadays, precious few
Christians damn "the divorced." Similarly, I cannot recall when
re-marriage was last thought tantamount to the obligatory imposition of
adultery. The thought is not even whispered on the lunatic fringe.
Catholicism, the strictest of
Christian denominations in matters of divorce and remarriage, routinely
nullifies marriages ex post facto. Nearly any Catholic who
wishes to divorce a persistently discordant spouse only needs sufficient
patience to endure the byzantine process.
Remarkably, Christians are
completely comfortable contradicting Mark on divorce-and-remarriage but rally
around Paul's proscription of homosexuality. Then, in a rocket burst of irony,
the same Christians who undermine Mark by facilitating divorce allege that
same-sex marriage is an existential threat to the holy bonds of matrimony.
Entire pillars of American Christianity are flabbergastingly bizarre!
By way of contextualization,
recall that Paul was epistemologically embedded in a society that could not
conceive any affirmation of same-sex union. Instead,
Paul, like his fellow, was culturally obliged to see same-sex contact as
furtive and tawdry.
Two friends in their
mid-seventies have ancestors who migrated to North Carolina in the 1600s. One
of these ancestors was a leading slaveholder. Both friends were raised in
segregated schools. To their credit, they both have black friends
and actively champion latinos.
Not long ago, I was surprised
when this couple described their youthful memory of the intense, disgusting
body odor of black people.
This memory recalls my own
childhood when the phrase "dirty Jew" was commonplace.
If a society imposes tawdry
living conditions on people, then those who impose them will "really"
see tawdriness in the people they oppress.
Not many decades ago,
ubiquitous oppression by mainstream Christian society insured that blacks
lacked adequate "plumbing," "soap" and
"deodorant" to subdue body odor. Blacks also had to work harder (and
under hotter conditions) than their white "peers" with the inevitable
result that black people smelled bad.
To prove that black people
stunk, all you had to do was "follow your nose."
Proof was obvious and
everywhere.
Similarly, it was hard for
Jews -- confined to ghettos (and later, concentration camps) -- to keep as
clean as their "Aryan" overlords.
In both cultures, you could
actually inhale the "proof" that Negros and Jews were "more
animal" (and therefore "less human") than Caucasians.
The truth was as obvious as a
backed up sewer.
Over the millennia, an
analogous mechanism has been used to represent homosexuals as vile, dirty,
furtive, tawdry people.
And by obliging homosexuals
to live furtively -- mirabile dictu! -- they became furtive.
Who, in their right mind,
would validate furtive behavior?
Who could conceive that
"fly by night" behaviors might have any validity?
"Why, just look at
them!"
"Look at how they
behave!"
"Look how deviant they
are from time-tested norms" (which, coincidentally, are the same norms
that forced gays and lesbians to be furtive in the first place).
I was born 77 years after the
Civil War began, just one human lifespan from a time when "the righteousness
of slavery" was preached from southern pulpits - a time when blacks were
so ghettoized (even in the North) that multiple social mechanisms conspired to
see them as "sub-humans" living in "social cages" because
"caged isolation" was necessary for "the good of
society." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/02/slavery-preached-from-pulpit.html
***
But back to homosexuality...
Completely at peace with
intractable moral judgments on matters Yeshua himself never mentioned, American
Christians ignore the actual counsels of Yeshua - including counsels that seem
central to the mind of Christ.
"Love your enemies.
Resist not evil. Turn the other cheek. Return evil with good. Pray
for those who persecute you."
‘Truly I tell you, whatever
you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
"I seek mercy, not
sacrifice."
Energized by glib
condemnation of minorities, righteous bigots muster the animus to
trample mercy and compassion
The longer I live, the more
convinced I become that Yeshua's new commandment is to shatter tribalism and
empty ritualism; to exit the "temple," to reconcile with perceived
enemies by reaching out to them, and then -- only then -- to place our ritual
gifts on the altar.
Matthew 5:43-48 (The Message)
***
Finally, I will make a few
comments about "Natural Law," the centerpiece of Christian morality
since Aquinas. (I can never reflect on Aquinas' theological work without
recalling the transformative mystical experience that caused him to quit that
work. http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1545546066966493878#editor/target=post;postID=7527064754942470054)
From the vantage of moral
theology, Christianity is still ruled by "the dictates" of Natural
Law.
Generally, Natural Law
impresses me as a good guide.
However, we now know that
"Nature" is, "by nature," less black-and-white than
previously thought.
For example...
Although heterosexuality is
overwhelmingly dominant in mammalian species, there is also, within the
natural order, a significant amount of "homosexual" activity
throughout the animal kingdom.
Metaphorically, I find it
useful to compare the shekhinah of God's presence on
earth with an electron cloud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekhinah
We cannot determine with absolute certainty where a given electron is located
within the cloud, but we know that the "Truth of Electrons" resides
therein. That said, we also know that some electrons which are integral to the
cloud are relatively distant outliers.
For those who think my
"argument" is intended to "bend" God away from the
"natural" essence of godliness, I say: "What if God intends a
certain amount of statistical aberration? What if God wants us to
embrace outliers that are statistically "deviant" but fully within
the shekhinah? What if there is, ontologically, such a thing as
"normal deviation" and that those people whose natures are
relatively distant from "the median and the mean" are simply other
manifestations of Natural Law rather than categorically isolated aberrations?
Considering how the deck has
been stacked, it occurs to me that I am not calling on orthodox Christians
to be generous or condescending.
I am inviting them to save
their souls.
Although the following
Dorothy Day comment goes much farther than most "standard
deviations," we wisely remember that "
Finally, what happens to the
traditional understanding of Natural Law when we actually fulfill certain
biblical commands?
In the Catholic tradition,
proscription of artificial birth control is often justified by the injunction
in Genesis to "multiply and fill the earth."
Well...
We have, by God, multiplied
and filled it.
This element of "kingdom
come" is a done deal.
What now?
Do we persevere in deliberate
over-population of the earth?
Do we pretend (as perhaps 5%
of non birth-controlled Catholics do) that seven billion people should reap the
whirlwind of their inability to refrain from sexual intercourse or,
alternatively, use "the rhythm method?"
Christianity is a
"historical religion."
Not surprisingly, matters of
great pitch and moment actually play out in history.
Within history, an entire
"covenant" between God and humankind was replaced by a new covenant.
We have, I think, gotten too
comfortable with the supposition that Yeshua "froze" the human
condition once and for all, even though he himself says: "I tell you for certain that if you have faith in me, you will do the
same things that I am doing. You will do even greater things..." John 14:12
Remarkably, the most remote
Congolese medical clinic works more "miracles" in a month than Yeshua
did in his lifetime.
Thanks be to God!
Believe in The
Incarnation of Divine Love and "you will do even greater things."
Pax
Alan
***
Matthew Shepard’s Wikipedia page
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:01 PM, R wrote:
Alan,This reflection raises a question I have interest in exploring. How does a Biblical / theological conviction against homosexual marriage affect frienships between heterosexuals and homosexuals? Is the difference a "deal breaker" in the friendship? I think there are other questions I am getting at, none succinctly or well formed. For example, is homosexuality deemed fundamental so that to have a conviction against it (or, to have a conviction that it is sin) resonates as a conviction against the personhood of another? Is it something on which friends can disagree or does the disagreement run to deep for a continued relationship named friendship?I have encountered this in two distinct ways. On one hand, I have had good relationships with homosexual persons who seem to hold the homosexuality lightly in terms of identity. So, disagreement was something we could discuss without a sense of attack on the other person as person--even more, as created person. On the other hand, I have encountered moments (not relationships on this side of the question) when I have felt that disagreement was tantamount to an attack on the very nature of the person as person...as fellow human being. I can understand that sense, seeing that our sexuality is certainly an important part of what makes us human.There is certainly more to add on these questions. Just thought I would toss them out as they came to mind as I read your e-mail.Peace, R
From: Alan Archibald [mailto:alanarchibaldo@gmail.Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:36 AMcom]
To: Fred Owens
Cc: Laura Wood; America Magazine; Commonweal; First Things; St. Anthony's Messenger; National Catholic Reporter
Subject: Habemus Papam Franciscum! Re: My bet on the conclavePope Francis
Going to work in Buenos AiresDear Fred,Habemus papam!I am encouraged that Pope Frances I "has championed social programs and won respect for questioning free-market policies, which he blames for leaving millions of Argentines impoverished." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/ 2013/03/habemus-papam-pope- francis-i.html While searching for Bergoglio quotations on social justice, I came upon the following article by Argentine blogger, Cosme Baccar Varela, who makes a well-documented case that Pope Francis is a Marxist. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/ 2013/03/cardinal-bergoglio- imitating-marx.html Free market capitalism is a vicious thing whose survival depends on the assiduous cultivation of The Seven Deadly Sins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins The moral and cultural degradation wrought by Cowboy Capitalism -- and blessedly Pope Francis does not hesitate to call "social sin" by name -- dwarfs the cumulative damage done by The Left. Tragically, not one "conservative" Christian in a thousand will - or can - admit the truth of unbridled capitalism since their "fortunes" are, by and large, bestowed by The Golden Calf. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/ capitalism-most-powerful- engine-of.html On the other hand, I am discouraged that Francis appears prone to double down on antiquated sex-and-gender traditions, particularly as they relate to same-sex marriage.Been circumcised lately? Thrown out your usurious credit cards? Eaten shrimp? Worn mixed fiber clothing? Stoned any rebellious children? Encouraged slaves to accept their station? Sliced off twice the required number of Philistine foreskins as bride price?Despite Catholic hierarchy's sustained cover-up of priestly pederasts, these sexual predators have finally been forced from the closet - thanks to the divine intervention of The Secular Press. (Are you familiar with Mexican predator, Rev. Marcial Marciel, a confidant of John Paul II? Appropriately, Marcial's second surname, "Degollado," means "slit throat." On the outside, Marcial was as "conservative" as Republican demi-god, Ayn Rand, and every bit as rotten within. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcial_Maciel /// http://paxonbothhouses. blogspot.com/2012/11/ayn-rand- and-republican-party-politics. html) More importantly, now that gays and lesbians are out of the closet, too many people know these brothers and sisters as good souls.I happen to be friends with six same-sex couples. One gay couple recently married after 20 years of common law marriage. Another gay couple - after 10 happy years together - adopted a child. The third gay couple has been in love for a decade. One happy lesbian couple has been together for 40 years. Another lesbian couple - including a former nun who was once fast-tracked to become "Mother Superior" - has lived in happy union for 30 years. And the third lesbian couple, which adopted - and transformed - six very "difficult" orphans, has been joyfully joined for 25 years.Extrapolating from personal experience, the (relative) wasteland of heterosexual marriage (sorely degraded by "free market" capitalism) could benefit greatly from close study of committed gay and lesbian marriages.'By this you shall know them - that they love one another.'You will know "the other guys" by The Woe Passages. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/ 2012/12/pharisees-and-yeshuas- woe-passages.html The sea change that has put an abrupt end to slanderous oppression of gays and lesbians defies any prospect of going back "in the closet" - except perhaps in Christian Africa where we well know the emblematic qualities of Uganda's "skeletons."Here in Evangelical America, the contempt accorded gays and lesbians by "Good Christians" calls to mind Sarah Palin's ignorant family: http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/ 2012/07/tripp-palins-gay-slur- where-did-bristol.html But the most notable feature on Christianity's sexual "horizon" is notable by its absence: Yeshua himself said nothing of same-sex morality.Why did he not? Because in addition to inciting his own summary execution, the prospect of same-sex marriage was beyond the comprehensibility of ancient Jews, a notoriously infidel people (if the Prophets are to be believed) ever-ready to stone their own children for adolescent rebelliousness.Similarly, it makes no sense (from the conservative vantage) that Yeshua would NOT condemn same-sex union, soon to become the first schism in Christianity that was not spearheaded by dissident theologians but by the "sensus fidelium."Why would Yeshua not have nixed same-sex union if, indeed, his divine omniscience foresaw Christendom's imminent crisis?I am sure it is comforting to "know" one is right.But Yeshua's behavior tells me "the comfortable" are wrong.Truth is at least as contextual as it is scriptural.Pax on both houses,
Alan
(This correspondence, which I will further refine, is posted at http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/03/habemus- papam.html)
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Alan and Dear Laura,
As I said, we can't vote but we can make bets.
My bet, posted somewhere on Facebook -- was for a Brazilian under the age of 60 -- so I guess I was part right -- Now I need to read the news and find out who this man is.
He wears the shoes of the fisherman, that makes him very important, at the same time he puts his shoes on just like you and I do.
--
Fred Owens
cell:
My blog is Fred Owens
send mail to:
Fred Owens
35 West Main St Suite B #391
Ventura CA 93001
No comments:
Post a Comment