Last fall, Rod and I agreed, at the behest of our then-editor, Patton Dodd, to hold a friendly "blogalogue" on same sex marriage. It was in the aftermath of California's Prop 8 passage. I went to Dallas and met Rod, and even shot this video on his front porch.
We started earnestly but quickly petered out. I wrote, Rod didn't respond.
When we finally reconnected, Rod said that he'd decided to bow out. The antagonistic comments on his blog were too much, he confessed, and he just couldn't keep the pace with deleting all of those that didn't meet his standard for civility.
Well, Rod has jumped back into the fray. But not with me. With Andrew Sullivan.
Now, listen, I don't begrudge Rod his right to blogalogue with Andrew instead of me. All of us in the blogosphere know that an inbound link from Sullivan is, "Gold, Jerry, gold!"
So I'll just take this opportunity to continue the blogalogue in my little (tiny) corner of the Interwebs by reflecting on their posts.
It all started when Damon Linker wrote that Rod, and other conservatives, have a gay fixation. Like me, Damon takes Rod at his word that his animus toward gay marriage has nothing to do with the "yuck factor" -- in fact, some of Rod's best friends are gay. So Damon wonders why Rod is so adamant that regularizing gay marriage in our culture would tarnish, and even destroy, his own heterosexual marriage.
Rod responded that he's actually not that hung up on gay issues, or on sex at all, but that, as a Christian, (homo)sexuality is a hinge issue:
Damon replied that to cowtow to scripture and tradition is ludicrous, since scripture and tradition are firmly contrary to other issues that Rod accepts.
That's when Andrew Sullivan chimed in, with one of his brilliant mega-posts. Sullivan thoroughly deconstructs Rod's argument that the legalization of gay marriage would reify the libertinism of the 1960s sexual revolution. On the contrary, says Sullivan, what gays want is all of the societal incentives that monogamous heterosexuals enjoy. That's why Sullivan want same sex marriage, while Dreher wants only civil unions. (Interesting that some of the conservative readers of my blog find even civil unions odious.)
The thing that really gets under Sullivan's skin is that Rod says that legalization of SSM is a bold step toward nihilism. In fact, Sullivan says it's just the opposite. Since that, Rod has responded again, and Sullivan has promised another post addressed to Rod -- can you see why I'm feeling left out? :-)
Okay, after that extended recap. Here are my initial thoughts.
Like many conservatives, Rod's fall-back position is, essentially, "This is what the church has always held." He defers to tradition, to the conventional reading of scripture, etc. The problem that conservatives have when they do this is that they're inevitably selective in their cherrypicking of tradition. The immediate response has to do with slavery, head coverings, etc. This has been my response, as well, in many cases. It's a big hermeneutical conundrum: which passages are eternally normative, and which are culturally bound? Make no mistake, 150 years ago, pro-slavery churches argued that slavery was acceptable in 19th century American because is was normative in the Old and New Testaments. And there are a lot more passages regarding slavery than homosexuality in the Bible.
Secondly, I think that Rod's conversion to Orthodoxy plays a bigger role than his interlocuters realize. Rod converted to Catholicism in his 20s, after a hedonistic youth. In other words, it was a pretty radical conversion. Then, after reporting on the pedophilia scandals of the Catholic church, and almost losing his faith over it, he converted to Orthodoxy.
So what? Well, I had a talk with Frederica Mathewes-Green a couple years ago that shed light on this for me. She, too, converted to Orthodoxy after years as a pretty radical feminist. We talked about my appropriation of the Orthodox "Jesus Prayer" in my writings and my personal prayer life. And, while she appreciated my admiration of this Orthodox practice, she told me that it could not be truly understood outside of Orthodoxy. One had to embrace Orthodoxy in toto, she told me, to really appreciate the Jesus Prayer. To emphasize her point, she said this meant the whole Orthodox enchilada, including a 3rd century hermeneutic and cosmology!
"You mean demons and a flat Earth?" I asked. "Not a flat Earth," she said.
I don't want to over-psychologize Rod or Frederica, but I have known a number of people who've converted to Orthodoxy, and it does seem to attract a certain type of person who, at some deep level, is looking for an enclosed system of belief -- the most-bounded of bounded sets. And systems like these have an answer for virtually every exigency. Further, they often tend to revel in taking positions that cut against the grain of contemporary society and are even doomed to failure (as Rod has said his opposition of SSM is).
Honestly, I don't begrudge Rod, Frederica, and other conservatives of other flavors. Their desire for a system of belief that is bounded by practices and language that has been forged through the centuries is a natural progression of the Aristotle-Aquinas-MacIntyre-Yoder-Hauerwas stream.
But for my part, this is neither an intellectually nor spiritually compelling move, because it mitigates against the ongoing work and revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, methinks, instead of maintaining an openness to the Spirit, it tends to enshrine the opinions of men -- particularly dead, white ones.
The Orthodox don't call their current seminary professors "theologians." The theologians of the Orthodox church are a bounded set, and they lived in the patristic period.
That tells you something, doesn't it?
Now, listen, I don't begrudge Rod his right to blogalogue with Andrew instead of me. All of us in the blogosphere know that an inbound link from Sullivan is, "Gold, Jerry, gold!"
So I'll just take this opportunity to continue the blogalogue in my little (tiny) corner of the Interwebs by reflecting on their posts.
It all started when Damon Linker wrote that Rod, and other conservatives, have a gay fixation. Like me, Damon takes Rod at his word that his animus toward gay marriage has nothing to do with the "yuck factor" -- in fact, some of Rod's best friends are gay. So Damon wonders why Rod is so adamant that regularizing gay marriage in our culture would tarnish, and even destroy, his own heterosexual marriage.
Rod responded that he's actually not that hung up on gay issues, or on sex at all, but that, as a Christian, (homo)sexuality is a hinge issue:
Sex, especially homosexuality, is a big deal because how one comes down on those related questions has a lot to do with how you view the authority of Scripture and Tradition. There's a reason why the churches today are breaking apart over homosexuality, and it has to do with the plain fact that there can be no compromise on this issue, as it goes to the heart of how believers understand ourselves, our relationship to God, and to the nature of truth.Rod went on to argue that he's being chastised primarily because he's an outside-the-Beltway conservative Christian.
Damon replied that to cowtow to scripture and tradition is ludicrous, since scripture and tradition are firmly contrary to other issues that Rod accepts.
That's when Andrew Sullivan chimed in, with one of his brilliant mega-posts. Sullivan thoroughly deconstructs Rod's argument that the legalization of gay marriage would reify the libertinism of the 1960s sexual revolution. On the contrary, says Sullivan, what gays want is all of the societal incentives that monogamous heterosexuals enjoy. That's why Sullivan want same sex marriage, while Dreher wants only civil unions. (Interesting that some of the conservative readers of my blog find even civil unions odious.)
The thing that really gets under Sullivan's skin is that Rod says that legalization of SSM is a bold step toward nihilism. In fact, Sullivan says it's just the opposite. Since that, Rod has responded again, and Sullivan has promised another post addressed to Rod -- can you see why I'm feeling left out? :-)
Okay, after that extended recap. Here are my initial thoughts.
Like many conservatives, Rod's fall-back position is, essentially, "This is what the church has always held." He defers to tradition, to the conventional reading of scripture, etc. The problem that conservatives have when they do this is that they're inevitably selective in their cherrypicking of tradition. The immediate response has to do with slavery, head coverings, etc. This has been my response, as well, in many cases. It's a big hermeneutical conundrum: which passages are eternally normative, and which are culturally bound? Make no mistake, 150 years ago, pro-slavery churches argued that slavery was acceptable in 19th century American because is was normative in the Old and New Testaments. And there are a lot more passages regarding slavery than homosexuality in the Bible.
Secondly, I think that Rod's conversion to Orthodoxy plays a bigger role than his interlocuters realize. Rod converted to Catholicism in his 20s, after a hedonistic youth. In other words, it was a pretty radical conversion. Then, after reporting on the pedophilia scandals of the Catholic church, and almost losing his faith over it, he converted to Orthodoxy.
So what? Well, I had a talk with Frederica Mathewes-Green a couple years ago that shed light on this for me. She, too, converted to Orthodoxy after years as a pretty radical feminist. We talked about my appropriation of the Orthodox "Jesus Prayer" in my writings and my personal prayer life. And, while she appreciated my admiration of this Orthodox practice, she told me that it could not be truly understood outside of Orthodoxy. One had to embrace Orthodoxy in toto, she told me, to really appreciate the Jesus Prayer. To emphasize her point, she said this meant the whole Orthodox enchilada, including a 3rd century hermeneutic and cosmology!
"You mean demons and a flat Earth?" I asked. "Not a flat Earth," she said.
I don't want to over-psychologize Rod or Frederica, but I have known a number of people who've converted to Orthodoxy, and it does seem to attract a certain type of person who, at some deep level, is looking for an enclosed system of belief -- the most-bounded of bounded sets. And systems like these have an answer for virtually every exigency. Further, they often tend to revel in taking positions that cut against the grain of contemporary society and are even doomed to failure (as Rod has said his opposition of SSM is).
Honestly, I don't begrudge Rod, Frederica, and other conservatives of other flavors. Their desire for a system of belief that is bounded by practices and language that has been forged through the centuries is a natural progression of the Aristotle-Aquinas-MacIntyre-Yoder-Hauerwas stream.
But for my part, this is neither an intellectually nor spiritually compelling move, because it mitigates against the ongoing work and revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, methinks, instead of maintaining an openness to the Spirit, it tends to enshrine the opinions of men -- particularly dead, white ones.
The Orthodox don't call their current seminary professors "theologians." The theologians of the Orthodox church are a bounded set, and they lived in the patristic period.
That tells you something, doesn't it?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
robroy- "The most liberal denominations in terms of homosexuality are the same ones that are disappearing." Be careful not to associate church growth with the work of the spirit. If you remember in scripture, God often is at work in unlikely places. He chooses Sarai, who is barren, to be the mother of the Jewish nation. Come to think of it, He seems to love to work through barren women.... Hannah and Elizabeth are another 2 that are coming to mind.
The whole issue of gay marriage is one I just don't get. Is marriage governed by religious belief or civil law? It occurs to me that it's both. So why can't gays have a civil union called a marriage that any individual church is completely free to accept or ignore according to its own doctrine?
Most gay couples I know are interested in governmental, federal, and insurance benefits, the ability to freely visit each other when in the hospital (against policy in many areas, unless you are "family"), etc. All of this could be legislated as a package of "rights" but then heck...it becomes no different than a civil marriage. Just lots of laws to get it there.
And now for something completely different....
Lord I thank you for the privilege of coming together in this place to share ideas and stories, thoughts and testimonies. I thank you for the love that occurs here in between the hateful comments. I thank you that there are some in this world who are willing to accept people on the basis of your love for them, regardless of where they stand on this issue or any other. Lord, that there may be more of your love spread throughout your Kingdom; yes and even throughout this world that more might enter into your Kingdom. Thank you for the heart-wrenching testimonies that have been shared here, for they took great courage and vulnerability, and were not without fruit. Regardless of where each one who reads this stands on this issue, regardless of where we each think you stand on this issue, let there be peace, reconciliation and love, please. As you have repeatedly called us to in your word, your Spirit, your life, your sacrifice, your very being. Thank you again Lord for the very chance to question the teachings that have been handed down to us. Thank you that you can handle our questionings, and love us right through all of it. And thank you that you desire mercy. So do I. So much it hurts. In Jesus' Name, Amen.
Panthera
I don't much care for Rod's blog either -- I think he just is riding the same-sex marriage issue for publicity, but despite that, yesterday I felt highly motivated to comment on the Iowa Supreme Court decision. It really speaks for itself, it is not written in legalese, and the reasoning is clear and quite persuasive. Thank you for the compliment, I am very flattered!!
Go take a well earned break! Today will be my last day of commenting for awhile as well. It's good practice for me, eventually I want to have a blog of my own and do some serious policy research (but I digress)
Ted
Where to start: Well, I am glad you are familiar with Dignity, I know something about it because one of my friends is an active member. His partner died; he was the one who nursed him for years, and he still visits his in-laws. Now, several years later, he is with a new person -- it is good that he has someone to love and be loved by, because he is a great and caring person. I want for him what I want any of my friends...happiness, and I don't think that he, after all he endured for the sake of love, should have to be burdened with legal discrimination. Is that so difficult to understand?
You describe homosexuality as abnormal, sinful, which I guess means you believe it to be voluntary somehow. Let's think about that: What if we passed a law forbidding Catholics from marrying. If Catholics want to live together, maybe have a few contracts and a commitment ceremony -- that's ok, but having a legally recognized marriage of two Catholic individuals, with the attendant social recognition and legal rights -- forbidden. We would justify this by saying something like "Catholicism is a deviant religious practice, and the state should not encourage it as it violates all our Anglo-Saxon Protestant customs and traditions. Catholicism is a choice, and the government should not encourage it, and Catholic marriage should remain illegal"
You would be justifiably outraged. You may marshall scientific arguments for equality of Catholics, but I, as a bigot would tell you it is a choice and not an ideal to be encouraged.
Fortunately, religion, even though it is a choice, is a "protected class" in legal parlance, meaning the discrimination by religion is very much unconstitutional, in the same way that even discrimination by race or ethnic origin are, and how discrimination by sexual orientation is increasingly being seen, both legally and socially.
Maybe for you, a world without gay couples is some sort of ideal. But I know a lot of gay couples, some with children and some without. I think their love and commitment is the expression of an ideal and deserves the same legal and social protections afforded by marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy. I've seen that ideal lived. There is no useful purpose served by handicapping those couples. Discrimination against homosexuals doesn't make any heterosexual spouse love their partner any more. That is what the Supreme Court of Iowa ruled, and what the legislature of Vermont affirmed.
You compare homosexuality to Thaladimide, and then call for a "solution" other than accepting homosexuality as normal. That's a pretty hateful (and illogical) comparison -- homosexuality to a dangerous drug.
So what is that solution? Should we deny them employment, housing, equal legal rights, and impose extra taxation upon them? Well, we do that now. In many states, it is perfectly legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and same sex couples pay thousands of dollars in extra taxes that their heterosexual counterparts don't pay
Should we ban homosexual initimate acts? We did that until 2003, when the Supreme Court struck down the remaining sodomy laws (Lawrence v Texas). Should we overturn that and lock up homosexuals for being homosexual? Should we send them off to camps to re-educated, made straight? That was tried as well in the Second World War by the Nazis -- thousands were murdered. Here is the link from the National Holocaust Museum, here in Washington DC:
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/homosexuals_02/
Is this where we want to go as a country -- vilification, discrimination, persecution, driving people underground? Is this the moral response, the compassionate and/or Christian approach?
The problem I have with all this anti-gay rhetoric, from conservative talking heads, from clergy and from politicians is that it creates an environment of social bigotry, and it makes violence against gays, lesbians and transgendered people more acceptable. According to FBI statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation are the 3rd most "popular" kind of violence, after race and religion. Sexual orientation even beats out ethnic origin as a driver for hate crimes. It should be noted that the FBI statistics are incomplete, many states don't collect information on hate crimes based on sexual orientation (typically states that don't give a crap about hate crimes against LGBT persons). We need legal equality for the LGBT community, so that we can discourage this ongoing violence
You would restrict marriage to being a procreative union. I might accept that, provided that marriage first becomes illegal for any women who is post-menopausal, or any man over the age of 50, or any child molestor, or convicted felon. When you get all those laws rewritten, let me know, and then maybe I would be willing to accept a ban on same sex marriage. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.
The fact is, many same-sex couple procreate (adoption, surrogacy or previous heterosexual relationships) -- there are millions of children being raised by same sex households (and guess what, most of them come out straight). How is it in anyone's interest to disadvantage those (largely straight) kids? Why should they bear an extra financial, economic and social burden? How is that ideal -- so their parents divorce and enter sham heterosexual marriages. Or maybe get sent to "therapy" to be made straight?
People marry for all sorts of reasons (good and bad), and, with very few exceptions, we don't legislate what they should be. To do otherwise is just oppressive and un-American.
What's interesting about this whole debate is that we had it already. We had this debate in the 1960's when states began to overturn their laws on mixed race marriages. All the same arguments -- that inter-racial marriage violated God's laws, was a dangerous social experiment. We'd be without a President today if that had held. It took a very brave couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, to fight that battle, here in Virginia...it ultimately went to the Supreme Court (Loving v Virginia) where the anti-miscegenation laws were finally struck down in 1967. Mildred Loving passed away last year, but in 2007, she gave a rare interview, and she said it best:
"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
You wrote:
"Honestly, I don't begrudge Rod, Frederica, and other conservatives of other flavors. Their desire for a system of belief that is bounded by practices and language that has been forged through the centuries is a natural progression of the Aristotle-Aquinas-MacIntyre-Yoder-Hauerwas stream.
But for my part, this is neither an intellectually nor spiritually compelling move, because it mitigates against the ongoing work and revelation of the Holy Spirit. In fact, methinks, instead of maintaining an openness to the Spirit, it tends to enshrine the opinions of men -- particularly dead, white ones.”
Interestingly, none of the folks you mentioned in this "stream" of thought are actually orthodox (a fact which, no doubt, has crossed your mind). And the idea that a system of belief "mitigates against the ongoing work of the holy spirit" is a classic red herring. It assumes that God cannot work within human frames of reference. It assumes that the skepticism you display embodies greater intellectual integrity than a thoughtful belief in a system which dares to have "answers.” And it denies the fact that all thought – even “emerging” skepticism of meta-narratives – carries with it presuppositions and assumptions about the way the world works.
In other words, there is no such thing as “unbounded” belief. We are all bound to those things which we find plausible and I think it takes more courage to admit that human reason is limited (and needs limits) than it does to take the “high road” of skepticism that God can’t possibly work within prayerfully discerned boundaries.
Oh, and very few – if any – of the “theologians” of the Orthodox (or even the broader non-Protestant Catholic) tradition would be considered “white” by today’s standards (red herring # 2).
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.