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 Randy,
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 intransigent absolutism 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 about "authority" in relationship to the Old Testament, to Paul, to Yeshua and to the interplay among all three.
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. (There is even doubt that Paul's intent was to condemn homosexuality, at least 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 remember when re-marriage was last considered an 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.
Why are contemporary Christians comfortable contradicting Mark on divorce-and-remarriage but rally around Paul's proscription of homosexuality? (And 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 but rather 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, and currently both have black and latino friends whose cause they champion.
Not long ago, I was surprised when this couple mentioned their youthful memory of the intense -- and disgusting -- body odor of black people.
This memory recalls my own childhood to 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" so that the inevitable result was 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 behaviors which had always been "fly by night" 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...
While making intractable moral judgments on a matter Yeshua himself never mentioned, American Christians ignore the actual counsel of Yeshua - including counsels that seem central to the mind of Christ.
"Love your enemies. 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."
Through glib condemnation of human minorities, righteous bigots have always mustered the animus that trample mercy and compassion
The longer I live, the more convinced I become that the essential message of Yeshua is to shatter tribalism and parochialism, to exit the "temple," to reconcile with perceived enemies "out in the world," and then -- only then -- to place our ritual gifts on the altar.
Matthew 5:43-48
***
Finally, a few comments on "Natural Law," the centerpiece of Christian morality since Aquinas and the 13th century. (I never reflect on Aquinas' theological work without recalling the 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 formal theology, Catholic Christianity -- and I think most Protestant Christianity -- is 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 acros the animal kingdom.
In keeping with humankind's developing understanding that Reality as contingent and probabilistic, I see better concordance with Truth if we abandon our black/white, either/or (Manichean?) model of Nature and posit instead that Nature includes not only what is statistically "normal" but also certain "standard deviations" from what is currently considered "normal."
Metaphorically, I find it useful to compare the shekhinah of God's presence on earth with our understanding of 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 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 shekinah? 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 divorceable 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 any "standard deviation" falling fully under "the Bell Curve," we are beneficially reminded that "We only really love God to the extent that we love those who are least lovable."
Finally, what happens to the commonplace 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 Old Testament injunction to "multiply and fill the earth."
Well...
By God, we have 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" and, not surprisingly, matters of great pitch and moment actually play out within history.
Within history, entire "covenants" between God and humankind have been radically changed.
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 day 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, Randy CarterFrom: 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 FrancisGoing 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
