Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Rowan Williams: Staring Into the Dragon's Eyes

Here is how Paul Elie's March 2009 article on Rowan Williams in The Atlantic entitled "The Velvet Reformation" begins:

"Really, I pity him,” a man in the kitchen said in a crisp English accent. “Poor Rowan. He is in an impossible position. He wants to stand with us, I think. But he can’t.”

A West Village apartment; a warm spring evening. In the living room, men and women of middle age nibbled at nuts and flatbreads around a fortepiano. At the kitchen table, a man in a black suit sat signing copies of a book he had written. It was like many a book party in Manhattan’s old-line gay community, except that the author, wearing a scarlet shirt with a clerical collar, was the
Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, and the book was the story of his struggle to become the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion.

I was there, tagging along with a documentary filmmaker, and I found the Englishman’s remark striking. The point of the party was to honor Robinson, whose ordination as “the gay bishop” had made him a minor celebrity, a cross between Saint Francis and Barney Frank. But the conversation in the kitchen that May evening in 2008 centered on Rowan Williams instead. As archbishop of Canterbury—the so-called Anglican pope—Williams had treated Robinson’s ordination as an unwanted provocation and had refused to invite the new bishop to the Lambeth Conference, the once-a-decade meeting of the bishops in the Anglican Communion. And yet the people around me weren’t denouncing him as the oppressor; they spoke as if he, not their friend Gene, was the one engaged in an unending struggle against impossible odds.

He is. At a time when Christianity is twisted into a pretzel over the issue of homosexuality, Rowan Williams—alone among the top Christian leaders—is trying to carry on a conversation about it. His approach has been quixotic, at times baffling. But the long-term goal seems clear: to enable the church he leads to become fully open to gays and lesbians without breaking apart."

The rest of the article is well-worth reading. It seems to me, as a casual observer of Anglican church politics, that Elie has pretty much understood his subject and presents him fairly, abeit totally uncritically. In fact, the article swerves toward hero-worship on several occasions as when after pegging Williams as "the great hope of liberal religion: a progressive counterpart to the conservative pope" and noting his self-identification as a socialist and his opposition to the Iraq War, the author can contain himself no longer and burst out with: "Here at last was a religious leader to believe in." I suppose if one has nothing else to believe in, one might get enthused about believing in a religious leader; that wasn't supposed to be the point of Christianity, however.

But what I am interested in his Elie's frank analysis of Williams' role in the debate over the liberalism of The Episcopal Church in the US and the liberal Anglicanism of the West in general. This debate so often is reduced (in this article too) to the issue of the ordination of a homosexual bishop. The tactic is to talk in highly specific terms about just this one issue, so as to deflect attention from the general trend that it represents, a trend toward cultural accommodation to the secular, liberal West and the growing acceptance of heresy and revisionist church practices from liturgy to music to public witness.

Essentially, the point made in this article is that by fighting for unity, delay, conversation, listening and political accommodation, Williams is fighting for the liberal agenda of revision in general. I think this is basically correct. To say that we should think further about how to respond to the general cultural acceptance of homosexuality is structurally the same thing as the Serpent said to Eve in the Garden when he asked "Did God really say?" Of course, God really did not say "from any tree in the Garden" but by asking the question and getting Eve to respond the Serpent was able to draw Eve into in a "conversation" that eventually resulted in the Serpent having an opening to deny God's veracity and, in that situation Eve, who had already surrendered moral clarity, finally was tempted to give in to doubt. Eve made the mistake of dialoguing with an enemy who only wanted to destroy her, not debate with her.

J. R. R. Tolkien knew that one must never stare into the eyes of a dragon (serpent) for to do so is gradually to come under the dragon's power. Everybody knows that - in the sense that alert readers of English literature, which was formed under Christian influence, are aware of this truth as a persistent theme. C. S. Lewis shows how Eustace (in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) got into serious trouble because he went to a modern school where dragons were not on the curriculum.

Rowan Williams seems to have gone to the school of postmodern philosophy in which the ultimate undecideabilty of things is rooted in the agonistic nature of reality, which is at bottom nothing other than the will-to-power. In that school, nature is not created by God with its own peaceful and good intelligibility; it is raw material for the will. If you wonder what it is that Anglicans are waiting for, listening for and trying to discern, it has more to do with whose will to power is going to triumph than any soft wisperings of the Holy Spirit. The school of Nietzsche is a harsh and brutal school, like so many public schools in the modern West, and you don't learn about dragons in such places.

27 comments:

a. steward said...

You write: "Rowan Williams seems to have gone to the school of postmodern philosophy in which the ultimate undecideabilty of things is rooted in the agonistic nature of reality, which is at bottom nothing other than the will-to-power."

This is completely false. You can't slander people like this, even if its a blog, without backing it up. You're just cutting and pasting from David Bentley Hart and smearing it on Williams. Calling Rowan Williams Nietzschean is like calling Yoder Niebuhrian (wait, actually you do that too!). Since Williams has a number of published writings dealing with just this issue, I think you owe it to him to take up the matter there.

I read the article myself, and as regards your reading of Elie's perspective on Williams, I think you're correct. He does seem to insist on painting him as the great liberal hope. I'm much less convinced than you are, though, that Elie is right.

Craig Carter said...

Adam,
So if Williams is not permanently undecided on the issue of homosexuality, which side do you think he comes down on? Have you seen anything in writing in which he disowns what he wrote in "The Body's Grace?" He has droped vague hints and has said that as ABC he has to refrain from taking sides in the political confict, but to my knowledge he has never said that homosexuality is morally wrong. If he has, then I'll apologize for being mistaken.

But it seems to me that if he is not undecided, then he must be pro-homosexuality, which is worse. Robert Jenson, in a quote I posted recently says that RW is too undecided on too many things and I agree. And for a pastor entrusted with the care of souls, being undecided on moral issues is a serious matter. He does not minister in a research institute, but a church.

Aside from RW, I think you and I disagree on the issue of homosexuality, do we not?

Thom Stark said...

"Rowan Williams seems to have gone to the school of postmodern philosophy in which the ultimate undecideabilty of things is rooted in the agonistic nature of reality, which is at bottom nothing other than the will-to-power."

Translation: "My pre-critical reading of the Scriptures requires no defense and allows me to determine without hesitation or discussion what God says." And this is not the will to power? Right.

You hypocrite. The same Scriptures you appeal to condemning homosexuality say that God commanded the genocidal slaughter of whole peoples, including the innocent and unborn children you claim to want to defend. Even Yoder recognized that early traditions in the Hebrew Bible affirm the practice of human sacrifice, which later traditions condemn, even while some continue to confess the "divine" origin of those traditions (e.g., Ezekiel 20:25-26). Even Yoder recognized that these traditions aren't things we'd want to affirm about God as bearers of the Jesus tradition.

I guess Craig Carter and John Yoder fairly exemplify the difference between precritical and postcritical readings of Scripture. Which also explains why former-Yoderian Craig Carter thinks the discussion about homosexuality going on in the church is part of a liberal conspiracy, while Yoder himself made at least some effort to facilitate and further precisely this conversation. Admit it. Yoder was a liberal too!

Craig, "The Bible Says It, I Believe It, That Settles It" is way beneath your intelligence. But that's what your position amounts to. Only to the extent one accepts that approach to the Scriptures does your position on homosexuality have any actual power, regardless of your will to it. And your position on abortion is just fundamentally compromised until you acknowledge that not everything the Bible says about God is God speaking.

Craig Carter said...

Thom,
You write:
"Only to the extent one accepts that approach to the Scriptures does your position on homosexuality have any actual power"

and

"And your position on abortion is just fundamentally compromised until you acknowledge that not everything the Bible says about God is God speaking."

Your juvenile "village atheist" approach to biblical criticism is just sad. You are right in that my view of homosexuality depends on a high view of Scriptural authority and the concept of canon. But your attemts to deride Biblical authority are simply beyond the pale for anyone who takes historic Christianity seriously. It is not surprising that, since the liberal attempt to justify homosexuality by exegetical means has been such a flaming failure, that the next move is to deny Biblical authority and thus any need for exegesis in the first place. Instead we just deny the inconvenient texts their authority. What a cop-out.

I'm getting tired of your verbal abuse, but I put up with it in the name of free speech. But your misrepresentations of Yoder cannot go unchallenged. Yoder had a high view of Biblical authority and he defended the OT against all its cultured despisers. This is a matter of historical and textual record and any unbiased observer can read the record any time; no one need accept your rants at face value.

Your anger is indicative of your attitude toward the Bible, historical orthodoxy and anyone who questions your modernist prejudices. Why don't you go lurk somewhere else where you won't have those fundamental prejudices challenged? Maybe then you can chill out and get some anger management therapy.

Thom Stark said...

Right. I need the anger management therapy. Thank you for your incredibly generosity, allowing me to spew my hate here on your free speech blog. It’s generous of you to put up with those of us who lurk about on your blog looking for a fight just because we love to hear ourselves talk. And thank you for challenging my fundamental prejudices (mischaracterized... again), while deflecting and ignoring my challenges to yours.

Anyway, you’re absolutely right that my appeal to the moral and intellectual inconsistencies in Scripture is simply a juvenile “village atheist” approach, and not at all a way of highlighting the complexity of the issues at hand. Your black or white, take it or leave it readings of Scripture represent a more mature approach I take it. If I’d just grow up everything would be more simple.

“Your attempts to deride Biblical authority are simply beyond the pale for anyone who takes historic Christianity seriously.”

Right. So according to you we have to choose between taking historic Christianity seriously and biblical history seriously. It’s either one or the other. There are only “liberals” or “conservatives.” You can’t take historic Christianity seriously and be critical of historic Christianity at the same time. You can’t take the Bible seriously and be critical of it at the same time. Taking historic Christianity “seriously” means unquestioningly assenting to its every tenet. Right.

This is another of your ridiculous attempts to paint your opponents’ positions as absurd. You can’t trick me into accepting this nonsense, Craig.

“It is not surprising that, since the liberal attempt to justify homosexuality by exegetical means has been such a flaming failure, that the next move is to deny Biblical authority and thus any need for exegesis in the first place. Instead we just deny the inconvenient texts their authority. What a cop-out.”

What BS! I wish I lived in a world as simple as yours, Craig. I’d have much fewer questions. So let me get this straight. When you’re faced with texts that depict God as desiring and commanding the slaughter of innocent and unborn children, allegory or dispensationalism become legitimate, successful exegetical solutions to the problem, because we all know God values the life of unborn children and would never will their murder. But in the case of Scripture’s much more scant references to what we call homosexuality, the only legitimate exegetical strategy is a historical-literal one. I guess that’s not a double-standard or a contradiction in your position at all. I guess anyone who would appeal to this problem just has a juvenile approach to the Scriptures. Anyone pressing for logical consistency is the “village atheist.”

For the record, as much as I ordinarily identify myself with the left-wing liberal establishment and all the corresponding modernist epistemological presumptions, I never tried to legitimize homosexuality with exegesis of the Bible. So once again, you’re attacking a straw man. Although, I guess I’ve given you good reason since in every other way I’m just an Enlightenment flunky.

“I'm getting tired of your verbal abuse, but I put up with it in the name of free speech.”

This is a riot! The ironies are just exploding off my computer screen.

“But your misrepresentations of Yoder cannot go unchallenged. Yoder had a high view of Biblical authority and he defended the OT against all its cultured despisers. This is a matter of historical and textual record and any unbiased observer can read the record any time; no one need accept your rants at face value.”

This is your challenge? A counter-assertion? Well, let me tell you, I think you’re simplifying Yoder quite a bit. Yes, Yoder had a high view of Scriptural authority. (So do I.) But he wasn’t pre-critical either. And he didn’t just accept every sentence in the Bible as divinely inspired. In “If Abraham Was Our Father” for instance, he makes it clear that human sacrifice is the ideology behind many of the holy war texts. Elsewhere he argues that just war theorists aren’t on the best grounds appealing to OT warfare, because OT warfare affirms as morally acceptable all kinds of stuff everyone (including Yoder) agrees isn’t morally acceptable. He recognizes that the Bible can contradict itself morally and theologically, that there is development, tension, disagreement and sometimes even error. Of course, for Yoder that wasn’t a big deal, because his view of Scriptural authority didn’t hinge on simplistic notions of plenary inspiration like yours seems to. That’s a matter of historical and textual record. So I hope nobody feels they have to take your counter-rants at face value.

I suggest Yoder’s more complicated (than yours) view of Scriptural authority explains why he didn’t see the conversation on the moral status of “homosexuals” (his quotations marks) as fruitless and just a sign of the oncoming liberal uprising.

“Your anger is indicative of your attitude toward the Bible, historical orthodoxy and anyone who questions your modernist prejudices.”

Thanks for the analysis, doc. Unfortunately, the only thing that angers me is the marginalization of human beings by ideologues like you. I think my attitude to the Bible is much more respectful than yours is, precisely because I’m willing to be critical of it when necessary. My attitude to historical orthodoxy is no different than Yoder’s. For us to talk about faithful traditions we have to be willing to talk about unfaithful ones as well. Also like Yoder I take the Bible much more seriously than I do historical orthodoxy. And my attitude to anyone who questions my modernist prejudices is congenial, since I know better than simplistically to equate a critical reading posture with a commitment to the Enlightenment.

Another thing you can learn from Yoder here. Just as he could be critical of the Bible while still affirming Biblical authority, he could also make use of useful Enlightenment techniques without accepting a modernist worldview.

Once again, Craig, you’ve managed to deflect legitimate challenges to your position by slotting your interlocutor into a pejorative category that doesn’t really fit him when the facts are given a cursory glance.

I’m sorry if you’re interpreting my challenges to your nonsense as some sort of juvenile angst or posture of anger toward the Bible and tradition and “conservatives.” The fact is, I just think you’re full of shit.

a. steward said...

I'll just hop over that little spat.

Short response here, and more to come, because the absurdity of your charge that abiding in conflict can only mean one's ontology is agonistic got me thinking.

a. steward said...

I believe we do disagree on the matter of homosexuality. I have only recently begun to think seriously about this question, largely on account of the experience of personal friends who happen to be attracted to people of the same sex, and the question is very complex, so I don't pretend to have arrived at a definitive answer.

The biblical evidence is basically moot for me. Paul is not arguing against homosexuality as a Christian ethicist in Rom. 1. He is making rhetorical use of a shared assumption of it as unnatural in order to make a point about how we have fallen away from nature. This makes a big difference.

It would be easy to take the Catholic natural theology route, and just say that all sexual union must tend toward procreation. But it's clear that the Bible sees all sorts of uses for sex other than making babies.

Craig Carter said...

Adam
You write on your blog:

"For me, how homosexuality relates to Christian discipleship is a question that is far from settled, and so I have no qualms with RW’s course of action."

This is exactly the point. Since I do believe, on the basis of Scripture, that homosexual behaviour is wrong, I naturally do have a problem with RW's course of action.

The Church is not now and never was divided on homosexuality. There was certainly an upswell of dissent in the last 50 years on the part of some in liberal Protestantism and their RC fellow-travellers, dissent which is certainly not limited to the issue of homosexuality. It is a product of the sexual revolution in the West. And there is more wide spread dissent on all sorts of other doctrines too - everything from creation to the Resurrection to theism itself, to say nothing of abortion, euthanasia etc.

I object to setting up the dispute as if we had two wings of the Church equally commited to inhabiting Christian Tradition and acknowledging the authority of Scripture and are having a good faith dialogue. In reality, what is going on is that we conservatives must "listen" and then if they have not yet given in "listen some more" and so on. The actions of TEC have made it pretty clear that there can be one and only one outcome to such "listening." They have already ordained a practicing homosexual bishop. That is how they "listened" to Lambeth 1:10. Clearly it is the Africans who are supposed to be doing all the listening and the liberal Westerners who are supposed to do all the talking. If the liberals were really interested in a two-way dialogue would they not have refused to act at the episcopal level until there was consensus?

Either RW believes that homosexuality can be right in NA and wrong in Africa or he believes it is right and he is just trying to keep the process going long until the conservatives either give up, leave or change their view. I think it is more likely the latter, but if it is the former then this is an incoherent position. That was my point.

Now you might claim that this is a serious dialogue being held in good faith that could go either way in the end. Theoretically that is possible and for some individuals, including some liberals, no doubt that is how they honestly view it. But does it make sense to see it this way any more, given what has happened in the past 5 years? Many things are theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

What I find particularly reprehensible is the political strategy of pretending that we need dialogue when actually there is no interest in dialogue, just wearing down the opposition with lawsuits, manipulation of meetings, and endless repetition of the old tired arguments that always boil down to "individual experience and individual will trumps Scripture and Tradition."

a. steward said...

Are you saying that homosexual practice itself, or advocacy of the legitimacy of homosexual relationships for Christians is a product of the sexual revolution. Surely you wouldn't argue the former?

I'd like to see you put forth something of an argument from scripture as to the enduring paranaetic import of the Bible's sparse writings on homosexuality. I'm simply not convinced at this point.

As for tradition, a simple appeal to it is meaningless, given the fact that it is so rife with opinions and dogmas that I and my fellow Protestants feel no compulsion to accept. For instance, "the tradition" conceivably includes the white slave-holders who are my most direct spiritual ancestors, does it not? Whose tradition? Which sexual ethic.

Craig Carter said...

Adam,
1. In answer to your first question, the latter of course. Homosexual behaviour has been around longer than the Bible has.

2. I will do something on exegesis, but I haven't got time right now. But I've been thinking of doing something on it anyway. Anyone who wants to argue on this subject should consult Robert Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" and Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the NT" Ch. 16. (Gagnon's website has many other papers, debates and links as well.) For a recent statement of the conservative Evangelical view, see "God, Marriage and Family" by A. Kostenberger/David Jones and for the RC perspective see John Paul II's "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body" (2nd ed. ed. by M. Waldstein).

One point I would make just briefly is that the issue of homosexuality cannot be discussed in isolation from the issue of human sexuality and theological anthropology in general. It just won't do to say that there are only 5 or 7 or 9 or whatever passages that deal with homosexuality in the Bible because that makes Gen. 1-3, Matt. 19: 1-12 and Eph. 5 all irrelevant to the discussion and that is just not a responsible way to procede. The ideal has to be considered in assessing any possible justification of a deviation from the norm.

3. While it is true that the Christian Tradition is not unified on a great many issues; on this one there has been unity for 3000 years going back to Moses. So it is possible that the HS has allowed the whole Church to wallow in error all this time, but how likely is it?

Thom Stark said...

Also relevant is Jeffrey Stout's chapter on abomination in Ethics After Babel.

Thom Stark said...

Dan Oudshoorn has a few things to say about arguments from nature or from "the order of things," especially with reference to Genesis 1-2 and Romans 1, here and here.

Sam Adams said...

Following the tenor of Craig's comments, I think the burden of proof lies with those defending homosexuality. What sort of anthropology, theological or otherwise, makes sense of homosexuality? I'd be more than willing to have this sort of conversation, but when what passes for argument is too often mere assertion of rights and personal testimonials it seems pointless. What does it mean to say "I" desire that which is contradictory to the makeup of my body and assert that somehow that is good? I would honestly like an answer to that question that takes seriously a faithful and biblical theological anthropology.

Thanks.

Thom Stark said...

Sam,

If I'm not mistaken, anthropology involves listening patiently to testimonials and observing the relationship between the practice itself and the practice as framed by the testimonials, so I think you'd be at a bit of an impasse if you wanted to have an anthropological discussion but didn't want to hear testimony from the objects of analysis.

Regardless, refer to the chapter in Stout I noted above, where he deals with the issue of abomination anthropologically and notes how what is considered natural or unnatural behavior by societies is related to modes of production and subsistence. It's the conversation you want to have but from the other end.

I find it odd that we're having this discussion about the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality on the blog of an avowed MacIntyrian.

In response to Craig's third point in his last response to Adam, I'd say that betrays a rather static view of human development, a view addressed in the first post by Dan Oudshoorn.

On another post Craig tried to argue that the lethal results of homosexual promiscuity was some sort of indication that homosexuality is inherently sinful. Obviously this argument is ridiculous. Heterosexual promiscuity also is responsible to countless deaths and diseases. Nobody here is arguing for the theological legitimacy of promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual. I was very surprised that Craig thought this argument was worth the time it took to type it.

Sam Adams said...

Thom,
I appreciate your response. I'm not thinking of anthropology in terms of the study of human culture and society, but rather as an attempt to provide an account of what it means to be human. In theological discourse this often means speaking of the relationship between the body and soul, or articulating ways in which we can speak about our identity according to the multiplicity of aspects that make us human.

I'm not sure what Stout is supposed to contribute here unless you are trying to make the argument that homosexuality is an abomination only because of how it relates to modes of production and subsistence in ancient cultures. That is not what he is arguing. Stout is arguing that moral abominations are often rooted in complex systems of thought and the ways of seeing the world these systems support. Over time, as the systems are replaced, the abomination continues until finally the abomination loses its power. He argues, as I do, that we should have moral discussion at the level of the systems of thought that produced the abomination to begin with--so, while he disagrees with Aquinas, he also claims that his position is rational and should be respected. My problem is that most conversations about homosexuality fail to address the assumptions each side makes about what it means to be human. The extreme example of this is when someone claims to be a woman born in a man's body. This assumes an anthropology that I think is fundamentally flawed.

The interesting thing about Stout is that he readily admits that academia has been formed by the modern tradition that has come to reject homosexuality as an abomination, so his essay is an appeal to examine the assumptions and belief systems that underlie those abominations that seem foreign yet continue to persist outside of the academic world. The very way in which he begins his chapter reveals the values that drive his perspective of homosexuality, yet those values, too, are equally up for examination by the moral philosopher who wants to understand why we find some behaviors abominable. Even if Stout's modern pragmatist tradition has led him to his liberal position regarding human sexual behavior, he still needs to provide an account, as do you, of why sodomy ought to be normalized by the church.

Thom Stark said...

Sam,

I appreciate your response.

You said, "I'm not sure what Stout is supposed to contribute here unless you are trying to make the argument that homosexuality is an abomination only because of how it relates to modes of production and subsistence in ancient cultures. That is not what he is arguing. Stout is arguing that moral abominations are often rooted in complex systems of thought and the ways of seeing the world these systems support. Over time, as the systems are replaced, the abomination continues until finally the abomination loses its power."

No. He actually is arguing that homosexuality was abominated because of certain modes of production and subsistence that are "primitive" and that have been replaced. He is not inconspicuously implying that the reasons for its abomination no longer obtain and thus that its abomination is vestigial. Granted, that's not his primary argument, but the point is clear. Also granted that his assumptions are subject to investigation also, but that is not a response to the logic of his argument about the relationship between abominations and the complex systems of thought that construct them.

"Even if Stout's modern pragmatist tradition has led him to his liberal position regarding human sexual behavior, he still needs to provide an account, as do you, of why sodomy ought to be normalized by the church."

No. As an atheist, Stout certainly does not need to provide such an account. And I would provide no account of why "sodomy" needs to be normalized by the church, because "sodomy" is gang rape at worst, and inhospitality at best. Neither of those should be normalized by the church. But you're meaning to refer to what we call homosexuality. What I am suggesting is that, rather than putting the burden of proof on the side of homosexuality to display its anthropological coherency, the burden is on those who wish to sustain homosexuality abominated status to display in what ways homosexuality threatens the integrity of human society. The burden of proof shouldn't be on the new phenomenon, but on the old mentality, precisely because, timeworn as it is, it ought to be able to present itself coherently. If its coherency can be called into question on rational grounds, that is all the other side is responsible to do. The traditional side is the one calling into the question the homosexuals right to exist as homosexuals. The homosexual side is not calling into question the anthropology of heterosexuality. Therefore, as the accusing party, the traditional side is obliged to explain why homosexuality threatens the integrity of human society or why it is anthropologically incoherent.

On what grounds do you claim that homosexuality is biologically unsound? On the grounds that homosexuals cannot produce offspring? On grounds is that criterion the sole determinant of what gets to count as biological soundness? On what grounds do you claim that homosexuality threatens the institution of the family? On what grounds do you claim that homosexuality somehow contradicts the natural order of things? Certainly not the grounds that the natural order doesn't know anything about homosexuality.

You're saying that the burden of proof for a coherent anthropology that makes homosexuality make sense as a human activity is on the side that has no problem making sense of homosexuality as a human activity. That's completely backwards. What needs to be called into question here, from a Wittgensteinian perspective, is the assumption that such an account can be provided except in direct response to your own questions. I know a lot of homosexuals and none of them have any difficulty understanding themselves as fully developed, functional, and involved human beings. The confusion is on your side, and therefore the burden, once again, is on you to display why homosexuality should be seen as deficient.

Craig Carter attempted to provide such a reason, but failed miserably. He equated promiscuity with homosexuality, but "heterosexuality" has had that problem too.

So what are your reasons? Why does homosexuality threaten us? Why is it theologically or anthropologically incoherent? (I hope you're not equating biology with anthropology.) Why is it biologically unsound? Is sex the only problem here? Is the problem the male penis going into the male anus? If so, what about a homosexual relationship that engages only in oral or manual sex? Or what about a homosexual relationship that is not in the ordinary sense sexual? What if two castrated men fell in love and devoted themselves to one another for life? At which of these points exactly does "homosexuality" become anthropologically problematic?

Why do you believe "transgendered" persons represent a fundamentally flawed anthropology? Does the doctrine of the Trinity have anything to contribute here? What about the feminist critique of gendered notions of God? If God is neither male nor female but has characteristics of both--if both male and female were made in the image of God, could a case not be made then that what is called a "transsexual" is also made in the image of God? What is it about this question that strikes us as appalling or strange, and why does it so strike us?

Moreover, how is it that we are able to glean from biology notions of moral fittingness? Does biology preach morality? Or are our notions of moral fittingness interpretations of biology? I once heard a fellow student argue that the male gender is primary and the female gender is secondary because the male has the sword and the female has the sheath. Hopefully this sort of argument sounds crude and ignorant to most readers, but frankly I wonder (read: am of the conviction) that all such attempts to derive gender roles and moral fittingness from biological features are equally humanly-constructed concepts.

A quick glance at the broad and strange diversity of the gender relationships (sexually and asexually) in the animal kingdom should shatter our easy assumptions about the relationship between biology and morality.

You point to Genesis 1-3 and I say that clearly Genesis 1-3 reflects the normative sexual relationships of that world. You point to the legal material that condemns homosexuality, and I argue that homosexuality was abominated in part because it confused and undermined the patriarchal system that so pervades that selfsame legal material. It was also abominated of course because the people's survival depended upon their ability to procreate.

I think you get the pont. I challenge you to offer an objection to homosexuality that cannot be coherently refuted.

In the end, I think your basic assumption that "the church" should, or is even able, to "normalize" homosexuality is faulty. That presumes a sort of "church" that does not now exist, nor has it ever. There is no "church" out there to make such a decree. There are only human beings like you and me and my homosexual friends. The question is whether you can accept them as they are, or not.

Craig Carter thinks asking Christians with the traditional view of homosexuality to "listen" is a euphemism for asking them to hear the other side until they convert or back down.

I only hope that when Craig Carter is calling for an unjust war to stop, he has the courage to do the same thing to his ideological opponents.

Thom Stark said...

Forgive the rampant typos.

Sam Adams said...

Thom,

Your typos are forgiven--please forgive me for suggesting that Stout needs to provide an account of sodomy as normal for the church. Of course he doesn't. And I suppose that sodomy is quite a loaded word--I did mean homosexual anal sex, something that I fail to see how we could ever claim as good since our bodies don't work well that way. It's a harmful activity and I don't see how we can make sense of it if our identity as humans includes our gendered physicality.

You write,
"The homosexual side is not calling into question the anthropology of heterosexuality. Therefore, as the accusing party, the traditional side is obliged to explain why homosexuality threatens the integrity of human society or why it is anthropologically incoherent."

Of course the homosexual side is calling into question the anthropology of heterosexuality. It is redefining sex as if biology doesn't matter to it. It is essentially separating our sexual experience from the normative use of our bodies. Any kind of sex is good because what really matters is how it contributes to the bond between two consenting, free individuals, or as Stout says, "a highly pleasurable expression of loving respect between consenting adults." But sex also has everything to do with our physical relatedness to our community and the norms of family life and the rearing of children--even if not all cases of sex produce children. I suspect you would agree with this. And I suspect we would differ with respect to what the norms of family life given our gendered existence ought to be. I would argue that gender difference is a biological contribution to the normative structure of our communal existence. When you change the norms for sexuality, you change the structure of the community. Or, as you change the structure of the community, the norms for sexuality will change. It would seem to work both ways. And biology matters to the community because we are physical creatures.

I haven't made any scriptural arguments (I didn't refer to Gen 1-3 or the legal material) but I don't think they are as easily dismissed as you seem to think-- neither is the consensus of Jewish and Christian tradition for quite a long time! But I recognize the hermeneutical difficulties that we would face reading scripture from such different positions. I do think it worth pointing out, however, that the Genesis account is not merely reflective of ancient sexual norms, but rather ought to be seriously considered as teaching us something about what it means to be human.

That's all I have time for now. Got to go to a church that has something to say about what it means to be a family.

Sam

Thom Stark said...

Sam,

I appreciate your willingness to respond and that you wrote in a hurry. But frankly I think you're just begging still more questions about what's "normative," what biology "tells us," and what the family is. I'm glad you go to a church that has something to say about what family is. A lot of gay people I know are fortunate in the same way.

I do find it interesting that these appeals to "the traditional family" are coming from people who follow a Christ who challenged the idolization of precisely those traditional family structures and who reoriented our perspective on what gets to count as family and what the significance of biology is for the institution. I think if most Christians understood Jesus' claims about the family, they'd feel as threatened by him as they do by homosexuals.

matthew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
matthew said...

"Anyone who wants to argue on this subject should consult Robert Gagnon's "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" and Richard Hays' The Moral Vision of the NT" Ch. 16. (Gagnon's website has many other papers, debates and links as well.) For a recent statement of the conservative Evangelical view, see "God, Marriage and Family" by A. Kostenberger/David Jones and for the RC perspective see John Paul II's "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body" (2nd ed. ed. by M. Waldstein)."

Anyone who wants to argue on this subject should also consult the more current work that is being done by those who are seeking to understand LGBT roles in the church from anthropological, exegetical, traditional, and theological points of view.

Sexuality and the Chrisitan Body: Their Way into the Triune God by Eugene Rogers.

Queer Theology ed. by Gerard Loughlin. (This collection includes essays from Graham Ward, DAvid Matzko McCarthy, Catherine Pickstock and others)

Engaging Scripture by Stephen Fowl (esp. ch4)

Cities of God by Graham Ward

Homosexuality and the Church: Both Sides of the Debate ed. Jeffery Siker

Scripture and Discernment by Luke Timothy Johnson


Against the claim that "The Church is not now and never was divided on homosexuality." consult:

Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality and Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe by John Boswell

Read these, then go into some Episcopal Churches and listen to conversations, go to lunch with some conservative and liberal Episcopalians and listen to them talk to each other, listen to the comments from the bishops who actually went to the Lambeth conference, then come back and tell me that "no serious dialogue has been held in good faith."

Thom Stark said...

Thanks, Matthew.

I'll also add, Sam, that I concur that "biology matters" because we are "physical creatures." Once again, however, you have not shown how homosexuality disregards or distorts biology. You have only asserted as much, based on unexamined preconceptions about what biology "means." So I'm still waiting for an answer to that question, and others.

Sam Adams said...

Thom,
I'm not intending to beg any questions here--there are a lot and I am not privileged enough right now to be able to address everything you bring up--nor perhaps could I. I am appreciating the conversation as it is helping me to think through these issues. I think you are right that not everything can be determined simply by looking at biology--we always "see" biology through certain social and cultural lenses. I wouldn't mean to imply that we don't. But I have challenged you on the issue of anal sex: can you make sense of it biologically (however you understand biology)?

I also hardly think you could make a case that Jesus' challenge to the family had anything to do with sexual practice. Instead he was instituting a family called the church that would embrace those who lacked a family. There is quite a bit more there to be said, but to read into his reordering of family life the liberal sexuality that has emerged today is frankly misguided.

I am also a little baffled by your suggestion that Trinitarian doctrine might have something to say to positively of transgendered people. Please elaborate.

Also, thank you Matthew for the bibliography. There are always more books to read! What have you learned after having read all those books and experienced all that that you can now bring to the conversation?

Thom Stark said...

Sam,

You asked, "But I have challenged you on the issue of anal sex: can you make sense of it biologically (however you understand biology)?"

Well, can you make sense of heterosexual oral or manual sex "biologically"? The question itself is confused.

I would point out that males have a "g-spot" in their anus. So I would say that homosexual men are biologically designed to experience pleasure during sex.

Also, the "anal" "argument" doesn't obtain with reference to lesbians in the slightest. So according to this logic, lesbianism is OK but male homosexuality is unnatural.

You said, "I also hardly think you could make a case that Jesus' challenge to the family had anything to do with sexual practice. Instead he was instituting a family called the church that would embrace those who lacked a family. There is quite a bit more there to be said, but to read into his reordering of family life the liberal sexuality that has emerged today is frankly misguided."

First of all, I said nothing of "liberal sexuality." That is a value judgment on your part that serves to frame my point in a pejorative light. Second, my comment was not meant to imply that Jesus' reordering of the family was directly relevant to the issue at hand. Third, I take serious issue with the part of your quote I put in bold above. To summarize Jesus' challenge to the institution of the family as merely creating a "new family" that could take in those "who lacked a family" is quite reductive to say the least. Jesus did not lack a family when he publicly announced that his mother and brothers were no longer his mother and brothers. He was not speaking to people who lacked a family when he said that his message would result in the break up of families (quite the opposite). The church wasn't an orphanage. It was an alternative to the nuclear family system that served to support the centralized politics of the temple regime. Certainly, Jesus did not set out to entirely dissolve the institution of the nuclear family, but by relativizing it and setting up a new institution in its prior position of prominence he greatly changed the significance of the nuclear family (at least for those who took him seriously).

But part of what this means is that the finality and the sanctity of the nuclear family system is called into question. Jesus is calling for a new normal, one that is expansive, more inclusive, and liberative. Emphasis on the nuclear family always functions to sustain the status-quo, and to erode the strength of local forms of political authority that function as challenges and obstacles to a centralized political and religious order (see Jack Goody, Naomi Steinberg, Engels, et al.). Jesus wasn't talking about the church taking care of those without families (although he obviously advocated that). He was talking about the way the nuclear family was used to insulate human beings from significant contact with other human beings, and he was calling for a "new family" that was broader in scope.

My point is that the only interest Jesus seems to have in the nuclear family you feel is threatened by homosexuality is to call its legitimacy and autonomy into question. The only time Jesus ever "focused on the family" was when he was calling people to put their focus outside the nuclear family.

My only intention in relating this to the issue of homosexual marriage is to say that Christians are going to have a hard time explaining how homosexual marriage actually threatens the institution of the family and why that would necessarily be a bad thing if it did. The vision of the family Jesus seems to espouse gives in my mind a lot more room to breathe for something like homosexual marriage, and a lot less room for the patriarchal institutions we call "families" here in the conservative United States.

"I am also a little baffled by your suggestion that Trinitarian doctrine might have something to say to positively of transgendered people. Please elaborate."

No thank you. Trinitarian theology is baffling enough as it is.

Sam Adams said...

Thom,

I certainly didn't mean "liberal" in a pejorative way, although given the context of this blog I can see how you could think that. I think it fits your position, but, as someone once said, "labels are devices that save talkative persons the trouble of thinking." Yet, to the extent that you oppose the conservatism of the United States and, if I remember correctly, identify Yoder as a liberal, I am surprised you object!

You seem to have it in for the nuclear family! Given your comments it is not surprising that people feel the heterosexual family is threatened. My comment that you highlighted was immediately followed by a disclaimer:"There is quite a bit more there to be said..." Your claim that this is "reductive to say the least" I was attempting to acknowledge by the following statement. The point is, it is quite a leap from Jesus' words, his disciples interpretation of them, to the complete reordering of the nuclear family that you seem to favor. In Luke (14.26f), when Jesus says that "whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple" he is talking about discipleship and its priority over the claims of the family structure. See Matt 10.34-39 for the parallel text. How can we go from these texts to your statement: "He was talking about the way the nuclear family was used to insulate human beings from significant contact with other human beings, and he was calling for a 'new family' that was broader in scope"? he was talking about bearing witness, carrying crosses and being his disciple. The new family, the community of disciples, is certainly broader in scope, but it does not therefore dismantle the nuclear family, instead it rather corrects it as we see in Ephesians 5 and 6.

And, what is this supposed to mean: "the patriarchal institutions we call 'families' here in the conservative United States"? Are you just on an anti family kick? My family, my friends' families, etc., are anything but patriarchal. Perhaps the FOTF ideal family of the fifties is--as well as being somewhat of a fantasy--but please, this is just silly. I know that's not an argument...but how can you claim that Jesus' teachings on the family make more room for homosexual marriage than for the family as we know it in the West? Really?

Thom Stark said...

Sam,

When I asked Craig to admit that Yoder was a liberal I meant a liberal by Craig's standards, not by mine. It was a way of displaying how absurd it is that Craig keeps calling everybody a liberal.

As far as the nuclear family discussion goes, we're getting a bit off track I think, and I don't think it would benefit us to get into a lengthy discussion of the political economy of second temple Judaism under Roman domination and how the nuclear family relates to it.

When I said the "conservative United States" I didn't mean "the United States." I mean only the conservative pockets of it. If you don't think there's still large swathes of patriarchalism here within nuclear families I'd guess you live in Portland or something. I don't. I live in Tennessee. And before that Missouri. But that's beside the point too.

I am not anti-family, nor am I on an anti-family kick. I am a husband, a father, a son, and a brother, and I take each of those roles seriously.

What I am against is the way the fetishism of the nuclear family is frequently used as a tool to moderate the political activity of members of society and to situate allegiances inwardly to the family to undermine broader local challenges to centralized authority. If you're curious what all this means do refer to the sources I cited above.

What I am saying (forgive me if I have been unclear) is that this fetishism of the traditional nuclear family has contributed to the (I argue irrational) fear that homosexuality somehow undermines or threatens the stability of said institution. You have expressed that concern in several of your comments, yet you are yet to offer a rational reason why homosexuality threatens the stability of the heterosexual family. My point in bringing Jesus into it is simply that he too challenged the fetishism of the nuclear family that I argue produces this kind of fear of homosexuality. He also challenged the patriarchalism that understandably views homosexuality as subversively anti-masculine.

You noted that Ephesians 5-6 makes it clear that the nuclear family is not dismantled. (As an aside, you should know that I believe Ephesians is Pseudo-Pauline, so while I think on certain issues it represents a more or less faithful transmission of Pauline theology, with regard to the family I believe it represents a regression back to patriarchal norms in a way that is unfaithful to Paul's own views. If my view of the authorship of Ephesians means we're at an impasse, I apologize, but I'm not alone here, obviously.) But I never said the nuclear family was dismantled by Jesus. Here's what I did say:

"Certainly, Jesus did not set out to entirely dissolve the institution of the nuclear family, but by relativizing it and setting up a new institution in its prior position of prominence he greatly changed the significance of the nuclear family (at least for those who took him seriously)."

Thom Stark said...

I think we could move on with the discussion most productively, Sam, if your next response would consist of a bulleted list of as many reasons as you can think of why homosexuality undermines the nuclear family and heterosexuality in general. Then we can analyze your claims and see if there's anything to them.

That's what I'd hope for, anyway.