Sullivan on Stott
Andrew Sullivan argues that David Brooks using John Stott is a bit out-dated, and i'm inclined to agree.
But: what Stott has by way of influence and power in the US is effectively a theological debate veto power. He can't make policy - but it was Stott who declared maybe 10 years ago that he would leave the CoE over the homosexuality issue - that if Canterbury ever publicly declared homosexuality not to be a sin that he would see that as the ballgame, and he would prefer schism to unity with such a doctrine.
Now, its still debated whether or not Stott meant this to be an 'ultimatum,' but it has come to be treated as such and it has helped to contribute to the 'elevation' of homosexuality as a dealbreaker sin in the eyes (and teachings) of evangelical Christians. Gambling, vulgar language, fine, but homos are a no-go, etc. As his reader's letter just posted mentioned - in seminary Dobson, Roberston et al are rarely taught and Stott always is - even at Regent and Wheaton. His declaration - as he carries tradition and prestige of CoE - gives the A.E. denominations a cache of those same things when they cite him. It is also the (very) subtle admission that the Dobson, Robertson don't have that authority, or theological gravitas, if you will.
Sullivan's points v/v Brooks are still largely correct - I would argue Stott is waning - but he remains a powerful veto in Christian doctrinal thought.
But: what Stott has by way of influence and power in the US is effectively a theological debate veto power. He can't make policy - but it was Stott who declared maybe 10 years ago that he would leave the CoE over the homosexuality issue - that if Canterbury ever publicly declared homosexuality not to be a sin that he would see that as the ballgame, and he would prefer schism to unity with such a doctrine.
Now, its still debated whether or not Stott meant this to be an 'ultimatum,' but it has come to be treated as such and it has helped to contribute to the 'elevation' of homosexuality as a dealbreaker sin in the eyes (and teachings) of evangelical Christians. Gambling, vulgar language, fine, but homos are a no-go, etc. As his reader's letter just posted mentioned - in seminary Dobson, Roberston et al are rarely taught and Stott always is - even at Regent and Wheaton. His declaration - as he carries tradition and prestige of CoE - gives the A.E. denominations a cache of those same things when they cite him. It is also the (very) subtle admission that the Dobson, Robertson don't have that authority, or theological gravitas, if you will.
Sullivan's points v/v Brooks are still largely correct - I would argue Stott is waning - but he remains a powerful veto in Christian doctrinal thought.
posted by JCH | 12:19 PM
41 Comments:
"elevation' of homosexuality as a dealbreaker sin...Gambling, vulgar language, fine, but homos are a no-go, etc"
I'm not sure which evalgelical Christians you are talking about who would support the ordination of pro-gambling or pro-vulgarity clergy. I don't know any. Homosexuality isn't the only deal breaker sin. The deal breaker is changing the definitions of what the Bible calls sin.
I am an evangelical and I find the aruguments of the other side of this issue to be so devoid of intellectual and theological honesty that is feels ridiculous to even counter them.
Here's something the Bible calls a sin: working on the Sabbath. It gets the death penalty (Exodus 31:15; Numbers 15:32–35).
On the other hand, the Bible doesn't call lesbianism a sin at all. So tell me: how do you get a condemnation of "homosexuality" out of this fact?
And FYI, I find evangelical arguments on this topic to be thoroughly and completely dishonest as well, not to mention immoral. Evangelicals never acknowledge the fact that the word translated as "homosexuality" in Timothy and Corinthians has only been translated that way since 1946. Or that it has been translated in 27 different ways (or more) in various translations. Because nobody knows what the word actually means, it having been apparently invented by Paul. Or that it, too, refers specifically to men, not women. There is no condemnation of lesbianism in the Bible; therefore, there is no condemnation of "homosexuality."Evangelicals seem to have no compunction about ruining the lives of gay people based on flimsy stuff like this. That's what's dishonest, my friend, and immoral too.
This is for the anonymous poster above:
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
"Here's something the Bible calls a sin: working on the Sabbath. It gets the death penalty (Exodus 31:15; Numbers 15:32–35)."
True - and there are other sins in the OT that are "abominaitons" with extreme punishments.
As for lesbianism not being condemned in either OT or NT, for me it only supports the contention that the scriptures were written by men. :-)
This is for the Romans I-quoter above:
A quick show of hands in any English-speaking country nowadays would probably agree to the following statement: ‘This quite clearly refers to lesbianism. That is the obvious meaning of the words. To deny that this refers to lesbianism is the sort of thing that you would expect from a clever-clogs biblical exegete with an ideological axe to grind.’ Well, all I’d like to say at this point is that we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism.
Now, my first point is this: irrespective of who is closer to the mark as to what St Paul was referring to, one thing is irrefutable: what modern readers claim to be ‘the obvious meaning of the text’ was not obvious to Saint Augustine, who has for many centuries enjoyed the status of being a particularly authoritative reader of Scripture. Therefore there can be no claim that there has been an uninterrupted witness to the text being read as having to do with lesbianism. There hasn’t. It has been perfectly normal for long stretches of time to read this passage in the Catholic Church without seeing St Paul as saying anything to do with lesbianism. This means that no Catholic is under any obligation to read this passage as having something to do with lesbianism. Furthermore, it is a perfectly respectable position for a Catholic to take that there is no reference to lesbianism in Holy Scripture, given that the only candidate for a reference is one whose ‘obvious meaning’ was taken, for several hundred years, to be something quite else.
And in any case, Anonymous, are you telling me that as a gay Christian, I have to eviscerate my entire life - I should never have a close relationship, an intimate pairing with another human being - on the basis of one passage in the Bible? One passage? And one that might not even refer to lesbiansism, and that hasn't been thought to, for centuries?
Sorry. I realize that your whole case falls apart over this, but that's not really my problem. Even God said, in Exodus, that "it is not good for the man to be alone." Well, we're taking that advice.
Thought it might be time in this debate to point out that God almost certainly doesn't exist. You people wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it punched you in the nose. Thanks! Carry on!
"On the topic of homosexual marriage Smedes felt that gays deserve at least the same measure of grace afforded to heterosexuals who divorce and remarry. After all, Christ was very clear that the later was a sin...yet it is widely tolerated in the Protestant Church."
Yes, and thanks for pointing this out. I've never understood why divorce is allowed "on account of human frailty," yet homosexuality is somehow beyond the pale in this regard. It seems to be the ultimate abomination, the worse possible sin of all.
I've even heard Christians say that the phrase "gay Christian" is an oxymoron; imagine that! I mean, even if homosexuality were a sin, since when did Christianity exclude sinners?
"Thought it might be time in this debate to point out that God almost certainly doesn't exist. You people wouldn't know intellectual honesty if it punched you in the nose. Thanks! Carry on!"
Oh? Proof, please?
Anyway, Anonymous Agnostic, this is a theological argument, based on a particular reference. Think of the words we're using as "terms of art" and you won't need to worry about an "existance" or a "non-existance" that neither you nor anybody else can prove or disprove.
There is actually an intellectual argument to be made here, as a matter of fact, one based on that particular reference and on the concept of divinity. And on pragmatism, too, which is what is behind most of these arguments although it's rarely stated aloud.
Proof that "God" does exist, please.
Oh wait, there is none.
I asked you first. But of course, you knew that. And see post above.
In any case, if you don't care for the argument, there's always the "Back" button!
Your silence speaks volumes.
The non-existence of something cannot be proven, as most 5 year olds are aware.
The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the claim, in this case the claim that a supernatural spirit living in the sky, otherwise known as “God,” exists.
Duh.
"The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the claim, in this case the claim that a supernatural spirit living in the sky, otherwise known as “God,” exists."
Hmmmm. Nobody here has said anything about "a supernatural spirit living in the sky."
And I haven't made any "claims," either. I'm having a discussion/argument with somebody else. I think you're reading a lot into what's going on here.
it may be impossible to prove that god doesn't exist but it's incredibly easy to show why people believe in him. the ancient sumerians had their lands flooded at unpredictable intervals by the nile and hey, guess what, they prayed to it. raise a bunch of kids in a cell and feed them through a slit and guess what, they pray to the slit. there's obvious psychological comfort to be derived from the idea of an all-powerful being who loves us and will save us from death and so, bada-bing, the weak-minded tell themselves and others that there is one. simple, really.
Anyway, again, Agnostic: this is a theological argument based on the Bible. It's something that's been going on for millennia.
Think of it in the same way you might think of a philosophical argument based on "Atlas Shrugged" and you won't have to worry about it; you can simply acknowledge that many people find meaning in it, even if you don't.
I know. I'm sorry. I really wasn't trying to derail your healthy debate. it's just that every time i hear a religious person accuse someone else of intellectual dishonesty i tend to lose it for a few minutes. i may not respect religious beliefs but i certainly acknowledge them. pardon the interruption. pray continue.
The real question is, though, why people who allegedly don't believe in God hang around talking about the topic.
;-)
And actually, of course, religion has produced some of the most incredible art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy the world has ever seen. I can't see how anyone wouldn't be interested in things like that, but hey....
Agnostic, religion is a social/cultural phenomenon as well as a theological one. And since it is, and while it is, we need to win this argument on religious terms - and in fact we can.
Religion is very deep, and there is a sociological and anthropological basis for it, pretty obviously. We have to address it seriously, because it's a force in society, even when we disagree with it strenuously.
I am religious myself, but even if I weren't, I'd believe we need to speak seriously about it.
"And actually, of course, religion has produced some of the most incredible art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy the world has ever see"
Amen. Do you know "666: the number of the beast" by iron maiden? had it on the treadmill this morning. track rocks, yo.
No, sorry. I'm into 1950s jazz myself, and Palestrina.
Perhaps this is a cheap way to get input and a few hits, but here>
"And actually, of course, religion has produced some of the most incredible art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy the world has ever seen."
And actually, of course, religion has produced some of the most incredible wars and persecutions the world has ever seen. It has stood in the way of scientific advancement, it has sanctioned slavery, it has promoted violence against women, protected pedophiles, and pro
Brooks: "Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored."
Apparently Mr. Brooks has never heard of Gerald Allen, State Representative of Alabama:
http://iratesavant.blogspot.com/2004/12/q-is-gerald-allen-homosexual.html
Brooks is an oblivious ass.
"And actually, of course, religion has produced some of the most incredible wars and persecutions the world has ever seen. It has stood in the way of scientific advancement, it has sanctioned slavery, it has promoted violence against women, protected pedophiles, and pro"
Actually, the most incredible wars and persecutions came out of the last century, and mostly occurred in explicitly non- or anti-religious states. In fact, all of those same things happened under secularism, and to a far worse degree. 170 million people were murdered by governments during the 20th century.
Is that a better record, then, do you think?
But really: do we have to rehearse the same old arguments every time? Yes, the Church had too much power, and life sometimes sucked because of that. But before the Church existed, life sucked pretty regularly for most people (there were more slaves than free people in "democratic, enlightened" Greece and of course women had no rights at all), and it sucked again big time in states where the religion was banned.
I honestly have lost all interest in paying any attention to people who declare that they don't "accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle."
What they're doing is being busybodies. Imagine someone looking down his nose at your relationship in this way! What they're doing is denigrating our families, and nobody could or should ever put up with that. In fact, as I'm sure they say in Texas, them's fightin' words.
So although David Brooks thinks John Stott is less a "bozo" than Falwell or Robertson, I certainly don't. We've been arguing with conservative Christians for 40 years now and they are as deaf as ever. I'm done with it.
If homosexuality is not forbidden, then it is allowed. That doesn't seem very difficult to me. The rest is working out the details.
The Bible does forbid the charging of interest, though, in many places. And, of course, Christ forbade divorce, explicitly.
But I'm curious. Why is this issue so important to you? What's so difficult about extending marriage to gay couples, since gay couples are a fact of life and many are Christians? Why is this issue so unbelievably central to the evangelical worldview? Why is heterosexuality the be-all and the end-all from your point of view?
I'd really like to know.
Here's an irrefutable argument that God exists:
http://www.barricksinsurance.com/virginia.html
If you are unable to follow the argument therein, or see it's applicability to the current discussion (existence of God, not the one about what various people do with various parts of their body), I'm afraid there is no hope for you.
-jimbo
"And, of course, Christ forbade divorce, explicitly."
Reference, please?
"I'll continue to answer this question, but let me also ask you, why is it important to those who advocate homosexual relationships or marriage to try to find them compatable with the Bible?"
I don't "advocate homosexual relationships"; I am gay and recognize this is a simple rufact of life.
I don't "try to find them compatable with the Bible"; I'm the one reading the Bible accurately; you're the one making the error. I'm simply correcting this error.
In addition, belief in a benevolent God implies that I am not meant to suffer my entire life - particularly not over somebody else's flawed reading of the Bible. And particularly when so many other passages in that same Bible - such as the passage on divorce, the warning against usury, and many others - are completely ignored by the same people who are so appalled at homosexuality.
Tell me, though: if "one man and one woman" is a "divinely inspired institution," why were most of the Old Testament heros - Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon - polygamists?
(I don't mean to post anonymously, I just didn't feel like going through the sign-up process.)
Rick,
You write, "marriage between anything other than a man & a woman is not by God's definition a marriage." I'll concede the point. Instead, I wonder whether you could provide a chain of reasoning as to why the above point leads necessarily to a political movement that seeks to ban civil marriage or civil unions for gays and lesbians (not to mention all the demonization that seems to go along with it).
I recognize why Christians wouldn't want their church to recognize gay marriage. It's not obvious to me, however, why this particular divergence between church law and civil law demands that Christians take to the ballot boxes. What's the process whereby a Christian decides whether or not the principles or restrictions he or she takes from the Bible should be imposed on civil arrangements? I can't imagine the answer to that question is as simple as the question of whether or not the Bible sanctions only marriage between a man and a woman. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Please help.
Best,
Dan
oppidan@aol.com
Oh boy! Reading all this reminds me of how simple people can be! Here's the structure of the world according to the intellectual/cultural elite that Rush Limbaugh loves to criticize (of which I am one):
The categorization of people as evaluated by their
views on religion:
The top 25% of the population in intellect/wisdom: these are people who are intelligent enough to realize that there's no way to establish if there is a god(s); and, if there is, what this god(s)intend(s); where this god is "located"; whether the Bible has anything to do with this god(s); etc. Etc. They also realize that
all the Bible thumper types are too ignorant to realize that were they to have been born in Morocco,
they would be just as vehement in their conviction that
Islam is the only correct religion, i.e., they're too
ignorant to realize that the religion they believe in
is simply cultural artifact.
The next 25% (50th to 75th percentile of intellect and
wisdom): These tend to be the culturalists, and they generally go to church because it is a cultural part of their lives. They don't worry much about about scripture or about how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin. They intuitively realize that the world is
a complex place and that the Bible cannot provide
answers to all the world's issues.
The next 25% (25th to 50th percentile of intellect and wisdom) consists of the adamant religious believers.
These people engage in Biblical exegesis exercises and
never figure out that studying the Bible to try to get
it to fit some denominational view is futile. [Did they
ever consider that having to go incessantly to Bible
study must mean that the book is not very clear?]
This mentality is of the Order of St. Thomas Aquinas
who actually wondered about how many angels can you
fit on the head of a pin..... These are literal,
concrete people whose mental acuity is dim. Many of
them also have a significant god-gene issue.
The lowest 25% are simple those who have left their
brains. THese are the professional wrestling fans.
"And in any case, Anonymous, are you telling me that as a gay Christian, I have to eviscerate my entire life - I should never have a close relationship, an intimate pairing with another human being - on the basis of one passage in the Bible? One passage?"
No. Christian morality does not say this at all. You can have a "close relationship," and even one that can be described as "intimate." You can love another human being all that you like. You can even live with another member of the same sex (as does David Morrison). True, traditional Christian morality would say that you can't have homosexual sex, but why should that be the central source of all close relationships?
"The top 25% of the population in intellect/wisdom: these are people who are intelligent enough to realize that there's no way to establish if there is a god(s); and, if there is, what this god(s)intend(s); where this god is "located"; whether the Bible has anything to do with this god(s); etc. Etc."
Ironically - and this always cracks me totally up, really! - this is a fundamentalist reading of the Bible. It's concerned only with the "letter of the law," just exactly as any "Bible-thumper" is. But religion - or, if you must, "spirituality" - isn't about the letter of the law; it's about the spirit. It's concerned with eternal things, and meaning, and how people understand the universe and their own lives within it.
The "sides" in this debate are truly hilarious! This must be the source of the disagreement, in fact; two types of literalists having at it, so that the rest of us can never get a word in. Brother!
"No. Christian morality does not say this at all. You can have a "close relationship," and even one that can be described as "intimate." You can love another human being all that you like. You can even live with another member of the same sex (as does David Morrison). True, traditional Christian morality would say that you can't have homosexual sex, but why should that be the central source of all close relationships?"
Well, of course sex isn't the "central source" of a relationship. But it's perfectly obvious that marriage - whether in law, or by common-law - is in a different category than all other relationships. It's exclusive, both emotionally and physically; it creates a legal family where one did not exist before; it creates responsibilites and bestows privileges on the two people who enter into it. In fact, it seems to be a very, very basic instinct, since 95% of Americans marry at some point in their lives. Erik and Lyle Menendez, the California parent-killers, were permitted to marry, although they aren't allowed conjugal visits. What does that say about the nature of marriage, then?
So, OK. Simply allow civil marriage between any two unrelated people, and let the people themselves work it out. Nobody asks heterosexuals whether or not they're going to have sex when they get married; it's nobody else's business, after all, really.
In any case, C.S. Lewis wrote that the sexual sins were the least of all types of sins; why is homosexuality the one exception, apparently, to that rule? A: It's the one sin that 95% of Christians can be fairly sure they'll never commit. It's a scapegoat sin, IOW.
"So, OK. Simply allow civil marriage between any two unrelated people, and let the people themselves work it out."
How narrow minded...why should only two people be allowed to marry each other, why not three or four? And why should they not be allowed to be related? Why not two brothers? After all, they wouldn't have to worry about producing genetic defects. It's nobody's business anyway...
"How narrow minded...why should only two people be allowed to marry each other, why not three or four?"
Well, they'd have to all promise to be mutually financially responsible for each other. If it were the typical configuration, this would be one man with several women; he'd have to promise to support any and all offspring. Only the rich could do it, and of course divorce would be a legal nightmare. Also, this would create a shortage of women, and a class of permanently unmarried men. Not good for society. And also, empirically, polygamy doesn't seem to be very successful, either, from what people have said of the Mormons, for instance, who engage in it.
Anyway, what's wrong with "one to a customer"? Would you be interested in having several wives (if you're a man, that is)? Do you think this would work in the modern world, in which women are no longer considered property?
How would allowing a gay couple to marry create any such problems?
"And why should they not be allowed to be related? Why not two brothers?"
Incest should be discouraged because it would disrupt family life significantly. In fact, it would destroy it. Imagine growing up in a family in a society where incest was not taboo! I can't think of anything worse. It's pretty obvious that incest is taboo for a good reason; what good reason can you give to forbid a gay couple who've been together for 20 years from marrying? What harm would it do to anybody's family?
Anyway, I think the idea is that being faithful to one person is a positive good; it disciplines individual sexual and emotional drives, and makes a society more stable and the people in it more mature. That's what marriage is supposed to be about, I believe, as well as being a stable environment in which children can grow up.
Gay people raise children, too, you know.
I'm posting anonymously only because I don't have a username. My name is Mark McNease, and I'm a content, blessed, touched, graced gay man. It would be amusing if it did not have such tragic social consequences to read all these "theological" debates and differences of opinion based on the fantasy of god. The bible is a collection of writings, translated and re-translated. It's got some good stuff in there, but lots of bloodthirsty savagry too. It matters not what the bible "says" about human sexuality (specifically the modern concept of "homosexuality") as it's based on the fabrication of a rather hideous deity. And by the way, I know evangelicals don't go in for biblical scholarship (they might actually have some of their most treasured dogma threatened), but the original greek for the Centurion's dearly beloved slave was "intimas pias" (not sure of the spelling), a term specially used for a sex slave. Jesus healed the young queer sex slave and praised the Centurion's faith. But again, the arguments are all moot when you take away the nonsense that is god. The divine is infinite and cannot be objectified into a projection of one's uber daddy in the sky.
Post a Comment
<< Home