Anguished Archbishops
Okay so these seventeen archbishops. All tied up in knots they are. All frantic and agitated and unhappy. Tearing their episcopal hair, rending their purple robes, chewing their anglican nails. And for why? For because that the Archbish of C isn’t being harsh enough toward non-heterosexuality. That’s why. Okay – why? Why is that a reason? Why are they so agitated about non-heterosexuality? Why does it upset them? Why does it worry them? Why do they think it’s so terrible?
They don’t really say. Maybe it’s too much to expect them to, in a letter to the Archbish, since they probably expect him to know. But still – since religious types never do seem to manage to come up with real – rational, universalizable, non-theist, non-authoritarian – reasons for the worry, it’s too bad they don’t.
They do make some attempt –
The Second Letter of Peter, which you quoted in terms of our participation in the divine nature (1.4) describes division in the church uncannily like the false leaders in our Communion today: “For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption; for whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved.” (II Peter 2.18-19)
So presumably they are there saying that sexuality is slavery because of its power? But that won’t do as a reason, obviously, because it’s not as if same-sex sex is overpowering while other-sex sex is not. So that doesn’t really amount to a reason. People who get all tied up in knots about non-heterosexuality do have such a hard time coming up with real reasons – they always just end up with ‘God says,’ and that is not a reason, it’s simply a command. Basic vocabulary: a command is not the same thing as a reason, a reason is not the same thing as a command.
We appreciated your acknowledgement of the “overwhelming consensus” of the Church in time and space in believing that sex is intended by God for married couples only and therefore that same-sex sex is unacceptable and cannot be described as “holy and blessed”. You stated that you as Archbishop must stand with this consensus. We are most grateful for your unequivocal words. We wonder, however, whether your personal dissent from this consensus prevents you from taking the necessary steps to confront those churches that have embraced teaching contrary to the overwhelming testimony of the Anglican Communion and the church catholic. We urge you to rethink your personal view and embrace the Church’s consensus and to act on it, based as it is on the clear witness of Scripture.
Similar (though not identical) problem. ‘Intended by God’ – apart from all the other problems with that, some of which are of doubtful relevance here since the letter is addressed to an archbishop, it assumes that the writers of the letter know what is intended by ‘God’. Tricky. Very tricky. The evidence is contradictory and patchy.
In short it’s hard to escape the conclusion that all this kind of thing is just more Amplification, as Simon Blackburn says [pdf].
But equally perhaps ‘God exists’ functions largely as a license to demand respect creep. It turns up an amplifier, and what it amplifies is often the meanest and most miserable side of human nature. I want your land, and it enables me to throw bigger and better tantrums, ones that you just have to listen to, if I find myself saying that God wants me to want your land. A tribe wants to enforce the chastity of its women, and the words of the supernatural work to terrify them into compliance.
Or I don’t like poofters, and I can throw bigger and better tantrums – I can tell the Archbishop of Canterbury what’s what – if I claim to know what’s intended by God. It’s hard not to think that the Global South archbishops just don’t like people who go in for ‘same-sex sex’ and use God as an enforcer. And this is one of the many many reasons religion is such a regressive, narrow, stifling way to think. In any other context, a two or three thousand year old book is judged on its merits. It may well be taken to be full of wisdom, to have much to teach us, to be well worth reading and learning from – but for secular, rational, communicable, universalizable reasons, not for magical or ineffable or supernatural ones. For discussion-continuing reasons, not for discussion-ending reasons. What an airless, parched, small, blank little world the world of Authority is.
For discussion-continuing reasons, not for discussion-ending reasons.
I like the way you put that.
This bible-quoting-as-if-it-really-meant-something is the fundamental mistake these bishops and their ilk make. The question which stumps them is this: “By what process of reasoning did you arrive at the conclusion that the [insert name of scripture here] is the authoritative word of the ruler of the universe?”.
Earlier this year I asked this question to Stephen Green of Christian Voice fame. His answer is totally inadequate, though fairly typical of ones I have received in less formal circumstances.
You have to admit that religious prudery is good for one thing. Which is wonderful phrasings such as “enticing with licentious passions of the flesh”. I’m going to build a pick-up line out of that.
The most recent Harper’s magazine (not available online) has a pretty decent article about Thomas Jefferson’s Bible and the (suppressed Gnostic) Gospel of Thomas. There is a late tie-in with Emerson as well. Good read.
Anyway, the gist of the article is how different Jesus appears to a reader when miracles are removed from his history. His moral message to people is strong, and not otherworldly.
Jefferson longed for that kind of Jesus, one without a story which turned him from an enlightened human into a super-hero. The super-hero Jesus is coming to judge us, to punish us. That Jesus turns men into judges and executioners. That Jesus robs humans of their chance for enlightenment.
God-bothering is not in-and-of-itself destructive, but it’s no small leap to go from moral guide to gay-bashing control freak – especially when the only Jesus you know is supposed to kick your ass if you don’t prevent every act of gay sex that you can.
I find it hard to enter discussions about what goes on inside a church: Catholics about contraception, celibacy Anglicans about women priests, homosexual priests etc – becuse I neither believe nor belong. It’s like the strange rituals of the Masons or a club: nothing to do with me.
But where they do try to influence society I can get into the fight, I think.
I did try once to locate the biblical source of the anti-gay attitudes and it seems pretty thin.
And of course if you read some of Paul’s stuff without a gloss you might as well go back at least to the middle ages.
All of which suggests to me that it is really the Yuk factor we discussed a while back, though we could not agree on the spelling.
“This behavior disgusts me so it must be wrong”
To which I say: “don’t do it, then”.
As for the rest of us…..
Ken “I find it hard to enter discussions about what goes on inside a church”
Oh, just the usual; paedophilia, male rape, repression, bigotry, alcoholism….
Sorry, that wasn’t very helpful was it ? I’ll get on with some work.
Perhaps organised religion could be described as ‘myth as basis for social control’. The most basic form of control is control over sex and death.
A religion which gave up its claims in these areas would be declaring itself irrelevant.
“I find it hard to enter discussions about what goes on inside a church: Catholics about contraception, celibacy Anglicans about women priests, homosexual priests etc – . . .”
It’s really quite simple, ken. Let me sum it up in Latin as execrable as the sentiment expressed is cynical:
Carpe scrotum, et sequi mens et anima.
“All of which suggests to me that it is really the Yuk factor we discussed a while back”
Definitely. That’s what I was saying. The 17 just don’t like it – they think it’s ooky. But they can’t for the life of them come up with a real argument, so Paul stands in for ‘it’s ooky’. ‘God says’ = ‘it’s ooky’.
Careful, Elliott; you’ll find yourself with a mitre on your head soon.
Ah, well, OB. Better a mitre on than a crozier over, I suppose.
Crozier overcoat, it’s cold outside.
haw!
By the way, David, thanks for link to interview – great job – I’ve put it in Flashback.
Dang, his answer is ridiculous. One non sequitur after another.
Ken “I find it hard to enter discussions about what goes on inside a church”
Oh, just the usual; paedophilia, male rape, repression, bigotry, alcoholism….
OK, fair cop. I meant that I did not feel I had a right to discuss rules made by a church for those who belong to it. Private clubs can, by and large, make their own rules.
I did not mean that behavior such as you list are not matters the rest of us can discuss and condemn.
There is a distinction, I think.
Elliott: For some ideas, only Latin will do.
“I meant that I did not feel I had a right to discuss rules made by a church for those who belong to it.”
Yeah – I did think about that (believe it or not). It is intra-church stuff. But this is the Anglican church – it doesn’t hang back shyly from telling (urging) people what to do.
There’s for instance the Southern Baptist Convention in the US, too. Yes, it’s a ‘private club’ in a sense – but it’s also immensely influential, so I think we all ought to feel pretty free to inquire into its codified rules. Not to call the cops, but to inquire.
OB: Sure – when a church, or any other club, tries to have influence beyond its membership, it is fair game.
This Anglican fight really is fun, though.
The conservatives, mostly Africa and Asia but including parts of Australia, are objecting to the liberals, mostly N America. Canterbury and most of UK church is caught in the middle.
Problem is, US is where the money is and African churches in particular depend on US church aid.
So a split is unlikely. (Old rule: look for the money)
Despite my earlier comments, I find observing churches and their swists and turns fascinating. as an anthropoloigal excercise.
I feel I should just wave a f(l)ag here and see if anyone shoots at me. Hi Karl sweetie!
IMHO much of the Christian case against homosexuality is based on confirmatory bias, in that it gets so little mention in scripture but has always been on the we-dont-do-that-here list. You were not able to argue that it was permitted – just fails on the merits.
But look how divorce is now so OK. It is associated with far more harm to families than gay marriage could ever be, yet everyone seems to have forgotten how in the seventies and sixties it was just as evil as buggery, and a lot more pertinent to most of us.
thanks for the blackburn article link, ob!
l
chrisper
Divorce and buggery being equally regarded in the 60’s and 70’s? Divorce may have meant being uninvited to the odd social function, or glanced at over the tea cups, but being queer may have involved arrest, prison, or being kicked to death.
Elliott, is that like, ‘sieze the gay’ ?
Don,
Being gay may still have those results. I was only a kid then, but I knew why that nice guy was coming on to me in the public toilets and I did NOT see anyone threatening him with so much as a condemnatory glance, never mind execution.
The people – and cops – knew where to find the gays if they wanted, and the law could be used against them, but the fact is they were largely tolerated as long as they were not, so to speak, shoving things down the throat of the public. Complaints by ‘the public’, in public, were necessary to trigger a few token actions.
The gay that got the treatment that I knew, was the school principal that played pattycake with little boys. And for the record, a straight teacher got the same treatment for running away with a girl from his school.
Is it fashionable to believe that the legal expression of disapproval in the anglosphere was some form of Holocaust? Evidence please, if so.
ChrisPer,
I’ve tried but I honestly can’t work out what you are talking about. Could you re-phrase?
“Elliott, is that like, ‘sieze the gay’ ?”
| Nick S | 2005-11-20 – 01:57:15 |
HA! good ‘un , Nick.
But I was actually using ‘Carpe scrotum’ metonymically, as a stand-in for one’s whole sexual behaviour or sexual identity.
It seems to me that churhces like to induce fear, uncertainty and doubt (together with lashings of guilt) about the sexual lives of their recruits as a means of control, a way of softening up the victim for the rest of their program. Hence, ‘Hearts and minds will follow.’
Does ChrisPer really believe that gays were not persecuted in the good ol’ days unless they preyed on the local school yard? Wow. Just wow.
OK, ChrisPer. A bit of a pile on there? :)
Jeez, I need to just have a half hour and a beverage of choice with you all here so we appreciate each other better I think.
Cheers Brian!