Gay man named dean of St. Mark's Cathedral (Episcopal)
Gregory Gadow
issues will be named
today as dean of St. Mark's Cathedral on Capitol Hill
[Seattle], becoming the first openly
gay man in the country chosen to head an Episcopal
cathedral.
The full story is available at
http://www.seattlep-i.com/local/mark302.shtml
--
Gregory Gadow
E-mail: tech...@serv.net
American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical e-mail
sent with
false or misleading headers is in violation of state law and
subject
to a $500 penalty. I WILL FILE CHARGES!
bb
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:7nsdke$b4a$1...@199.201.191.2...
Mycroft
Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990731222448...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: Gay man named dean of St. Mark's Cathedral (Episcopal)
> >From: "bb" b...@foo.com
> >Date: Sat, 31 July 1999 07:49 PM EDT
> >Message-id: <7o02as$3kp$1...@brokaw.wa.com>
> >
> >Too bad it appears his sexuality was a requirement to get the job
> >
>
whatever
> his sexuality.
M: Indeed. I pray for the day when a person's sexual orientation is
irrelevant to his or her position in the church.
Cfortunato
Paul Hubbard
<sfb>
>M: Indeed. I pray for the day when a person's sexual orientation is
>irrelevant to his or her position in the church.
Mycroft,
I came across something you might use in your apologia. I don't know if
you've ever (philosophically) snuck over to the other side of the trenches
and assessed the actual deployment of your argument. But it does look pretty
weak to me. For example, the handling of Leviticus and Romans 2 undermine
not only the opposition, but Scriptural authority as well. {Gomes, for
example, does far more harm than good in his sloppy interpretation of Romans
2} Also, the handling of David and Jonathan is like someone +deliberately+
shooting himself in the foot.
The chief stumbling block for the anti-gay camp is this: 1) gayness is not
"natural" and 2) gayness is unequivocally condemned in Scripture. Your
response to 1) is that "God created me this way." This simply brushes aside
the objection that the space-time reality of the Fall of man has resulted in
many minority abnormalities. But the anti-gay camp makes a serious tactical
blunder here, I think, in bringing in the so-called examples from "natural
selection." In this reasoning, gayness is an example of natural selection
gone stupid, since it can't be related to the supposed +modus operandi+ of
natural selection (reproduction, survival of the fittest, etc.). I think it
is ok to bring in evolution as a creative tool of God. But if you bring in
all the pagan baggage; i.e., that the modus operandi of "natural selection",
popularly conceived, is none other than the wisdom of God, you have done
more damage to Scriptural authority then you have to the Gay camp. Because
whether God used an evolutionary genetic process in creation, or created
ictically, Scripture clearly affirms that God is constantly "putting down
the mighty from their seats, and exalting them of low degree." Scripture is
constantly placing God's creative agency at variance with the popularly conc
eived modus operandi of natural selection (which favors the strong - even in
a diverse gene-pool). Therefore, anti-gay arguments that derive from natural
selection, unless one is a deist, are moot regardless of whether or not God
has installed a built-in low-level rule of "survival of the fittest" into
the created order of things - because Scripture clearly asserts that
"natural selection" does not encompass the full range of God's sovereign,
creative intent.
I think that objection 2 can be handled with a judicious use of the
argumentation about Gome's faulty view of St. Paul's perspective we
discussed. Instead of forcing a false distinction into the head of St. Paul
and the writer of Leviticus at this point, I think that it would be much
simpler to maintain what we discussed before: that they could not possibly
have been addressing the range of possibilities +within+ the abnormality
itself. It is therefore up to the Gay camp to make the case that there is a
gay "nature". And they have done a pretty good job here. You've got to
pretty idiotic to maintain that all gayness is a matter of moral choice. In
passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
klepto/pedophilia angle. And if this were merely a war, I would also merit
the use of such a debating tactic, because it provokes many in the gay camp
to lay aside all rational armor and come naked out into the field to defend
their "honor." And that's always a pretty bloody, paranoid mess. Better to
take the insult and shrug the shoulders of agnosticism than to open up the
possibility of a flanking maneuver.
Finally, the thing I came across was in Augustine. I can't vouch for
Betteson's Latin, but the flow of Augustine's logic makes a very strong case
for the Gay camp:
_________________________
City of God, Book XVI, Ch 8.
"But no faithful Christian should doubt that anyone who is born anywhere as
a man - that is a rational and moral being - derives from that one
first-created human being. And this is true, however extraordinary such a
creature may appear to our senses in bodily shape, in colour, or motion, or
utterance, or in any natural endowment, or part or quality. However, it is
clear what constitutes the persistent norm of nature in the majority and
what, by its very rarity, constitutes a marvel....
For God is the creator of all, and he himself knows where and when any
creature should be created or should have been created. He has the wisdom to
weave the beauty of the whole design out of the constituent parts, in their
likeness and diversity. The observer who cannot view the whole is offended
by what seems the deformity of a part, since he does not know how it fits
in, or how it is related to the rest....
As for Androgynes, also called Hermaphrodites, they are certainly very rare,
and yet it is difficult to find periods when there are no examples of human
beings possessing the characteristics of both sexes, in such a way that it
is a matter of doubt how they should be classified. However, the present
usage has called them masculine, assigning them to the superior sex; for no
one has ever used the feminine names, androgynaecae or hermaphroditae....
In fact, it would be impossible to list all the human infants very unlike
those who, without any doubt, were their parents. Now it cannot be denied
that these derive ultimately from that one man [Adam]; and therefore the
same is true of all those races which are reported to have deviated as it
were, by their divergence in bodily structure, from the normal course of
nature followed by the majority, or practically the whole of mankind....But
if we assume that the subjects of those remarkable accounts are in fact men,
it may be suggested [I think the Latin is probably stronger here: 'it may be
+postulated+') that God decided to create some races in this way, so that we
should not suppose that the wisdom with which he fashions the physical being
of men has gone astray in the case of monsters [I don't know why Bettenson
chose this word, but it really is harmless to Augustine's logic and should
not be a cause of offense] which are bound to be born among us human
parents; for that would be to regard the works of God's wisdom as the
products of an imperfectly skilled craftsman."
r,
paul
SON O GOD
>
>I came across something you might use in your apologia. I don't know if
>you've ever (philosophically) snuck over to the other side of the trenches
>and assessed the actual deployment of your argument. But it does look pretty
>weak to me. For example, the handling of Leviticus and Romans 2 undermine
>not only the opposition, but Scriptural authority as well. {Gomes, for
>example, does far more harm than good in his sloppy interpretation of Romans
>2} Also, the handling of David and Jonathan is like someone +deliberately+
>shooting himself in the foot.
Rational people don't particularly care how the details of ancient fairy
stories might be spun to rationalize bigotry. They simply recognize this
outrageous prejudice and buybull thumping for what it is, religious
demagoguery.
Is being gay an abnormality? That's mighty christian of you.
>It is therefore up to the Gay camp to make the case that there is a
>gay "nature". And they have done a pretty good job here. You've got to
>pretty idiotic to maintain that all gayness is a matter of moral choice. In
>passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
>klepto/pedophilia angle. And if this were merely a war, I would also merit
>the use of such a debating tactic, because it provokes many in the gay camp
>to lay aside all rational armor and come naked out into the field to defend
>their "honor." And that's always a pretty bloody, paranoid mess. Better to
>take the insult and shrug the shoulders of agnosticism than to open up the
>possibility of a flanking maneuver.
There is no need to take the insult and shrug it off. Unsubstantiated
accessions from christians that gay men and women molest children is a 20th
century blood libel --the unsubstantiated accusation made by christians in the
past that Jews murdered christian children and used their blood in religious
rituals. Christians have never been reluctant to bear false witness against a
neighbor of they see it as part of their cause.
In fact, when called upon to back these accusations with facts in court
christians have been unable to produce any evidence to support their claims
about gay men and women molesting children. In Colorado, where christian
political extremists attempted to defend the unconstitutional restrictions on
gay citizens created by Amendment 2 with this accusation, they could present no
convincing scientific evidence to support their claim. In fact, a scientific
study proved their accusations unfounded to the satisfaction of the District
Court in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. .
Opponents of Amendment 2 presented clinical research that had been subjected
to the rigors of peer review. It was a legitimate study of childhood sexual
abuse undertaken in Denver. "Pediatrics" , a professional medial journal
that also subjected the study to peer review before it published the
findings in July 1994. The study was conducted at the University of
Colorado, the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory
Medicine, and Children's Hospital of Denver.
This is an abstract of that study.
--begin quote--
SEARCH STRING: su:(homosexual and pedophilia)
DATABASE: Medline
RECORD NO.: 94277737
AUTHOR: Jenny C; Roesler TA; Poyer KL
ADDRESS: Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics,
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver.
TITLE: Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? [see
comments]
SOURCE: Pediatrics (OXV), 1994 Jul; 94 (1): 41-4
LANGUAGE: English
COUNTRY PUB.: UNITED STATES
ANNOUNCEMENT: 9409
PUB. TYPE: JOURNAL ARTICLE
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE. To determine if recognizably homosexual adults
are frequently accused of the sexual molestation of
children. DESIGN. Chart review of medical records of
children evaluated for sexual abuse. SETTING. Child sexual
abuse clinic at a regional children's hospital. PATIENTS.
Patients were 352 children (276 girls and 76 boys) referred
to a subspecialty clinic for the evaluation of suspected
child sexual abuse. Mean age was 6.1 years (range, 7 months
to 17 years). DATA COLLECTED. Charts were reviewed to
determine the relationships of the children to the alleged
offender, the sex of the offender, and whether or not the
alleged offender was reported to be gay, lesbian, or
bisexual. RESULTS. Abuse was ruled out in 35 cases. Seventy-
four children were allegedly abused by other children and
teenagers less than 18 years old. In 9 cases, an offender
could not be identified. In the remaining 269 cases, two
offenders were identified as being gay or lesbian. In 82% of
cases (222/269), the alleged offender was a heterosexual
partner of a close relative of the child. Using the data
from our study, the 95% confidence limits, of the risk
children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as
the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are
within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality
in the general community. CONCLUSIONS. The children in the
group studied were unlikely to have been molested by
identifiably gay or lesbian people.
NOTES: Comment in: Pediatrics, 1994 Jul;94(1):45-6
MESH HEADINGS: Child Abuse, Sexual--epidemiology (EP)*;
Homosexuality--psychology (*PX); Adolescence; Child; Child,
Preschool; Infant; Pedophilia; Female; Human; Male
STANDARD NO.: 0031-4005
DATES: Entered 940719
--end quote--
bb
in the neighborhood) but riddle me this.....
why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a social
justice homosexual one?
(isn't there something sad in that?)
Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990731222448...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> The chief stumbling block for the anti-gay camp is this:
> 1) gayness is not "natural" and
> 2) gayness is unequivocally condemned in Scripture.
This is a little too broken down. I'm not going to try to present a
complete argument here, merely to show how these are not a separate as
they seem.
> Your response to 1) is that "God created me this way."
This is an exceptionally hard matter to prove, and indeed, most
expressions of it I've heard have tended to be rather circular.
An appeal to science is not likely to help. It is plainly not a simple
matter of genetics; the numbers do not work out right. The best that
might be claimed is a vague genetic predisposition, a claim I do not
regard as scientifically sound.
Be that as it may, this leads to a more serious problem. Since the
fundamental claim of Judaeo-Christian cosmology is that the human will
is alienated from the Godhead and thus damaged, I question the degree
that you can construct moral arguments from its desires. Marriage is
easy, because one can appeal directly to scripture, unequivocably, in
numerous places. Homosexual acts are hard.
At this we have already moved over into point 2. Scripture is already
enjoying a special position as a source information-- call it
revelation-- as to the *proper* form of the human will. (After all, if
we didn't need revelation, we wouldn't need the law, the prophets, or
the incarnation.) Now, it seems to me that there are serious problems
with the extreme straight-from-Leviticus (so to speak) approach. I am
neither a literalist nor an inerrantist, and also it seems to me that
any sensible reading of Paul and the Acts, not to mention the Gospels,
denies us the reading of Levitical laws directly onto ourselves. It is
also rather obviously the case that some of Paul's rulings come out of
his own prejudices and intuitions rather than from the Spirit.
At the same time, I am extremely nervous about just washing this all
away in the name of "we are more sophisticated now." For one thing, the
material on marriage contains within it an implied condemnation of
anything outside it (other than celebacy) which is extremely strong and
extremely hard to argue against. Right from Genesis 2 there is a picture
of the natural and Good state being man and woman, joined as one. It is
carried all through scripture and is even used as an image of Christ and
the Church. I have a difficult time seeing how homosexual acts fit into
this, and furthermore this takes us immediately into the very heart of
the "what is natural" part of the controversy.
As for Augustine, I don't think he would have considered that
hermaphrodites were to be given rein to act according to either sex.
Indeed, he seems to saying that, by default, they are treated as males.
C. Wingate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a
> social justice homosexual one?
Because, I think, social justice is more comfortable than personal piety
or rectitude. Social *IN*justice, after all, is what someone *else* is
doing....
Not that I think it is to be ignored. But in the comfortably upper
middle class milieu of the Episcopal Church-- and if you think I'm wrong
about this, check Louie Crew's statistics at
http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/priests98.html for some reading on this
(at least when it comes to priests)-- feeling good about one's social
justice stance is an easy substitute for working out one's own salvation
in fear and trembling.
C. Wingate
Paul Hubbard
news:37A4BE63...@erols.com...
> At the same time, I am extremely nervous about just washing this all
> away in the name of "we are more sophisticated now." For one thing, the
> material on marriage contains within it an implied condemnation of
> anything outside it (other than celebacy) which is extremely strong and
> extremely hard to argue against. Right from Genesis 2 there is a picture
> of the natural and Good state being man and woman, joined as one. It is
> carried all through scripture and is even used as an image of Christ and
> the Church. I have a difficult time seeing how homosexual acts fit into
> this, and furthermore this takes us immediately into the very heart of
> the "what is natural" part of the controversy.
>
> As for Augustine, I don't think he would have considered that
> hermaphrodites were to be given rein to act according to either sex.
> Indeed, he seems to saying that, by default, they are treated as males.
>
> C. Wingate
Charlie,
My reason for writing Mycroft was to say that the stock arguments were weak,
confusing, and reactionary across the board. I didn't mention the "we are
more sophisicated now" argument - which will pass away as so many
herd-"rationalisms" of this century have already passed away. And to say
that I found the logical precedent in Augustine very strong (and
authoritative). I'm not making a point about how the controversy bears on
marriage. Mycroft wants respect. He wants to be accepted as a gay, catholic,
orthodox Christian. Period. I think the quote from Augustine helps
immensely. Early on in my thinking if a gay guy had said "God created me
this way", I would have said "bullshit!" Augustine appears to be saying
exactly this. First comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Mycroft
pushing a baby carriage? First things first. Firstly, Mycroft wants respect.
r,
paul
Erendil
that a child is molested by heterosexuals than by homosexuals. If the study
is true in its findings, then it would be reasonable to conclude that it
would be safer for children to be raised by homosexuals than by
heterosexuals.
Blessed Be,
Erendil
Ward Stewart
wrote:
This may well be so -- that is, if you exclude Postie, Fox and Normie
from the experiment.
ward
***************************************************
The Jews are a nervous race -- they have been made
so by two thousand years of Christian Charity.
Ben D'Israeli
***************************************************
Gregory Gadow
> Too bad it appears his sexuality was a requirement to get the job
In fact, his sexuality was *not* considered for the position.
Instead, he was considered on his human rights activities with Bishop
Tutu in South Africa and his work as a parish priest here in the
United States. As with all married clergy, his parter and their
relationship were also scrutinized, and found not wanting.
Gregory Gadow
> you likely don't know the demographics of that cathedral (a big gay populace
> in the neighborhood) but riddle me this.....
Do you? Yes, St. Mark's is found just north of the largest gay neighborhood in
Washington State, but the congregation is by no means primarily gay. Our parish
rolls include people from as far away as Olympia, Bellingham, and Vancouver,
British Columbia, who are drawn to St. Mark's because of the sense of family and
inclusion... difficult enough to find in a parish half our size.
> why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a social
> justice homosexual one?
You say that like social justice has absolutely nothing to do with "old
fashioned Biblical" preaching. Tell me: is there anything more old fashioned
than the prophet Isaiah?
"Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo
the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into
your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from
your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your
healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the
glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. (Isaiah 58:6-8; but read the entire
chapter, please)
> (isn't there something sad in that?)
Indeed. Your comments leave me quite sad.
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Charley & Melissa Wingate <whi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37A4C2FD...@erols.com...
> bb wrote:
>
> > why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a
> > social justice homosexual one?
>
> Because, I think, social justice is more comfortable than personal piety
> or rectitude. Social *IN*justice, after all, is what someone *else* is
> doing....
>
> Not that I think it is to be ignored. But in the comfortably upper
> middle class milieu of the Episcopal Church-- and if you think I'm wrong
> about this, check Louie Crew's statistics at
> http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/priests98.html for some reading on this
> (at least when it comes to priests)-- feeling good about one's social
> justice stance is an easy substitute for working out one's own salvation
> in fear and trembling.
>
> C. Wingate
M: Just a note in passing (without seeking a fight):
One needn't preclude the other. Working out my salvation also means concern
for that of others. It also includes concern for justice, social or
otherwise.
And, in turn, concern for social injustice begins with my own participation
in that injustice. How can I work out my salvation without recognizing my
injustice towards others? This, I think, is part of the 'fear and trembling'
I must undergo.
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Paul Hubbard <PaulHu...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#ZpPhEB3#GA.264@cpmsnbbsa02...
M: This is true.
However, one can also make an argument based on natural selection for the
role of homosexual people.
1. Homosexuals are not precluded from breeding. I know several with
children.
2. Even gays who don't reproduce themselves make a contribution to the
survival of the species. Surely, without children, they had more time to
contribute to the survival of their community, whether as hunters, warriors,
nurturers, etc. Even today, the contribution by gay people, thought
partially hidden, is extensive - teachers, artists, priests, etc. I
sometimes think that without our participation, society as we know it would
be impossible
> I think that objection 2 can be handled with a judicious use of the
> argumentation about Gome's faulty view of St. Paul's perspective we
> discussed. Instead of forcing a false distinction into the head of St.
Paul
> and the writer of Leviticus at this point, I think that it would be much
> simpler to maintain what we discussed before: that they could not possibly
> have been addressing the range of possibilities +within+ the abnormality
> itself. It is therefore up to the Gay camp to make the case that there is
a
> gay "nature". And they have done a pretty good job here. You've got to
> pretty idiotic to maintain that all gayness is a matter of moral choice.
In
> passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
> klepto/pedophilia angle. And if this were merely a war, I would also merit
> the use of such a debating tactic, because it provokes many in the gay
camp
> to lay aside all rational armor and come naked out into the field to
defend
> their "honor." And that's always a pretty bloody, paranoid mess. Better to
> take the insult and shrug the shoulders of agnosticism than to open up the
> possibility of a flanking maneuver.
M: Yes, it is an irrelevant jibe.
>
> Finally, the thing I came across was in Augustine. I can't vouch for
> Betteson's Latin, but the flow of Augustine's logic makes a very strong
case
> for the Gay camp:
<snip for brevity>
> r,
>
> paul
Paul,
I've finally come to the conclusion that it is useless arguing with the
conservative/evangelical/anti-gay camp. Essentially, they are not open to
persuasion based on reason because they just do not recognise reason as a
valid instrument in determining right or wrong. They see this as "man's
knowledge," and therefore to be avoided at all costs. They only recognise
what they see as God's revelation as revealed in scripture and interpreted
and maintained by tradition. This is essentially a pre-Enlightenment
viewpoint, where knowledge came from God and His ministers (and this
tradition) and not from the evidence of one's senses (which were considered
unreliable and capable of deception). It is a totally different way of
seeing the world, alien to the modern sensibility.
Thus, one can see how the wars between fundmentalists and moderns is almost
hopeless: they talk right past one another. I, myself, have experienced this
over and over. No matter what tactic I use - textual or historical scripture
interpretation, sociological data, personal testimony - it is just brushed
aside as "man's knowledge" and therefore suspect, if not demonic. It's
almost as if they just cannot hear me at all, like what I'm speaking comes
across as static.
Look at the case of "bb" for example. No matter what I say, he kept coming
back to the matter of the traditions of the church and the authority of
scripture. He just couldn't hear me. The only way he could give me any
respect was to suggest I shut up and go back in the closet. He finally
broke off all communication.
I now see this as a political matter. Theological or scientific argument is
irrelevant. Eventually, we will have the numbers to change things. Until
then, we can only work quietly for change, convincing those who can be
convinced, opposing those who cannot.
I, myself, will continue my testimony on the off-chance that I might plant a
seed here and there of future change, and to show lurking closeted
Christians that it is possble to be out and proud and Christian. I also see
my testimony as commanded by the Holy Spirit who will not let me be silent
in the face of so must destructive injustice.
Regards,
Mycroft
>
>
>
>
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Paul Hubbard <paulhu...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7o2ijn$3o5$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> Charley & Melissa Wingate <whi...@erols.com> wrote in message
Paul.
The conservatives really think that they are "respecting" me: you would not
believe how many times I've been told that they "love" me but hate my "sin."
It is useless to try to explain that what they define as my "sin" is as
essential a part of my being as their sexuality is to theirs, and that their
face-saving formula is patronizing and insulting.
Full acceptance doesn't seem to be in the cards for the immediate future.
Mutual toleration seems to be the best that can be hoped for.
They can keep their respect.
>
SON O GOD
>
>bb wrote:
>
>> why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a
>> social justice homosexual one?
>
>Because, I think, social justice is more comfortable than personal piety
>or rectitude. Social *IN*justice, after all, is what someone *else* is
>doing....
What nonsense! If only that were true. It has never been uncomfortable for
buybull thumping morons to rationalize social injustice with the foolish notion
that they are morally superior because they are white, they are male, they
believe that their boy-on-a-stick is a god or they like to stick their tiny
wee-wees into women's vaginas.
>Not that I think it is to be ignored. But in the comfortably upper
>middle class milieu of the Episcopal Church-- and if you think I'm wrong
>about this, check Louie Crew's statistics at
>http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/priests98.html for some reading on this
>(at least when it comes to priests)-- feeling good about one's social
>justice stance is an easy substitute for working out one's own salvation
>in fear and trembling.
...especially when the fear and trembling is imposed on others by bigoted
bullies who believe that they are somehow morally superior.
>C. Wingate
bb
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:7o4alf$r6c$0...@199.201.191.2...
bb wrote:
> Too bad it appears his sexuality was a requirement to get the job
In fact, his sexuality was *not* considered for the position.
Instead, he was considered on his human rights activities with Bishop
Tutu in South Africa and his work as a parish priest here in the
United States. As with all married clergy, his parter and their
relationship were also scrutinized, and found not wanting.
bb
28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
to the close of the age."
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:7o4b44$sj5$0...@199.201.191.2...
bb wrote:
> you likely don't know the demographics of that cathedral (a big gay
populace
> in the neighborhood) but riddle me this.....
Do you? Yes, St. Mark's is found just north of the largest gay neighborhood
in
Washington State, but the congregation is by no means primarily gay. Our
parish
rolls include people from as far away as Olympia, Bellingham, and Vancouver,
British Columbia, who are drawn to St. Mark's because of the sense of family
and
inclusion... difficult enough to find in a parish half our size.
> why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a social
> justice homosexual one?
You say that like social justice has absolutely nothing to do with "old
fashioned Biblical" preaching. Tell me: is there anything more old fashioned
than the prophet Isaiah?
"Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to
undo
the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every
yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor
into
your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself
from
your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your
healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you,
the
glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. (Isaiah 58:6-8; but read the
entire
chapter, please)
> (isn't there something sad in that?)
Indeed. Your comments leave me quite sad.
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> >> why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than
> >> a social justice homosexual one?
> >Because, I think, social justice is more comfortable than
> >personal piety or rectitude. Social *IN*justice, after all, is
> >what someone *else* is doing....
> What nonsense! If only that were true. It has never been
> uncomfortable for buybull thumping morons to rationalize social
> injustice with the foolish notion that they are morally superior
> because they are white, they are male, they believe that their
> boy-on-a-stick is a god or they like to stick their tiny
> wee-wees into women's vaginas.
Well, minus the crap at the end this is hardly defensible either. But it
is also trivial to attack, yea, even in the name of personal piety. This
little outburst is, in a sense, simply another form of what I think is
wrong with the focus on social justice. Surely the chiefest of sins
among us Protestants is "Lord, I thank thee that I am not like that
Fundamentalist/Liberal/"buybull-thumping moron" over there."
Try this exercise. Go read the back page of _Christianity Today_ for six
issues or so. I can just about guarantee that you will find a degree of
introspection and thoughtfulness which is hard to find in the Episcopal
Church.
> ...especially when the fear and trembling is imposed on others by
> bigoted bullies who believe that they are somehow morally
> superior.
Since you rather plainly hold yourself to be morally superior, this is
rather pathetic.
C. Wingate
Paul Hubbard
[Paul]
Therefore, anti-gay arguments that derive from
>natural
>> selection, unless one is a deist, are moot regardless of whether or not
>God
>> has installed a built-in low-level rule of "survival of the fittest" into
>> the created order of things - because Scripture clearly asserts that
>> "natural selection" does not encompass the full range of God's sovereign,
>> creative intent.
>>
>M: This is true.
>However, one can also make an argument based on natural selection for the
>role of homosexual people.
>1. Homosexuals are not precluded from breeding. I know several with
>children.
>2. Even gays who don't reproduce themselves make a contribution to the
>survival of the species. Surely, without children, they had more time to
>contribute to the survival of their community, whether as hunters,
warriors,
>nurturers, etc. Even today, the contribution by gay people, thought
>partially hidden, is extensive - teachers, artists, priests, etc. I
>sometimes think that without our participation, society as we know it would
>be impossible
Yes, but not a very strong one. The default position for evolutionary theory
in the affairs of men is a grotesque, Hitleresque mindset. You could make
the argument, but all the nuances of argumentation for a diverse gene-pool
are all the first to shrivel up and die - like fagile border life-forms on
beaches when the tide goes out. I think it was CSL that pointed out that the
genes of men who jump on hand-grenades to save their superior officers are
intrinsically a move in the direction of gene-pool poverty. As Prof. Haldane
has pointed out - most mutations are devoluting in character. An ostrich
+can+ make the case that he enriches the bird gene pool, but most of the
birds, driven by the dominant logic of "natural selection" will probably be
nodding their heads in polite affirmation while thinking "what a non-flying
freak!"
<sfb>
>> passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
>> klepto/pedophilia angle. And if this were merely a war, I would also
merit
>> the use of such a debating tactic, because it provokes many in the gay
>camp
>> to lay aside all rational armor and come naked out into the field to
>defend
>> their "honor." And that's always a pretty bloody, paranoid mess. Better
to
>> take the insult and shrug the shoulders of agnosticism than to open up
the
>> possibility of a flanking maneuver.
>
>M: Yes, it is an irrelevant jibe.
But my point was that it isn't irrelevant. Instead of addressing it as a
legitimate objection, the gay camp just goes crazy with reactionary frenzy.
If we say that gayness is positively embraced within the post-fall creative
economy of God (assuming it has been delicately differentiated from its
abominable, nature-flouting promiscuous variants), then the logical problem
becomes: when does a physical +genetic+ variation (otherwise called an
abnormality), which is essentially +a+moral in character, begin to have a
moral dimension that must be treated with logic that rises above mere
toleration for diversity? That is, following the logic to its conclusion,
where does one stop? Sex is an extremely sensitive area. If it is this
difficult to make a nuanced differentiation of what constitutes legitimate
sexual variation and sexual perversity, what about all the other physical
appetites that have a moral dimension? Like eating (gluttony) and
self-authentication (shop-lifting) and drinking (drunkenness). The
pedophilia concern is particularly apt: if a man is sexually addicted to
young boys (or young girls), how shall we keep him from seizing on the same
argument to legitimize what has heretofore been +scientifically+ defined as
pathological? Someone brought this up very nicely: that one day AMA may
simply announce that pederasty is a legitimate and genetically healthy
diversification. Augustine an Lewis would make the case that +all+ appetites
are amoral - that they only aquire a moral dimension "in situ" - that is, a
"perverted" appetite is an _idolatrous_ one - an appetite that supplants the
place of God himself in the soul. But this line of reasoning makes it very
difficult to work back into Paul's point in Romans 2: that there are
behaviors that have become "by nature" perverse. It is a knotty problem.
<sfb>
>Paul,
>
>I've finally come to the conclusion that it is useless arguing with the
>conservative/evangelical/anti-gay camp. Essentially, they are not open to
>persuasion based on reason because they just do not recognise reason as a
>valid instrument in determining right or wrong. They see this as "man's
>knowledge," and therefore to be avoided at all costs. They only recognise
>what they see as God's revelation as revealed in scripture and interpreted
>and maintained by tradition. This is essentially a pre-Enlightenment
>viewpoint, where knowledge came from God and His ministers (and this
>tradition) and not from the evidence of one's senses (which were considered
>unreliable and capable of deception). It is a totally different way of
>seeing the world, alien to the modern sensibility.
Mycroft,
The thing that really bugs me is that you have come to the place of
desperation and are beginning to rely on modern arguments to make your case.
But modernism is a broken reed. If you lean on it, it will break and you
will fall. You will have escaped your enemies by forming an alliance with
the dark side. There is nothing in modernism and post modernism that will
save you. It is not the "modern sensibility" that will provide a just
society for Gays. Modern sensibility tends to collectivism, totalitarianism,
banality and cheap death. All the modern novels about "modern sensibility"
creating a utopia agree: _Animal Farm_, _1984_ and _Brave New World_. Even
when the modern sensibility is +trying+ to be straightforward about their
vision of utopia, it portends a dark, slow death - such as B.F. Skinner's
_Walden II_.
Christendom has failed miserably from time to time, but even in failure
there is a tragic pathos. Its view of the Devil, for example, is far more
glorious then the many dualisms that have gone before it (and in
post-modernism). Satan is +The+ most tragic figure since he was such a
glorious archangel. We cry for the victims of Torquemada and we are
mortified at American slavery. But when "modern sensibility" goes bad, such
as Hitler's social darwinism - we stand in abject horror. The grotesque
enormity of sin is beyond comprehension. But when Christendom succeeds, it
succeeds beyond our wildest expectation. It produces science, democracy,
freedom, diversity, stability, beauty and charity and felicity. A culture
that far, far surpasses any of our mythologized idealisms of ancient Greece
or Ancient Rome, or the Incas, Mayans or Egyptians. If you step out of
catholic orthodoxy and form an alliance with "modernism" - after they have
gored your enemies, they will turn and devour you...
I've never met a man "open to reason." You should not be very surprised by
this. If anyone were truly open to reason and had the moral power to stop
sinning , he would straight-away become a god. You +must+ believe that in
your most hopeless argument, the Holy Spirit is active - behind the scenes,
moving dynamically in a morally depraved wasteland to which no human spirit
can travel and maintain sanity. But the really insidious thing about this
course of action is that once you finally consign your fundamentalist
brothers to the hell of irremediable irrationality, you begin your own
unbraked fall into irrationality.
>
>Thus, one can see how the wars between fundamentalists and moderns is
almost
>hopeless: they talk right past one another. I, myself, have experienced
this
>over and over. No matter what tactic I use - textual or historical
scripture
>interpretation, sociological data, personal testimony - it is just brushed
>aside as "man's knowledge" and therefore suspect, if not demonic. It's
>almost as if they just cannot hear me at all, like what I'm speaking comes
>across as static.
>
>Look at the case of "bb" for example. No matter what I say, he kept coming
>back to the matter of the traditions of the church and the authority of
>scripture. He just couldn't hear me. The only way he could give me any
>respect was to suggest I shut up and go back in the closet. He finally
>broke off all communication.
But you must have faith. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was +murdering+
Christians for God's sake! But even Annaias had no idea that the Holy Spirit
had Paul on the brink of conversion. No matter how hopeless it seems, you
+must+ believe in the power of truth (and therefore reason) and the dynamic
power of the Holy Spirit. You are in service of the truth and of the spirit
and these two witnesses always agree. But if you are in service of yourself,
or even your lover, you will not always agree with those two witnesses. And
in relying on a puny humanistic vision of justice - seeking to destroy "the
enemy" - you will destroy yourself.
>I now see this as a political matter. Theological or scientific argument is
>irrelevant. Eventually, we will have the numbers to change things. Until
>then, we can only work quietly for change, convincing those who can be
>convinced, opposing those who cannot.
How can you now begin to rely on political mechanisms of an Earthly City to
succeed where the Eternal Truth and the Spirit could only fail? How can you
place your confidence in the capricious ballot box when you have twelve
legions of angels at your constant disposal?
r,
paul
Gregory Gadow
writing search criteria, going through applications and recommendations,
interviewing candidates, and praying over the decision? Probably not.
I think I know from what I speak.
bb wrote:
> his stand on homosexualality and marriage/ priesthood most certainly was....
>
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:7o4alf$r6c$0...@199.201.191.2...
> bb wrote:
>
> > Too bad it appears his sexuality was a requirement to get the job
>
> In fact, his sexuality was *not* considered for the position.
> Instead, he was considered on his human rights activities with Bishop
> Tutu in South Africa and his work as a parish priest here in the
> United States. As with all married clergy, his parter and their
> relationship were also scrutinized, and found not wanting.
--
Gregory Gadow
> more to the point...
>
> 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
> in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
> them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
> to the close of the age."
Not everyone here is a Bible scholar, friend. When you cite Scripture, cite
completely... it's just a courteous thing to do.
As for your quote from Matthew: I admit, this seems a bit like a non-sequitor to
me. In what way does Reverend Taylor or his appointment as Dean of St. Mark's
violate this commandment?
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:7o4b44$sj5$0...@199.201.191.2...
> bb wrote:
>
> > you likely don't know the demographics of that cathedral (a big gay
> populace
> > in the neighborhood) but riddle me this.....
>
> Do you? Yes, St. Mark's is found just north of the largest gay neighborhood
> in Washington State, but the congregation is by no means primarily gay. Our
> parish rolls include people from as far away as Olympia, Bellingham, and
> Vancouver,
> British Columbia, who are drawn to St. Mark's because of the sense of family
> and inclusion... difficult enough to find in a parish half our size.
>
> > why is it harder to get a old fashioned Biblical preacher than a social
> > justice homosexual one?
>
> You say that like social justice has absolutely nothing to do with "old
> fashioned Biblical" preaching. Tell me: is there anything more old fashioned
> than the prophet Isaiah?
>
> "Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to
> undo
> the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?
>
> Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor
> into
> your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself
> from
> your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your
> healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you, the
> glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. (Isaiah 58:6-8; but read the
> entire chapter, please)
>
> > (isn't there something sad in that?)
>
> Indeed. Your comments leave me quite sad.
--
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Paul Hubbard <PaulHu...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:u7397Jb3#GA.452@cpmsnbbsa02...
> Mycroft wrote in message <7o4jjv$glq$1...@holly.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
<sfb> >M:However, one can also make an argument based on natural selection
for the
> >role of homosexual people.
<sfb>
Paul:
> Yes, but not a very strong one. The default position for evolutionary
theory
> in the affairs of men is a grotesque, Hitleresque mindset.
M: True, Social Darwinism is a degenerate form of the theory, but it has
been discredited.
>P:You could make
> the argument, but all the nuances of argumentation for a diverse gene-pool
> are all the first to shrivel up and die - like fragile border life-forms
on
> beaches when the tide goes out. I think it was CSL that pointed out that
the
> genes of men who jump on hand-grenades to save their superior officers are
> intrinsically a move in the direction of gene-pool poverty. As Prof.
Haldane
> has pointed out - most mutations are devoluting in character. An ostrich
> +can+ make the case that he enriches the bird gene pool, but most of the
> birds, driven by the dominant logic of "natural selection" will probably
be
> nodding their heads in polite affirmation while thinking "what a
non-flying
> freak!"
M: Well, yes, this ~may~ be true. However, once again, we have the popular
viewpoint here, not the legitimate scientific one. Why, one may ask, should
we be concerned with what the uninformed herd thinks is true? When it comes
right down to it, if things get that bad (ie, mob-rule), reason will fly out
the window no matter what you and I may think. Cf, Hitler-era Germany.
BTW: I don't like your implication that we are "mutants." The majority
always thinks it is the norm and anyone who deviates from their opinion to
be perverse, wicked, etc. The way I see it, we are part of the normal span
of human sexual behavior.
>
> <sfb>
>
> >> passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
> >> klepto/pedophilia angle. > >
> >M: Yes, it is an irrelevant jibe.
>
>
> P: But my point was that it isn't irrelevant. Instead of addressing it as
a> legitimate objection, the gay camp just goes crazy with reactionary
frenzy.
M: And why not? It's the equivalent of "blood libel."
> > If we say that gayness is positively embraced within the post-fall
creative> economy of God (assuming it has been delicately differentiated
from its> abominable, nature-flouting promiscuous variants),
M: Well, of course. Just as we "delicately differentiate" heterosexual
"abominable, nature-flouting promiscuous variants." ;-)
> then the logical problem
> becomes: when does a physical +genetic+ variation (otherwise called an
> abnormality), which is essentially +a+moral in character, begin to have a
> moral dimension that must be treated with logic that rises above mere
> toleration for diversity? That is, following the logic to its conclusion,
> where does one stop? Sex is an extremely sensitive area. If it is this>
difficult to make a nuanced differentiation of what constitutes legitimate>
sexual variation and sexual perversity, what about all the other physical>
appetites that have a moral dimension? Like eating (gluttony) and>
self-authentication (shop-lifting) and drinking (drunkenness). The>
pedophilia concern is particularly apt: if a man is sexually addicted to>
young boys (or young girls), how shall we keep him from seizing on the same>
argument to legitimize what has heretofore been +scientifically+ defined as>
pathological?
M: But what does this have to do with gay people? It certainly seems that
the majority, simply because it ~is~ the majority, gets to define what is
sexual perversity, or sexual variation, or sexual abnormality. From my
perspective, there is no problem. It is one that the heterosexual
dictatorship has created.
The pedophilia/homosexuality comparison is designed to destroy the legimate
aspirations of gay people to dignity and equality before God. It has no
validity. It is argument by analogy, attempting to yoke together two
entirely different issues.
>Someone brought this up very nicely: that one day AMA may
> simply announce that pederasty is a legitimate and genetically healthy
> diversification.
M: "may"? Then again, they may not.
>Augustine and Lewis would make the case that +all+ appetites
> are amoral - that they only aquire a moral dimension "in situ" - that is,
a
> "perverted" appetite is an _idolatrous_ one - an appetite that supplants
the
> place of God himself in the soul. But this line of reasoning makes it very
> difficult to work back into Paul's point in Romans 2: that there are
> behaviors that have become "by nature" perverse. It is a knotty problem.
M: And, again, what has this to do with gay people? Same-sex love is no more
idolatrous than opposite-sex love. It can be turned that way, but is not, by
definition, so (except as the het. majority arbitrarily defines it).
>
> <sfb>
>
> Mycroft,
>
> The thing that really bugs me is that you have come to the place of
> desperation and are beginning to rely on modern arguments to make your
case.
M: More like resignation.
> But modernism is a broken reed. If you lean on it, it will break and you
> will fall. You will have escaped your enemies by forming an alliance with
> the dark side. There is nothing in modernism and post modernism that will
> save you. It is not the "modern sensibility" that will provide a just
> society for Gays. Modern sensibility tends to collectivism,
totalitarianism,
> banality and cheap death.
M: I hardly think so. Even a cursory knowledge of history will show that
human dignity and human rights did not come into their own until after the
Enlightenment. Pre-Enlightenment society was, indeed, a "dark age" from the
individual's point of view. You think things are bad now? Try the stupid
religious wars, lack of due process, rampant superstition, irrationality,
short life-spans, oppression by church-backed royalty, etc., etc., which
occured pre-16th century. Sure these evils continue. But this is a testament
to the perversity of human nature, not the "dark side" of modernism. At
least, we are now aware that they ~are~ evils (almost universal condemnation
of ethnic cleansing, torture, religious pogroms, superstition, war, child
labor, exploitation of women and children, etc), and we fight against them.
When I refer to the "modern" mind-set, I mean the use of reason and
scientific method as tools, not just to describe reality, but to order human
society. Can you find any real democracies in the pre-Enlightenment period?
And what of the rights and dignity of the average human? Sure we still have
problems: due to fallen human nature, even the best can be turned to the
"dark side," - and the best will turn to the worst when perverted. But I'll
take our system now over that of the middle ages.
I refuse to kow-tow to the conservatives' (mis)use of argument by authority
and tradition.
P: All the modern novels about "modern sensibility"
> creating a utopia agree: _Animal Farm_, _1984_ and _Brave New World_. Even
> when the modern sensibility is +trying+ to be straightforward about their
> vision of utopia, it portends a dark, slow death - such as B.F. Skinner's
> _Walden II_.
>
M: Yes, these are cautionary dystopias. However, they were produced to warn
against the destruction of something which is now a standard: democracy,
reason, individual human dignity.
They have more in common with the abuses of pre-Enlightenment times than in
the Declaration of Independence.
> Christendom has failed miserably from time to time, but even in failure
> there is a tragic pathos. Its view of the Devil, for example, is far more
> glorious then the many dualisms that have gone before it (and in
> post-modernism). Satan is +The+ most tragic figure since he was such a
> glorious archangel. We cry for the victims of Torquemada and we are
> mortified at American slavery. But when "modern sensibility" goes bad,
such
> as Hitler's social darwinism - we stand in abject horror. The grotesque
> enormity of sin is beyond comprehension. But when Christendom succeeds, it
> succeeds beyond our wildest expectation. It produces science, democracy,
> freedom, diversity, stability, beauty and charity and felicity. A culture
> that far, far surpasses any of our mythologized idealisms of ancient
Greece
> or Ancient Rome, or the Incas, Mayans or Egyptians. If you step out of
> catholic orthodoxy and form an alliance with "modernism" - after they have
> gored your enemies, they will turn and devour you...
M: Only if we abandon any meaningful humanism. And by that, I mean a
Christian Humanism. The qualities you attribute to Christendom alone
(science, democracy, etc) are the result of an alliance between the best of
Christianity and the best of the great humanist principles first articulated
in ancient Greece, not of either alone. The horrors you want to ascribe to
the modern endeavor are also found thoughout Christian culture.
But getting back to the point: Christianity has a horrendous record when it
comes to gay people. In fact, many gays reject Christianity out of hand
because of this historic (and present!) prejudice. Gays have been
persecuted, tortured, executed, systematically repressed and denied even the
most basic human dignity (our nature is "an instinsic moral evil" - RC), in
the name of Christ. It has not been until the modern era that gays have
achieved any measure of freedom from this yoke (not counting non-Christian
cultures) - and always against the determined opposition of organized
religion. This culture you extol above is, essentially, an emperor without
clothes. It is modern principles of reason, rooted in the Enlightenment,
which have begun this liberation, and not anything Christianity has done. I
believe that the core Christian message has nothing to do with this
institutionalized homophobia and am therefore committed to changing the
church's viewpoint. But I also believe that this will be done by respecting
the contributions of reason and the scientific outlook, as well as sound
Christian humanist principles.
>
> I've never met a man "open to reason." You should not be very surprised by
> this. If anyone were truly open to reason and had the moral power to stop
> sinning , he would straight-away become a god.
M: Nonsense. Many are ~open~ to reason, whether they act on it or not. As
you yourself have said, you've changed your mind.
You +must+ believe that in
> your most hopeless argument, the Holy Spirit is active - behind the
scenes,
> moving dynamically in a morally depraved wasteland to which no human
spirit
> can travel and maintain sanity. But the really insidious thing about this
> course of action is that once you finally consign your fundamentalist
> brothers to the hell of irremediable irrationality, you begin your own
> unbraked fall into irrationality.
M: If I only do so it is because it seems they will not come around, no
matter what. Apparently, there are millions of them committed to our
destruction. And it is ~they~ who are committing me to Hell! I am only
trying to preserve my self, my sanity, and my hope. Those who can be
persuaded are welcome; those who cannot will be opposed. Self-preservation
is not irrational.
>
>
>P: But you must have faith. Look at the Apostle Paul. He was +murdering+
> Christians for God's sake! But even Annaias had no idea that the Holy
Spirit
> had Paul on the brink of conversion. No matter how hopeless it seems, you
> +must+ believe in the power of truth (and therefore reason) and the
dynamic
> power of the Holy Spirit. You are in service of the truth and of the
spirit
> and these two witnesses always agree. But if you are in service of
yourself,
> or even your lover, you will not always agree with those two witnesses.
And
> in relying on a puny humanistic vision of justice - seeking to destroy
"the
> enemy" - you will destroy yourself.
M: Actually, I do not seek their destruction (unlike them). I just have come
to the conclusion that, in order to serve truth, I must make a decision to
oppose them on the political level. Sure, it'd be nice to convince them, and
I won't stop praying for that change of heart. However, you have not come
across the determination, the hardness of heart, and the maliciousness that
I have encountered. And even worse are those who mouth the insulting
platitude "hate the sin, love the sinner" applied to the gay person. They
have persuaded themselves that they are doing no wrong by this, and are
therefore beyond persuasion: no appeal to conscience or reason works.
It is all very well to mouth the high-flown platitudes above, but when one
is down in the trenches it is very hard to hang on to such an attitude. When
multitudes of fundamentalist and conservative Christians are mobilizing to
deny us even the most basic of civil rights; when our people are being
targeted for violence, often under Christian influence; when our funerals
and blessing ceremonies (it happened at my parish!) are being pickets by
Christians carrying signs which read "God Hates Fags" and "AIDS cures
homosexuality"; when "reasonable" people just won't listen and respond to
our suffering...well, you get the point. The only sane response parallels
the cursing Psalms.
I don't consign them to the hell of irrationality: they consign themselves.
>
> >M: I now see this as a political matter. >
>P: How can you now begin to rely on political mechanisms of an Earthly
City to
> succeed where the Eternal Truth and the Spirit could only fail? How can
you
> place your confidence in the capricious ballot box when you have twelve
> legions of angels at your constant disposal?
> r,
>
> paul
>
M: I would hope that the two can work together. However, I want concrete
progress NOW. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Too many lives have been blighted and even destroyed because of this evil
prejudice. How can we tell the gay teen, harassed and attacked by his/her
peers, thrown of their home by a "Christian" family, and living without hope
on the streets, to call upon legions of angels for help? It's nice rhetoric,
but it doesn't butter any bread.
Just reading the posts in this ng will reveal the recalcitrance the anti-gay
contingent exhibits: it seems that if the Episcopal Church recognizes the
dignity and humanity of gay people, schism will occur. How can one deal with
people such as this? I would hope that the Holy Spirit would change their
hearts and minds, but I cannot rely on it. How long are we to wander in the
wilderness? Isn't two thousand years of suffering enough? God finally gave
up on the Egyptians, after all.
Thoughts?
R,
Mycroft
>
>
>
>
>
bb
just the name of the book.
quote intended as contrast to heavy push on "social justice" which is the
rage these days (thought the pope took care of that for us when he cleansed
the Catholic church)(though healing/caring is good and some social justice
is clearly called for, its just not the end all)
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:7o6tfo$o6m$0...@199.201.191.2...
bb
Christians (including Paul) have throughout the ages....
Paul Hubbard <PaulHu...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:u7397Jb3#GA.452@cpmsnbbsa02...
Gregory Gadow
> give me a break, we merely say that homosexuality is wrong, as all
> Christians (including Paul) have throughout the ages....
First off, not all Christians have claimed that homosexuality is wrong (else
this thread would have never been started) and second, this has not been the
case "throughout the ages".
Let me direct you to John Boswell's books, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". Read. Enjoy. Educate
yourself.
Cfortunato
>and
>Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". Read. Enjoy.
>Educate
>yourself.
I have to say, I haven't found Boswell's books very convincing. He was
first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and Christian
colored the conclusions he drew from that research.
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990804101737...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
M: Hmm...I don't like the implications of this statement. Are you saying
that because a man is gay that he can't be objective as a scholar? It then
follows that the majority of writers on this subject, being heterosexual, of
course cannot be objective, and their writings may then be discounted.
>
Mycroft
which is trying to recognize the complexities and subtleties of this issue,
and simplifies it with a mind-numbing blurb of inaccuracies and ignorance.
Since he refuses to engage me in reasoned debate, is there anyone out there
who could ask him to provide even one iota of proof for his statement below?
--
Remove XXX to contact
bb <b...@foo.com> wrote in message news:7o8d98$e9r$2...@brokaw.wa.com...
Cfortunato
Well, I doubt that ANYBODY can be genuinely objective. Scholars TRY to be
objective: I doubt any of them succeed. It isn't quality of sexuality, but
humanity. And yes, I doubt that heterosexuals can be objective when discussing
sexuality, either. That applies to anything that one has an emotional
investment in.
Starbuck
first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and
Christian
colored the conclusions he drew from that research.<<<
Not to mention that some of his so called "original sources" were flat out
falsified.
--
To respond via email remove the "X" from the address.
Gregory Gadow
> >Let me direct you to John Boswell's books, "Christianity, Social Tolerance,
> >and
> >Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". Read. Enjoy.
> >Educate
> >yourself.
>
> I have to say, I haven't found Boswell's books very convincing. He was
> first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and Christian
> colored the conclusions he drew from that research.
And shall we reject all research by non-Christian heterosexual scholars as being
biased?
Cfortunato
>
>> >Let me direct you to John Boswell's books, "Christianity, Social
>Tolerance,
>> >and
>> >Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". Read. Enjoy.
>> >Educate
>> >yourself.
>>
>> I have to say, I haven't found Boswell's books very convincing. He was
>> first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and
>Christian
>> colored the conclusions he drew from that research.
>
>And shall we reject all research by non-Christian heterosexual scholars as
>being
>biased?
Of course not. You examine it for biases and take them into account, just like
you do with everything else.
SON O GOD
pmdla...@earthlink.net says...
>
>>>>I have to say, I haven't found Boswell's books very convincing. He was
>first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and
>Christian
>colored the conclusions he drew from that research.<<<
>
>falsified.
Your evidence of this is what?
No, Boswell's sources were not falsified. His work is extraordinarily accurate
and that is why it upsets gay-bashing fundamentalist so. Bearing false witness
against a dead, gay neighbor who can no longer defend his work never seems to
be a problem for christians like the unfortunate Starbuck.
Mycroft
--
Remove XXX to contact
Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990804114505...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> >Cfortunato <cfort...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:19990804101737...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> >> >Let me direct you to John Boswell's books, "Christianity, Social
> >Tolerance,
> >> >and
> >> >Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". Read.
Enjoy.
> >> >Educate
> >> >yourself.
> >>
> >> I have to say, I haven't found Boswell's books very convincing. He was
> >> first-class researcher, but I think the fact that he was both gay and
> >Christian
> >> colored the conclusions he drew from that research.
> >
> >M: Hmm...I don't like the implications of this statement. Are you saying
> >that because a man is gay that he can't be objective as a scholar? It
then
> >follows that the majority of writers on this subject, being heterosexual,
of
> >course cannot be objective, and their writings may then be discounted.
>
> Well, I doubt that ANYBODY can be genuinely objective. Scholars TRY to be
> objective: I doubt any of them succeed. It isn't quality of sexuality,
but
> humanity. And yes, I doubt that heterosexuals can be objective when
discussing
> sexuality, either. That applies to anything that one has an emotional
> investment in.
M: Then why bring it up?
>
Daniel Pflager
> ok, so i missed "matthew"...hope you werent asking for the entire gospel,
or
> just the name of the book.
>
> quote intended as contrast to heavy push on "social justice" which is the
> rage these days (thought the pope took care of that for us when he
cleansed
> the Catholic church)(though healing/caring is good and some social justice
> is clearly called for, its just not the end all)
Good point though. If the chief "maker of disciples" is homosexual, either
by his lifestyle or his words (or both) he is including that in his
definition of disciple.
I am quite sure that's not what God intended in the Great Commission.
Obedientia et Pax,
Daniel Pflager
Gregory Gadow
> ok, so i missed "matthew"...hope you werent asking for the entire gospel, or
> just the name of the book.
Just a complete reference as to where the quote came from. It just makes it
easier for everyone else to follow along.
> quote intended as contrast to heavy push on "social justice" which is the
> rage these days (thought the pope took care of that for us when he cleansed
> the Catholic church)(though healing/caring is good and some social justice
> is clearly called for, its just not the end all)
I agree that social justice is not 'the end all' -- meaning it is not the
primary work of a Christian, which should be praising God.
I assert, however, that social justice is the primary work of Christians *in the
world*. I refer you to the parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25:31-46:
"Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I
was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick
and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' (v 34-36)". This is
just one of many statements by Jesus and Paul about how Christians should treat
others, work for justice and care for their neighbors.
To quote a popular proverb, "If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you
teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime." When you seem to be denigrating
Christian work for social justice, dismiss it as a low priority, you seem to be
saying, "God will teach him to fish; I needn't worry. I have more important
things to worry about" And thus, he starves.
Pray to God that this hungry man is not Christ.
"`Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee
drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and
clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the
King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least
of these my brethren, you did it to me.' (Matthew 25:37b-40)"
And pray that the gay person you condemn isn't Christ, either.
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:7o6tfo$o6m$0...@199.201.191.2...
> bb wrote:
>
> > more to the point...
> >
> > 28:19-20 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
> > in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching
> > them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always,
>
> > to the close of the age."
>
> Not everyone here is a Bible scholar, friend. When you cite Scripture, cite
> completely... it's just a courteous thing to do.
>
> As for your quote from Matthew: I admit, this seems a bit like a non-sequitor
> to
> me. In what way does Reverend Taylor or his appointment as Dean of St. Mark's
> violate this commandment?
--
Daniel Pflager
news:7o1ms8$ibr$1...@brokaw.wa.com...
> In article <#ZpPhEB3#GA.264@cpmsnbbsa02>, PaulHu...@email.msn.com
says...
> >
>
> >I came across something you might use in your apologia. I don't know if
> >you've ever (philosophically) snuck over to the other side of the
trenches
> >and assessed the actual deployment of your argument. But it does look
pretty
> >weak to me. For example, the handling of Leviticus and Romans 2 undermine
> >not only the opposition, but Scriptural authority as well. {Gomes, for
> >example, does far more harm than good in his sloppy interpretation of
Romans
> >2} Also, the handling of David and Jonathan is like someone
+deliberately+
> >shooting himself in the foot.
>
>
> stories might be spun to rationalize bigotry. They simply recognize this
> outrageous prejudice and buybull thumping for what it is, religious
> demagoguery.
I like to call them scienceologists. Their limited definition of rationality
leaves so much out of the picture, it represents only a shadowy reflection
of reality or rationality at best.
> >a diverse gene-pool). Therefore, anti-gay arguments that derive from
natural
> >selection, unless one is a deist, are moot regardless of whether or not
God
> >has installed a built-in low-level rule of "survival of the fittest" into
> >the created order of things - because Scripture clearly asserts that
> >"natural selection" does not encompass the full range of God's sovereign,
> >creative intent.
> >
> >I think that objection 2 can be handled with a judicious use of the
> >argumentation about Gome's faulty view of St. Paul's perspective we
> >discussed. Instead of forcing a false distinction into the head of St.
Paul
> >and the writer of Leviticus at this point, I think that it would be much
> >simpler to maintain what we discussed before: that they could not
possibly
> >have been addressing the range of possibilities +within+ the abnormality
> >itself.
>
> Is being gay an abnormality? That's mighty christian of you.
So's being born without legs. Why does the label "abnormal" cause you to
accuse christians of hypocrisy?
> >It is therefore up to the Gay camp to make the case that there is a
> >gay "nature". And they have done a pretty good job here. You've got to
> >pretty idiotic to maintain that all gayness is a matter of moral choice.
In
> >passing, I think that the anti-gay camp has a strong objection with the
> >klepto/pedophilia angle. And if this were merely a war, I would also
merit
> >the use of such a debating tactic, because it provokes many in the gay
camp
> >to lay aside all rational armor and come naked out into the field to
defend
> >their "honor." And that's always a pretty bloody, paranoid mess. Better
to
> >take the insult and shrug the shoulders of agnosticism than to open up
the
> >possibility of a flanking maneuver.
>
> There is no need to take the insult and shrug it off. Unsubstantiated
> accessions from christians that gay men and women molest children is a
20th
> century blood libel --the unsubstantiated accusation made by christians
in the
> past that Jews murdered christian children and used their blood in
religious
> rituals. Christians have never been reluctant to bear false witness
against a
> neighbor of they see it as part of their cause.
Ad numerum.
In any case, the disintegration of anti-homosexual boundaries within the
church is just a few steps away from the disintegration of anti-pedophilia
boundaries. In fact, the only different for homosexual pedophiles is the
legal definition of "age of consent" or "marriage".
> In fact, when called upon to back these accusations with facts in court
> christians have been unable to produce any evidence to support their
claims
> about gay men and women molesting children. In Colorado, where christian
> political extremists attempted to defend the unconstitutional restrictions
on
> gay citizens created by Amendment 2 with this accusation, they could
present no
> convincing scientific evidence to support their claim. In fact, a
scientific
> study proved their accusations unfounded to the satisfaction of the
District
> Court in Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court. .
In any case, I do not see why homosexuality should imply molestation any
more than heterosexuality. Perhaps it would only affect the sex of the
person molested.
bb
not really a disagreement, but social justice and helping others is roughly
half of our calling, the other is to proclaim the Gospel in word (and deed).
Try finding an illustration of our bishops evangelising the non-believers.
I wonder if they really believed in Jesus and his saving message that they
wouldn't want to shout it from the rooftops? If you found the cure to cancer
wouldnt you tell everyone...that in a sense is what Christ offers.
I'm searching for the Scripture to directly address your last point about
condemning (or not condemning the gay person). I think perhaps Scripture
about Jesus and the adulteress woman (sp?) and "therefore neither do i
condemn you. Go and sin no more" is more appropriate. Neither Jesus nor we
condemn the woman but we also don't wink wink at the sin as if it doesn't
exist.
You just can't duck the sin issue unless you dodge the whole Bible. That's
the beef with loosening the rules for homosexuality...it requires one to
say, ok the Bible is mythical, largely written in a former uneducated phase
and now we know better.
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:7oaeg2$h2b$0...@199.201.191.2...
Billy Kennedy
>In any case, the disintegration of anti-homosexual boundaries within the
>church is just a few steps away from the disintegration of anti-pedophilia
>boundaries. In fact, the only different for homosexual pedophiles is the
>legal definition of "age of consent" or "marriage".
In fact?
Are you defending heterosexual pedophilia?? Is the legal definition of
"age of consent" or "marriage" the only thing keeping your kind away
from the 5 year olds??? GOOD grief, you are very strange!!
The only thing that links homosexuality and child molestation, is in
your mind. You may want to seek help on that one....
>In any case, I do not see why homosexuality should imply molestation any
>more than heterosexuality. Perhaps it would only affect the sex of the
>person molested.
YOU JUST DID!! SEVERAL TIMES!!!
Wahre Arbeit
>
>In any case, the disintegration of anti-homosexual boundaries within the
>church is just a few steps away from the disintegration of anti-pedophilia
>boundaries. In fact, the only different for homosexual pedophiles is the
>legal definition of "age of consent" or "marriage".
Take a logic class, if your faith can survive it .. one of the first things
you will learn is that slippery-slope arguments are false.
Most homosexuals want precisely equal rights. There are a few who want to
overturn everything and talk about being oppressed by not being able to fuck
in the grocery store.
There are also people in your camp who want to bring back Old Testament
morality. Your extremists and our extremists should get married.
--
Chris Fox
Software Architect - WindowsNT/C++/MS SQL Server
http://home.earthlink.net/~chrisfox/
Charley & Melissa Wingate
bombardment with a mass of words and footnotes. The impression I get is
that he is largely considered an advocate rather than a historian (in
this matter anyway). He is certainly not without critics.
C. Wingate
Gregory Gadow
With regards to his use of words and footnotes, his two books,
"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Marriage
in Pre-Modern Europe" were written by a scholar primarily for other
scholars, and not as popular reading. If you look at any other similar
professional work, you will see that the lay-out is essentially identical,
with almost every translation including original source text, with almost
every conclusion being cross referenced with the sources upon which that
conclusion is based.
With regards to his critics, they have largely been Christian
Traditionalists who oppose his findings on theological and traditional
grounds. The few of his detractors who have been "social
archeologist"/historians -- that is to say, professionals in the same field
of study as Boswell, and the only people really qualified to judge the
quality of his work -- based their complaints on picky points of
translation, not on the source texts themselves, nor his methodology, nor
his basic conclusions. Such scholars who complained of bias disputed with
Boswell on how accepted such practices and attitudes were, and never denied
that such practices and attitudes existed or were accepted.
Cfortunato
>Boswell on how accepted such practices and attitudes were, and never denied
>that such practices and attitudes existed or were accepted.
>
It has been my understanding that the question was whether these ceremonies
WERE the equivalent of same-sex marriage, or were simply a ceremony of
friendship, male-bonding, and blood brotherhood. As the Church has a long
history of strongly disapproving of homosexuality, and as male friendship was
considered the highest ideal in much of Medeival Europe, many feel the latter
is more likely.
Gregory Gadow
> oh a good one to sink my teeth into
(Looks at you askance, wondering if he needs to pull out the garlic and holy
water....)
> not really a disagreement, but social justice and helping others is roughly
> half of our calling, the other is to proclaim the Gospel in word (and deed).
"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works?
Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily
food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without
giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by
itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:14-17; but read the whole chapter,
please)
I accept Paul's doctrine that is is by faith, and not by works, that we are
saved. I also accept James' doctrine that if we have true faith in God, then we
are driven by the Holy Spirit to perform acts of social justice. Faith without
works is a dead faith, not a living faith in Jesus Christ.
The most successful evangelists, the men and women who are most successful in
bringing Christ to non-believers, are NOT the type who stand on the street
corner screaming "Repent or burn!" They are not the ones who picket funerals
with signs reading "God hates fags." They are not the ones who use the fear of
hell and the pain of eternal damnation as their stock-in-trade.
The most successful evangelists are those who show Christ in their day-to-day
lives, who in every act, in every word, strive to model their lives on Jesus.
They are the ones who run soup kitchens for the down-and-out; who share their
lunch with someone who is hungry, who speak out in favor of human dignity for
*all* people, who offer shelter and food and clothing and comforting words to
victims of fire and flood and storm, regardless of race or religion or sexual
orientation. It is through these deeds that Jesus Christ can act, can reach out
and warm the heart of the unbeliever, and turn it into a fertile garden where
God's love can grow and produce fruit. The street corner Bible thumpers and the
latter day Pharasees drive non-believers away, make their hearts grow cold and
sterile, and harden their non-belief.
> Try finding an illustration of our bishops evangelising the non-believers.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu (to keep things vaguely on topic).
> I wonder if they really believed in Jesus and his saving message that they
> wouldn't want to shout it from the rooftops?
He did: "Let all my people go. Black and white. Africaaner and English and
Indian and Native. Christian and Hindu and Traditional."
> If you found the cure to cancer
> wouldnt you tell everyone...that in a sense is what Christ offers.
But would you drag everyone off to be injected with the 'cure', even though you
are riddled with cancer after years of the identical treatment? Would people be
willing to take your cure?
One of the first thing people look for when someone approaches them to speak of
Jesus is whether or not that person herself really knows Him. So many people
have heard the "Repent or burn" message so often, and usually so seemingly
hate-filled and arrogant, that they want no part of the evangelist... thus, her
message falls on deaf ears. Demonstrating a living faith in Christ, through
works of social justice, will do far more in spreading the Gospel than any
thousands of pamphlets and Bible meetings.
> I'm searching for the Scripture to directly address your last point about
> condemning (or not condemning the gay person). I think perhaps Scripture
> about Jesus and the adulteress woman (sp?) and "therefore neither do i
> condemn you. Go and sin no more" is more appropriate. Neither Jesus nor we
> condemn the woman but we also don't wink wink at the sin as if it doesn't
> exist.
>
> You just can't duck the sin issue unless you dodge the whole Bible. That's
> the beef with loosening the rules for homosexuality...it requires one to
> say, ok the Bible is mythical, largely written in a former uneducated phase
> and now we know better.
And you can not support the claim that homosexuality is intrinsicly more sinful
than heterosexuality.
First, we must discount the Law. "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in
one point has become guilty of all of it. (James 2:10)" and "For it has seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these
necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and
from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep
yourselves from these, you will do well. (Acts 15:28,29)" In other words,
Gentile Christians (which count for nearly every Christian who has ever lived,
including most on this list) have never been enjoined to adhere to the Law of
Moses.
Outside of the blanket condemnation in Leviticus against "a man laying with a
man as with a woman", the context of the very few proscriptions against
homosexuality have always been either idolatry or prostitution. (I have seen
sufficient exigesis that Sodom was not destroyed because of homosexuality; I
will provide this to anyone who is interested) For example, the popular "clobber
verses" of Romans 1:26, 27: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for
one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own
persons the due penalty for their error." Please note the "For this reason" --
Paul is coming to a conclusion here... which begins all the way back in verse
14. "For this reason...." What reason? "Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or
birds or animals or reptiles. (v 22,23)" That is to say, the reason of idolatry.
Likewise Paul's other "clobber verses" in I Corinthians 6:9,10: "Do you not know
that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;
neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor
thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit
the kingdom of God." The single word 'pervert' here in the Revised Standard
Version is a gross mistranslation of the Greek phrase "... einas malakoi einas
arsenokoitai...", which are legal terms -- 'malakoi' (singular, 'malakos',
literally 'soft') was used to describe a male who sold his body for sex to other
men, and 'arsenokoitai' (singular, 'arsenokoitos', literally 'man who inserts')
described a man who hired prostitutes of either gender. To use these words to
condemn all gay people, one must take the word 'pornoi', translated above as
'the immoral' and meaning a woman who sold herself sexually to men, as well as
the heterosexual connotation of 'arsenokoitai' as condemnation of all
heterosexuals to hell, regardless.
I assert again that homosexuality, in and of itself, is no more intrinsicly
sinful than heterosexuality. The only context in which it is brought up is as
idolatry and prostitution. If you discount mention of marriage, these are also
the only contexts in which heterosexuality is brought up. What is *your*
conclusion?
Gregory Gadow
Again, the question over whether the ceremonies discussed in "Same-Sex Marriages
in Pre-Modern Europe" is being raised by traditionalists based on current
theological understanding of the word 'marriage'. Scholars in the same field as
Boswell have not raised this concern.
Until into the ninth century, 'marriage' existed solely as a civil institution
and entirely for the purpose of formalizing an exchange of property and property
rights. Thus, only land owners and people with real property could legally get
married; the peasant class -- the large bulk of society -- were married if and
only if their patron/overlord wanted to consider them married. A wedding might be
held to recognize the *civil* commitment between two people, and they often were
held in temples, groves, churches and private homes; but the wedding had no legal
standing.
It was not until the Christian Church came to dominate law and politics -- as
early as the 5th century in Rome after the barbarian attacks, as late as the 14th
century in parts of Spain after the expultion of the Moors -- that civil marriage
and church weddings came to be one and the same thing. The bulk of the ceremonies
which Boswell presents come from that transition time, when civil marriages
guaranteeing property and inheritance rights were commonly done between two men
as a matter of course was merging with the religious ceremonies of commitment,
mutual care and creation of a common family. Before this time, these ceremonies
were civil and essentially a matter of filing a marriage licence; after this
time, Church homophobia ruled them out.
This is the same division (to wander a tad off topic) that equal marriage
proponents seek: a recognition of same-sex *civil marriage*, will all the rights
and responsibilities therein, without requiring that any religious body perform
*religious weddings* against their teachings or beliefs.
Mycroft
Paul,
The following is a pefect example of the type of person I have been
describing. There is no way to penetrate the fog of the twin golden calves
of "tradition and scripture" such a person is shrouded by.
Mycroft
>M: It depends on your definition of the "Christian understanding of the
>teleology of sexuality." If one toes the official conservative line, no, I
>suppose not. However, why should we?
Within the Christian community, the burden of proof is on those who wish to
depart from the received tradition, and the plain teaching of scripture, not
on
those who wish to maintain them.
>Tradition held that women could not be priests nor hold office. This has
>changed in the church. Tradition, and official teaching, held that
>contraception was immoral and sinful; this has changed. Why, specifically
>should we as gays be held to a tradition we view as unjust when tradition
>fell before change in the past?
The tradition also has prohibited rape, infanticide, and cannibalism. The
mere
fact that certain traditions have changed justifies no particular change.
Any
change has to be justified on its own merits. The question of the
ordination
of women is irrelevant here because it is a question or orders, not of
morality. That you perceive a tradition as unjust because it limits your
choices says nothing about whether it really is unjust. That has to be
decided
on the basis of a prior discussion of the licit purposes of sexuality. Both
scripture and tradition teach clearly and uniformly that sexuality is
intended
for procreation and complementary sexual union between male and female
within
the context of marriage. If the clear and prevalent teaching of scripture
and
tradition cease to be our guides on such a crucial area of our lives as
sexuality, then it becomes questionable whether scripture and tradition can
provide any moral guidance whatsoever, except for those aspects that we
arbitrarily decide already agree with our prior preferences. Once one
refuses
to allow scripture or tradition either to contradict or guide one's moral
choices, it is questionable whether one any longer subscribes to Christian
faith in any meaningful sense.
>Scripture can be debated. There are alternative, equally legitimate
readings
>of the notorious anti-gay passages. Why should we be held to those the
>conservatives hold dear?
There is a distinction between an alternative reading and a legitimate
reading.
If you're talking about the kinds of alternative readings that have been
advocated by revisionists like Boswell or Countryman, competent biblical
scholars have shown these readings to be tendentious examples of wishful
thinking. But the case against the legitimacy of homosexual activity does
not
rest solely on the handful of biblical passages that condemn homosexuality.
It
rests on the the comprehensive teaching of scripture as a whole concerning
the
purposes of sexuality. Scripture teaches plainly and uniformly that God's
intention in creating sexuality is that it reaches its legitimate
fulfillment
only within the context of heterosexual marriage.
But here you've got to pick your horse and ride with it. Either one accepts
the teaching of scripture as a moral authority, in which case one has a real
task on one's hands if one wants to make the Bible say what it clearly
doesn't
say. Or one recognizes that the Bible does not support the legitimacy of
homosexual activity, and then one can challenge its patriarchal and
heterosexist bias, in which case it becomes increasingly problematic whether
one has a legitimate claim to Christian identity, since the biased
heterosexist
patriarchal text is itself the primary source for our understanding of
Christian identity.
In either case, one has abandoned the historic Anglican understanding of the
authority of scripture, and one should have the moral courage to admit this
rather than trying to impose an alien agenda on the Church.
>M: This is like a Nazi calling a Jew an ignorant bigot because he dares to
>question and even defy the party.
>
It is rather a mask of intellectual and moral bankruptcy to resort to the
"Nazi" epithet rather than addressing one's opponents arguments. If one
doesn't have a case to make, one creates a distraction by calling names.
But, thank you. A few years ago, I was a fence straddler on this issue, and
my
reading of folks like Boswell and Countryman almost won me over. It was
largely the use of this kind of spiteful rhetoric by revisionists like
Carter
Heyward, Robert Williams and Bishop Spong, along with a dawning awareness
that
there really was no genuine concern for the moral or theological teaching of
scripture, that finally convinced me that the only case being made here is
merely a political one. The disagreement here is not about modifying a
particular Christian moral tradition, but about two diametrically opposed
understandings of Christian faith. We are being asked to abandon the
historic
Christian faith for a gospel of personal satisfaction. No thank you.
Starbuck
"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Marriage
in Pre-Modern Europe" were written by a scholar primarily for other
scholars, and not as popular reading. If you look at any other similar
professional work, you will see that the lay-out is essentially identical,
with almost every translation including original source text, with almost
every conclusion being cross referenced with the sources upon which that
conclusion is based.<<<
Yes, if only his sources actually existed, and actually says what he
purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when the
original document is treated honestly.
SON O GOD
Boswell does treat his sources honestly. That is a lot more than I can say
about your unsubstanciated, inflammatory accusations about his scholarship. Why
is it that so many so-called christians have no trouble bearing false witness
against a gay neighbor?
Gregory Gadow
> >>>With regards to his use of words and footnotes, his two books,
> "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Marriage
> in Pre-Modern Europe" were written by a scholar primarily for other
> scholars, and not as popular reading. If you look at any other similar
> professional work, you will see that the lay-out is essentially identical,
> with almost every translation including original source text, with almost
> every conclusion being cross referenced with the sources upon which that
> conclusion is based.<<<
>
> Yes, if only his sources actually existed, and actually says what he
> purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when the
> original document is treated honestly.
I have seen no evidence and heard no criticism that Boswell invented his
sources. What are *your* sources for this claim?
John De Salvio
wrote:
> In article <7ocmuk$kqg$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Starbuck" says...
> >
> >>>>With regards to his use of words and footnotes, his two books,
> >"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Marriage
> >in Pre-Modern Europe" were written by a scholar primarily for other
> >scholars, and not as popular reading. If you look at any other similar
> >professional work, you will see that the lay-out is essentially identical,
> >with almost every translation including original source text, with almost
> >every conclusion being cross referenced with the sources upon which that
> >conclusion is based.<<<
> >
> >Yes, if only his sources actually existed, and actually says what he
> >purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when the
> >original document is treated honestly.
> >
>
>
> Boswell does treat his sources honestly. That is a lot more than I can say
> about your unsubstanciated, inflammatory accusations about his
scholarship. Why
> is it that so many so-called christians have no trouble bearing false
witness
> against a gay neighbor?
Let that character know that I have seen some of Boswell零 references
first-hand.
Or, perhaps he likes to sound like an empty barrel rolling down a hill.
--
John
NOTE: "From" address is deliberately wrong.
My correct e-mail address is:
desalvio["AT" SYMBOL]monitor.net
Paul Hubbard
>Paul,
>The following is a pefect example of the type of person I have been
>describing. There is no way to penetrate the fog of the twin golden calves
>of "tradition and scripture" such a person is shrouded by.
>Mycroft
<sfb>
I've been thinking about your first msg for quite a while - and am still
thinking. I read this fellow's position. Where did this discussion take
place? Did you cut and paste from somewhere else? No privacy breach here, I
just want to know if I am missing something on the NG.
I would still maintain that nothing - nothing is more powerful than truth
and reason's ability to perceive that truth thru the power of the Holy
Spirit. I must therefore take a different tack in analyzing what is
happening here. Ironically, his strongest volley had nothing to do with
either "golden calves" (tradition & scripture) but with an empirical
observation about the dynamics of dialogue:
____________________________________
But, thank you. A few years ago, I was a fence straddler on this issue, and
my reading of folks like Boswell and Countryman almost won me over. It was
largely the use of this kind of spiteful rhetoric by revisionists like
Carter Heyward, Robert Williams and Bishop Spong, along with a dawning
awareness that there really was no genuine concern for the moral or
theological teaching of scripture, that finally convinced me that the only
case being made here is merely a political one. The disagreement here is
not about modifying a particular Christian moral tradition, but about two
diametrically opposed understandings of Christian faith. We are being asked
to abandon the historic Christian faith for a gospel of personal
satisfaction.
____________________________________
If I were truly concerned for the cause of truth, this would be a real
show-stopper. My own empirical observation is that the level of
vituperative, spiteful, malevolent, violent fury coming from the
"revisionist" camp is absolutely deafening. It is true that the bigotry and
revulsion many fundamentalists express by means of their pharisaical
legalism is also there, but I simply don't see it operating at the same
level and intensity.
So this guy is not primarily relying on the scriptural or traditional
argument. He is saying:
1) revisionist hermeneutics are completely disingenuous because in the final
analysis - in the back rooms - they simply don't give a shit +what+
"scripture" says = one way or the other!.
2) the level of paranoid hatred of revisionists simply does not jive with a
minority position that is attempting to gain legitimate recognition -
motivated by the Holy Spirit +or+ love +or+ truth +or+ reason - but just
another victim class attempting do get what's coming to them according to
some god-awful political idealism or "enlightenment" rationalism.
Lou, you got to start listening to these people. And stop listening to that
camp music of paranoid persecution. And your objection to this is that this
cannot be but a platitude coming from me because I haven't experienced this
injustice myself. But what if I have suffered similar injustice in another
context? Would it matter any? Rather, what does it matter, when, after
decades of slogging along a path of personal political reform, you finally
achieve some modicum of community acceptance for yourself, but at the cost
of a real, personal bondage to cynicism, hatred and fundamentalistic
pharisaicalism? And after achieving some pitiful little trifle of political
respect, you have lost ten times more self-respect?
When I dialogue someone with whom I disagree - no matter how much the
difference - even if he's a satanist or crazy - I try to become that person.
I try to hear the way his mind is working. And I try to make my mind
function that way. I don't play at this. I really try to do it. And when I
stepped into the mind of this fellow you quoted, I found that he was not
guilty of the things you so instantly accused him of:
________________________________
1) he is merely a non-thinking "type"
2) what little thinking he does is completely negated by his improper
{"(mis)use"} use of scripture and tradition.
This is precisely the modus operandi of +right+-wing fundamentalists - they
come at you in pure conflict mode. To the point at which I have concluded
that they really don't want to "save" any man. What they really want is to
+expedite+ his journey to hell. They don't really give a shit about his
lostness.
Mycroft, you have been right many times about the motives of many of your
opponents. But you are wrong about this guy.
r,
paul
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> It has been my understanding that the question was whether these
> ceremonies WERE the equivalent of same-sex marriage, or were
> simply a ceremony of friendship, male-bonding, and blood
> brotherhood.
Well, in the Greek church at least they still do these rites-- and they
are friendship/brother/sister bonding rites.
C. Wingate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> With regards to his use of words and footnotes, his two books,
> "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" and "Same Sex
> Marriage in Pre-Modern Europe" were written by a scholar primarily
> for other scholars, and not as popular reading.
They are not popular books in the sense, for instance, that Spong's
books are. But yet they go beyond simple study of history into
advocacy-- at least, they are certainly used that way. Perhaps a better
comparison would be to, say, Barbara Tuchman. The point I'm making is
that the way the books are constructed make them very difficult to
evaluate.
> With regards to his critics, they have largely been Christian
> Traditionalists who oppose his findings on theological and
> traditional grounds.
Well, I've read some of his unabashedly religious detractors, and it is
obviously as erroneous to prejudge them for their supposed biases as it
is to prejudge Boswell for writing what is, under the circumstances, a
conveniently self-serving and self-justifying work.
After all, the whole point of the exercise is to open a crack in the
seemingly monolithic facade of church moral doctrine-- a crack for
Boswell himself to slip in through. It is extremely difficult for me to
see how the rather fugitive material that he works with can be
re-interpreted away from what even he admits is the overwhelming
condemnation of the main body of patristic literature. All other things
being equal, one would tend to take this main body as a driving
principle of interpretation for the more ambiguous bits; given the
relentless argumentativeness of the church fathers, it's hard to see how
these rites, understood as Boswell would have them, would have not
stirred up a furor.
C. Wingate
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> Until into the ninth century, 'marriage' existed solely as a civil
> institution and entirely for the purpose of formalizing an
> exchange of property and property rights. Thus, only land owners
> and people with real property could legally get married; the
> peasant class -- the large bulk of society -- were married if and
> only if their patron/overlord wanted to consider them married.
I do not believe that this is an accurate depiction of the situation as
it appeared in the North. Saxon and Norse familial law was always quite
different from Graeco-Roman. One also has to question how the Judaic
influence can be so readily excluded, since it flies in the face of
this.
C. Wingate
Cfortunato
>> purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when the
>> original document is treated honestly.
>
>sources.
Neither have I.
>What are *your* sources for this claim?
Good question.
Gregory Gadow
But remember: Until the barbarian invasions of the 5th, 6th, and 7th
centuries were well under way, Roman law *was* the standard throughout the
crumbling Empire. Imperial revivals -- for example, Charlemagne's Holy
Roman Empire, the short-lived British Empire under Emperor Maximilian, even
post Revolution France -- took Roman law as their legal foundation.
Also, Saxon and Norse law, while different from Roman law, was not
necessarily Christian. The Celts (who formed the largest cultural family in
northern and western Europe) had several different forms of marriage,
including polyandry (one woman married to several men, usually brothers)
and 'term' marriage -- a marriage contracted to last only a few years,
after which both parties were free to marry elsewhere or could renew the
term contract. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes were from a different branch
of the Celtic family and had similar customs although, being more
patriarchal, they were not as common.
Gregory Gadow
> >> Yes, if only his sources actually existed, and actually says what he
> >> purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when the
> >> original document is treated honestly.
> >
> >I have seen no evidence and heard no criticism that Boswell invented his
> >sources.
>
> Neither have I.
Then why do you claim that Boswell falsified his sources, and implied that many
were made up whole cloth?
> >What are *your* sources for this claim?
>
> Good question.
Indeed it is. Can I get a good answer?
Cfortunato
>
>> >> Yes, if only his sources actually existed, and actually says what he
>> >> purports them to say. Citing a reference work is only appropriate when
>the
>> >> original document is treated honestly.
>> >
>> >I have seen no evidence and heard no criticism that Boswell invented his
>> >sources.
>>
>> Neither have I.
>
>Then why do you claim that Boswell falsified his sources, and implied that
>many were made up whole cloth?
I didn't. That was someone else's claim. As I criticized Boswell for other
reasons, I wanted to make it clear that I had never heard of, and doubt very
much, another poster's claim that he falsified his information.
Sorry for the confusion.
Gregory Gadow
It would be truly helpful, and prevent such confusion, if you would be so kind as
to attribute your quotes. For example, you are quoting me above; netiquette says
that you should preface your remarks with something like, "Gregory Gadow wrote:"
and try to make sure that each level of quotes are properly attributed.
Paul Hubbard
Gregory Gadow wrote in message <7ofjak$749$0...@199.201.191.2>...
>It would be truly helpful, and prevent such confusion, if you would be so
kind as
>to attribute your quotes. For example, you are quoting me above; netiquette
says
>that you should preface your remarks with something like, "Gregory Gadow
wrote:"
>and try to make sure that each level of quotes are properly attributed.
>--
>Gregory Gadow
Greg,
re: your discussion with Cfortunato - I believe Starbuck is your man:
"Not to mention that some of his so called "original sources" were flat out
falsified."
I don't think that quotes would have helped this situation. Your radar was
loosely targeting Starbuck and Cfortunato wandered into its footprint just
as you were going into radar lock/kill enemy mode. And a friendly fire
situation ensued.
r,
paul
D. Stephen Heersink
>I have read *some* of Boswell- one of his techniques is sheer
>bombardment with a mass of words and footnotes. The impression I get is
>that he is largely considered an advocate rather than a historian (in
>this matter anyway). He is certainly not without critics.
First of all, Professor Boswell wrote academic books, which are
expected to exhibit the techniques you decry. Second, his first book,
"Christianity, Tolerance, and Homosexuality" is widely regarded as
serious scholarship in a field about which too little has been
investigated. Finally, as Prof. Boswell began to succumb to AIDS, his
tome "Same-Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe" was as much a challenge
as it was strictly scholarship. In this sense, the latter has definite
biases to the scholarship he presents. That he challenges us to think
outside the pigeon hole doesn't mean he contrived his evidence, only
to look at it from a scholarly point of view.
I assure you that the University of Chicago Press, like most academic
presses, has a minimal scholarship requirement, which Prof. Boswell
filled.
______________________
Stephen Heersink
San Francisco
dsh...@worldnet.att.net
The Ecumenical Communion
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/ECUMENICAL-COMMUNION
"In things necessary, unity;
in things doubtful, liberty;
in all things, charity."
--Saint Augugustine of Hippo
D. Stephen Heersink
Professor Boswell's two books, "Christianity, Tolerance, and
Homosexuality" and "Same Sex Marriage in Pre-modern Europe:"
>They are not popular books in the sense, for instance, that Spong's
>books are. But yet they go beyond simple study of history into
>advocacy-- at least, they are certainly used that way. Perhaps a better
>comparison would be to, say, Barbara Tuchman. The point I'm making is
>that the way the books are constructed make them very difficult to
>evaluate.
Scholars are few that write books without advocacy. But it takes
someone familiar with the academy to know this.
>Well, I've read some of his unabashedly religious detractors, and it is
>obviously as erroneous to prejudge them for their supposed biases as it
>is to prejudge Boswell for writing what is, under the circumstances, a
>conveniently self-serving and self-justifying work.
Quite the contrary. His second book was less successful than his
first, largely because other scholars could easily interpret the same
material differently. That Prof. Boswell and many others took the
interpretation they did remains fundamentally sound and intellectually
honest.
>After all, the whole point of the exercise is to open a crack in the
>seemingly monolithic facade of church moral doctrine-- a crack for
>Boswell himself to slip in through. It is extremely difficult for me to
>see how the rather fugitive material that he works with can be
>re-interpreted away from what even he admits is the overwhelming
>condemnation of the main body of patristic literature. All other things
>being equal, one would tend to take this main body as a driving
>principle of interpretation for the more ambiguous bits; given the
>relentless argumentativeness of the church fathers, it's hard to see how
>these rites, understood as Boswell would have them, would have not
>stirred up a furor.
Again, advocacy is not a fault in academic writing. Indeed, it is
nearly impossible to be published if one doesn't subscribe to a view
of the material under examination. Without meaning to be uncharitable,
it appears the Wingates did not go to college.
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> >After all, the whole point of the exercise is to open a crack in
> >the seemingly monolithic facade of church moral doctrine-- a
> >crack for Boswell himself to slip in through.[....]
> Again, advocacy is not a fault in academic writing.
That's not really the point. What *is* the point is that it has been
argued that the criticism of those holding conservative religious views
can be discounted simply because they are holders of religious views. My
point here is twofold: first that Boswell has as much, if not more, of a
personal stake in his argument, and second, that this is as much a
theological argument as a historical one. (After all, what's the point
of identifying yet another early heresy?) Having ventured out into
theology, one can hardly hide behind the scholarly apparatus of history
to avoid being shot at by theologians of all stripes.
C. Wingate
Gregory Gadow
>
>
> That's not really the point. What *is* the point is that it has been
> argued that the criticism of those holding conservative religious views
> can be discounted simply because they are holders of religious views.
I agree with this statement completely. If you discount a person's views
because of his religious beliefs, you are being just as dishonest as when
you refuse to consider supported evidence because it contradicts your own
religious views.
> My
> point here is twofold: first that Boswell has as much, if not more, of a
> personal stake in his argument,
Agreed. But then, it was because of his personal stake that he undertook the
scholarship in the first place. I assert that it is extremely unlikely a
heterosexual scholar would have even begun Boswell's research, much less
pursued it with the thoroughness that Boswell did.
But then again, most research is done bo people with a big stake in the
outcome, if not personal then professional. Have you ever seen the movie
"Lorenzo's Oil"? It is based on a true story. Everyone thought the little
boy's illness was terminal, except for his father. Because of that personal
state, he himself became a scholar, did the research, and found a cure which
continues to be used today.
My point is, people rarely take up extensive research unless they have a
stake in the outcome. This is can be a fault, yes, but it is the reality of
human motivation.
> and second, that this is as much a
> theological argument as a historical one. (After all, what's the point
> of identifying yet another early heresy?)
If you have ever studied Christian history, you know that there is very
little, if any, difference at all between history and theology (and politics
and economics and social systems, among other things.)
I fail to see how this being a theological argument would invalidate his
studies. Would it have been different if he had, say, been studying the
existence of the early Christians and discovered that Christiantiy was
largely a construct of Roman and Greek pagan beliefs and practices? Or that
Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Empire continued the Roman practice of
Emperor worship for nearly a thousand years after the fall of Rome? The only
difference between these historical and theological findings and Boswell's
works is that these other subjects have been studied and documented for
hundreds of years by thousands of scholars; the study of changes in
attitudes towards men-who-have-sex-with-men and
women-who-have-sex-with-women have had only one prominant scholar in the
last two millenia: John Boswell.
> Having ventured out into
> theology, one can hardly hide behind the scholarly apparatus of history
> to avoid being shot at by theologians of all stripes.
Your argument is weak. As I have stated, one can not do historical research
into religion or religious beliefs without also delving into theology. I
assert -- and many others have asserted -- that given the concrete evidence
of fact provided by historical research, any theology based upon a now
discredited or disproven reading of history must change.
After all: there is a growing body of evidence (by scholars inspired by
Boswell) that same-sex marriages were contracted by Christians, that
same-sex weddings were held in churches and under Church authority and
liturgy, that same-sex relationships were at one time accepted within the
Christian community just as they were accepted in the larger community. This
then changed. Certainly, as Christians, restoring this history is merely
restoring the Church to its original, God-inspired teachings.
After all: God's Word *never* changes. Only in this case, it has.
Paul Hubbard
D. Stephen Heersink wrote in message
<37b16710...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
"Without meaning to be uncharitable, it appears the Wingates did not go to
college."
Stephen,
I've been listening to Charlie for quite awhile. His intellect moves quite
fast, I'd say. It is very difficult to keep up with him. Although your point
about advocacy is obvious, it does need to be stated from time to time. But
a good swing at a fast ball is only good if it connects. I think Greg
(below) does an excellent job at connecting ( although "If you have ever
studied Christian history" is like spitting at the pitcher.)
I am rarely stunned by anything I read in this ng. Your last statement
stunned me. You even prepared me with the boundary marker: "without meaning
to be uncharitable..." I was still stupefied.
r,
paul
Mycroft
mini-wars. After attending grad school, I can tell you that the controversy
surrounding something like Boswell's scholarship can be horrendous, up to
and including personal attacks.
The point is, just because there is opposition within the academic world to
Boswell's theses doesn't mean that his works are without merit. For the
public to use this opposition is really irrelevant.
--
Remove XXX to contact
Paul Hubbard <PaulHu...@email.msn.com> wrote in message
news:#kvOlcu4#GA.359@cpmsnbbsa03...
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> If you have ever studied Christian history, you know that there is
> very little, if any, difference at all between history and
> theology (and politics and economics and social systems, among
> other things.)
Why does this read to me like a secular historian's viewpoint on the
*history* of theological development? I have no use at all for the
historical "method" of ignoring the possibility that theological
decisions can be reached for theological reasons. At the very least it
demands a very high level of proof-- namely that people specifically
decided against positions that they "knew were right" in favor of
positions of personal convenience.
> I fail to see how this being a theological argument would
> invalidate his studies.
It isn't a question of invalidating (that is, proving erroneous). The
point is that it *is* a theological argument-- certainly it is so in
this group-- inasmuch as it it is brought to bear on what the churches
ought to teach *now*. If Boswell's rites are put in the same bin as
gnosticism, arianism, a whole bunch of other -isms, then ultimately they
are reduced to historical curiosities. Mere existence (and for that
matter, existence according to Boswell's readings) is not enough. There
has to be some reason for them to carry theological weight.
The issue of whether "Christianity was largely a construct of Roman
and Greek pagan beliefs and practices" is Golden Bough science. It's the
sort of thing one attaches to in the wake of being disaffected from
Christianity, but it fails as a proper historical argument. As far as
"Orthodox Christians in the Eastern Empire continued the
Roman practice of Emperor worship for nearly a thousand years after
the fall of Rome", I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but in
any case I defy you to show an Orthodox source *accepting* this
practice, at least if "worship" is understood in the Orthodox snese
rather than some crabbed substitute. After all, you can show
"Christians" murdering each other over the years, yet you can hardly say
that the church condoned it.
C. Wingate
Mycroft
Charley & Melissa Wingate <whi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:37B39D28...@erols.com...
> Mycroft wrote:
>
> > What he ~should~ have said is that CW has no experience with
> > academic mini-wars.
>
M:? sorry, no comprende.
>
> > The point is, just because there is opposition within the academic
> > world to Boswell's theses doesn't mean that his works are without
> > merit. For the public to use this opposition is really irrelevant.
>
> Weeelllll, I agree with the first point but not the second. At this
> point he is a single authority, as far as I'm concerned, and until his
> detractors are answered adequately I must remain, at least, suspicious.
> And the problems involved in invoking his works in the modern debate
> remain, whether or not his assertions about the early church prevail.
>
> C. Wingate
M: Problems always crop up when citing academic works in the public arena. I
sometimes wonder whether either side really understands his works. And if
they do, do they really care to use him accurately? Each side has its
particularly blunt ax to grind (preferably on their opponets' necks!), and
merely uses Boswell and/or his detractors to attack the other. And where is
truth in this mess? I wonder.
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> What he ~should~ have said is that CW has no experience with
> academic mini-wars.
Clearly you do not subscribe to BAR or BR. ;-)
> The point is, just because there is opposition within the academic
Charley & Melissa Wingate
> > > What he ~should~ have said is that CW has no experience with
> > > academic mini-wars.
> > Clearly you do not subscribe to BAR or BR. ;-)
> ? sorry, no comprende.
BAR and BR are, respectively, Biblical Archaeological Review and Bible
Review-- think of them as something akin to Scientific American back in
the old days. Herschel Shanks, who edits these things, is hardly shy
about letting the scholarly spats show up in his magazine. (And that's
just the scholarly spats. Us old-time subscribers still remember the
Great Nefertiti Doll Flap of years gone by.)
C. Wingate
Robert R. Chapman, Jr.
Has anyone noticed that the same people still say the same things
whenever you use the "g" word in a post on
alt.religon.christian.episcopal?
Personally, I am more concerned that someone found it necessary to tip
off the Seattle press of this alleged "first."
In talking about this with a gay priest and vicar in the Diocese of
Olympia (read: Seattle) on the Sunday the new dean first preached to St.
Mark's, we both agreed on on thing: The press in Seattle is so
Christian-ingnorant that nothing would have been said about this unless
someone in officialdom or the cathedral had brought it up.
Incidently, on this very same day, I met a layperson who met another
dean in the US a few months ago that was not in the closet. So much for
being first. Much ado about nothing!
From what I have heard about the new dean, I suspect St. Mark's got more
than it bargained for--which is a Good Thing. In him we seem to have a
social activist more in the mold of a Wilberforce or Phillips Brooks.
That is, people who serve others because Jesus compells and stregnthens
them to the task. These are the people that eliminated slavery and
brought social changes to our cities.
So often today it comes across entirely backwards: people serve others
in order to find Jesus. While I do not doubt that this can and has
happened, one must be careful. This social activist mindset can become a
way of earning salvation by what we do. It is no better or worse than
the reciting prayers (Anglo-catholic) or reading scripture (evangelical)
mindsets designed to accomplish the same thing.
From what I have heard and read, the new dean at St. Mark's keeps the
horse properly before the cart.
Venite exultemus.
Bob Chapman
Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
> A priest known for his energetic work on social justice
> issues will be named
> today as dean of St. Mark's Cathedral on Capitol Hill
> [Seattle], becoming the first openly
> gay man in the country chosen to head an Episcopal
> cathedral.
>
> The full story is available at
> http://www.seattlep-i.com/local/mark302.shtml
>
> --
> Gregory Gadow
> E-mail: tech...@serv.net
> American Liberal Party: http://www.americanliberal.org
>
> I am a resident of Washington State. Any commerical e-mail
> sent with
> false or misleading headers is in violation of state law and
> subject
> to a $500 penalty. I WILL FILE CHARGES!
--
Robert R. Chapman, Jr.
Lynnwood, Washington USA
cha...@ibm.net
Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by
thinking incessantly about the sins of others.
--C. S. Lewis (God in the Dock, "Miserable Offenders," p. 124)
Mycroft
Robert R. Chapman, Jr. <cha...@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:37B44CD9...@ibm.net...
<snb>
>
> So often today it comes across entirely backwards: people serve others
> in order to find Jesus. While I do not doubt that this can and has
> happened, one must be careful. This social activist mindset can become a
> way of earning salvation by what we do. It is no better or worse than
> the reciting prayers (Anglo-catholic) or reading scripture (evangelical)
> mindsets designed to accomplish the same thing.
>
M: And how do you propose people "find Jesus"?
I can think of far worse ways to find and serve God than by serving others.