Since exiting Christianity, I have been forced to reassess many things, including particular ethical issues. And as the Bible was written, compiled and translated by the Church, I now consider it to be a questionable source for ethical formulation. All of which is a long preface to this statement:
Without a Biblical mandate, I am at a loss to see how homosexual activity is inherently immoral.
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, December 01, 2008
Legalizing Gay Marriage: A Different Perspective
I wouldn't be a good libertarian if I didn't have a reckless disregard for the consequences of my knee-jerk public policy positions. But some people think that this is not necessarily a good thing. Go figure.
I recently wrote about gay marriage, to which Jeff the Baptist responded by linking to this post by Megan McArdle.
McArdle's very, very long post is basically this point: beware of the unintended consequences of radical public policy changes. And legalizing gay marriage would be simply unprecedented in human history. Who knows what could happen to society by suddenly changing the role of gender in marriage. Good point. McArdle writes:
My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.
I can understand this. Maybe we -- I -- don't have all of the answers, particularly to something as complex as human marriage(s). Maybe we should take a couple generations to think about it.
Why didn't I encounter arguments like this in Florida's gay marriage debate in this past election cycle?
If I had the ballot in front of me again right now, I probably still would vote against the ban. You don't get me to jump into action by shouting "Let's ban X!" But I would vote against the ban with less enthusiasm.
I recently wrote about gay marriage, to which Jeff the Baptist responded by linking to this post by Megan McArdle.
McArdle's very, very long post is basically this point: beware of the unintended consequences of radical public policy changes. And legalizing gay marriage would be simply unprecedented in human history. Who knows what could happen to society by suddenly changing the role of gender in marriage. Good point. McArdle writes:
My only request is that people try to be a leeetle more humble about their ability to imagine the subtle results of big policy changes. The argument that gay marriage will not change the institution of marriage because you can't imagine it changing your personal reaction is pretty arrogant. It imagines, first of all, that your behavior is a guide for the behavior of everyone else in society, when in fact, as you may have noticed, all sorts of different people react to all sorts of different things in all sorts of different ways, which is why we have to have elections and stuff. And second, the unwavering belief that the only reason that marriage, always and everywhere, is a male-female institution (I exclude rare ritual behaviors), is just some sort of bizarre historical coincidence, and that you know better, needs examining. If you think you know why marriage is male-female, and why that's either outdated because of all the ways in which reproduction has lately changed, or was a bad reason to start with, then you are in a good place to advocate reform. If you think that marriage is just that way because our ancestors were all a bunch of repressed bastards with dark Freudian complexes that made them homophobic bigots, I'm a little leery of letting you muck around with it.
I can understand this. Maybe we -- I -- don't have all of the answers, particularly to something as complex as human marriage(s). Maybe we should take a couple generations to think about it.
Why didn't I encounter arguments like this in Florida's gay marriage debate in this past election cycle?
If I had the ballot in front of me again right now, I probably still would vote against the ban. You don't get me to jump into action by shouting "Let's ban X!" But I would vote against the ban with less enthusiasm.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Lately, I've Been Rethinking My Position on Gay Marriage
In the past, I've been vaguely opposed to legal gay marriage, albeit without any substantial passion. It certainly hasn't been an issue that has captivated me, as it has others.
But on this recent election day, I had to take a firm position because there was a constitutional proposition on the ballot here in Florida to ban gay marriage:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
The ban passed with more than 62% of the vote.
Now I had to choose to either vote for or against this amendment, so I could not longer waffle on the issue. I decided to vote against this intiative. Here's why:
I see no particular reason to ban gay marriage. And my default political paradigm is to restrict government power, not enable it. So what arguments are there to ban gay marriage? It certainly has been a hot issue, especially given the surprising constitutional amendment recently passed in California.
One common argument that I've heard and read alot is that gay marriage should be banned (or simply not legalized) in order to preserve marriage between one man and one woman, as it always existed since the beginning of time. I hope that I don't have to explain how historically preposterous this position is. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is the historical norm in American history, but certainly not world history. Anyway, the historiocity of an activity (e.g. slavery, domestic violence) does not by itself validate its continuation.
Another argument is that gay marriage harms the marriages of heterosexual couples. I just don't see this works. The health of my marriage is dependent upon the emotional health of my wife and me, and our ability and willingness to commit to each other. If a gay couple next door gets married, I simply don't see how it affects us. If a heterosexual marriage is negatively impacted by the gay marriages of others, then it was pretty weak to begin with.
Now some opponents of gay marriage have argued that it is an attack on heterosexual families by undermining the values that heterosexual couples who are opposed to gay marriage teach to their children. Well, shoot, I meet plenty of people every day whose values are completely contrary to those that I wish to teach my child. But that still doesn't mean that I should get to use government force other people to live according to my lifestyle (e.g. no worshipping false gods, hanging out in strip clubs, or being ungenerous to the poor). Teaching my kid my values is my responsibility, not the responsibility of other people. And I certainly don't want people with values contrary to mine using government force to interfere in my upbringing of my child. Mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine.
One argument against gay marriage does have some traction: legalizing gay marriage can lead to legalizing polygamy. Well, I guess that it could. Discussions of legalizing polygamy have resurfaced now that supporting gay marriage has become mainstream. But if we believe that consenting adults should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and relationships without government interference, then maybe this is a discussion that we need to have.
Anyway, I had to make a decision when I had the ballot in front of me, so I voted against the ban.
It's not so much that I support gay marriage as much as I oppose government. The idea of using government force to define interpersonal relationships gives me the libertarian heebie jeebies. So I followed my default position and voted against the ban. I'm making no commitment in support of legalized gay marriage, but opponents are going to have to come up with better arguments before I'll get on board.
But on this recent election day, I had to take a firm position because there was a constitutional proposition on the ballot here in Florida to ban gay marriage:
Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
The ban passed with more than 62% of the vote.
Now I had to choose to either vote for or against this amendment, so I could not longer waffle on the issue. I decided to vote against this intiative. Here's why:
I see no particular reason to ban gay marriage. And my default political paradigm is to restrict government power, not enable it. So what arguments are there to ban gay marriage? It certainly has been a hot issue, especially given the surprising constitutional amendment recently passed in California.
One common argument that I've heard and read alot is that gay marriage should be banned (or simply not legalized) in order to preserve marriage between one man and one woman, as it always existed since the beginning of time. I hope that I don't have to explain how historically preposterous this position is. Monogamous heterosexual marriage is the historical norm in American history, but certainly not world history. Anyway, the historiocity of an activity (e.g. slavery, domestic violence) does not by itself validate its continuation.
Another argument is that gay marriage harms the marriages of heterosexual couples. I just don't see this works. The health of my marriage is dependent upon the emotional health of my wife and me, and our ability and willingness to commit to each other. If a gay couple next door gets married, I simply don't see how it affects us. If a heterosexual marriage is negatively impacted by the gay marriages of others, then it was pretty weak to begin with.
Now some opponents of gay marriage have argued that it is an attack on heterosexual families by undermining the values that heterosexual couples who are opposed to gay marriage teach to their children. Well, shoot, I meet plenty of people every day whose values are completely contrary to those that I wish to teach my child. But that still doesn't mean that I should get to use government force other people to live according to my lifestyle (e.g. no worshipping false gods, hanging out in strip clubs, or being ungenerous to the poor). Teaching my kid my values is my responsibility, not the responsibility of other people. And I certainly don't want people with values contrary to mine using government force to interfere in my upbringing of my child. Mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine.
One argument against gay marriage does have some traction: legalizing gay marriage can lead to legalizing polygamy. Well, I guess that it could. Discussions of legalizing polygamy have resurfaced now that supporting gay marriage has become mainstream. But if we believe that consenting adults should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and relationships without government interference, then maybe this is a discussion that we need to have.
Anyway, I had to make a decision when I had the ballot in front of me, so I voted against the ban.
It's not so much that I support gay marriage as much as I oppose government. The idea of using government force to define interpersonal relationships gives me the libertarian heebie jeebies. So I followed my default position and voted against the ban. I'm making no commitment in support of legalized gay marriage, but opponents are going to have to come up with better arguments before I'll get on board.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The Perversion of the Sodomites
It's not what you think it is. In a comment at Payne Hollow, Monk-In-Training reminds us of God's priorities.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Vows of Ordination and Change in the UMC
This is something that I've been thinking about for a while as it pertains to the homosexuality debate within the United Methodist Church:Recently, we discussed how candidates for the ordained ministry take vows to support the doctrine, Discipline, and liturgy of the UMC while those same candidates oppose categorizing homosexual behavior as sinful. Jayson Dobney argued that candidates should essentially lie in order to get into the system, so that the system can be changed. He justifies this deception under Jesus's command to pay taxes to Caesar that which he was due.
My commentors have unanimously (thus far) rejected this deception as a distortion of the gospel. I agree.
Here's the problem with our conclusion:
In 1956, the General Conference of the Methodist Church authorized the ordination of women. This change did not some suddenly, but after many years of reflection, study, and debate. Many clergymen advocated this change long before it was passed by General Conference.
Now let's say that it's 1954, and a candidate for the ordained ministry takes his vows as an elder in full connection. He promises to uphold the doctrine, Discipline, and liturgy of the UMC. But he advocates the ordination of women.
1. By doing so, is he not violating his vow to uphold the Discipline?
2. And how would this clergyman be any different from a candidate today advocating the normalization of homosexual behavior, and yet pledging to uphold the Discipline?
3. And how can the UMC make changes in the discipline (e.g. the ordination of women, racial desegregation of churches), whether good or ill, if they are not allowed to oppose the Discipline, without violating their vows of ordination?
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Render Unto Caesar
Jayson Dobney argues that Jesus' command to pay taxes to the Roman state can be used to justify taking ordination vows that one does not fully support:
The other night I had dinner with a close friend who is in the ordination process. She is preparing for a meeting with her Board of Ordained Ministry and shared with me her struggles with taking the vows necessary to become ordained. Her struggle, as I have heard from others in the ordination track, is how she can take these vows, while at the same time remaining authentic to her own faith and her role to seek justice for all of God's people.
[snip]
As we talked about what it meant to stay in the United Methodist church and take different paths, it reminded me of the story in the Gospels where Jesus is confronted with the question about whether his followers should pay taxes to the Roman government. Implicit in the question, is that by paying taxes, they were participating in the unjust actions of the institution of the state. His response was to Give to Caesar what was Ceasar's and to give to God what was God's.
As a gay man, I see the United Methodist church as another unjust institution. These vows that we are compelled to take to be a member or to become ordained are the price we must pay to be a part of this system. It is the tax. We give to the United Methodist Church that which is of the United Methodist Church - empty, hollow words. At the same time, we give to God our hearts and our lives, including our work that requires us to work within the unjust sytem of the United Methodist church so that someday we will have justice for All People.
I've written previously on the subject here.
The other night I had dinner with a close friend who is in the ordination process. She is preparing for a meeting with her Board of Ordained Ministry and shared with me her struggles with taking the vows necessary to become ordained. Her struggle, as I have heard from others in the ordination track, is how she can take these vows, while at the same time remaining authentic to her own faith and her role to seek justice for all of God's people.
[snip]
As we talked about what it meant to stay in the United Methodist church and take different paths, it reminded me of the story in the Gospels where Jesus is confronted with the question about whether his followers should pay taxes to the Roman government. Implicit in the question, is that by paying taxes, they were participating in the unjust actions of the institution of the state. His response was to Give to Caesar what was Ceasar's and to give to God what was God's.
As a gay man, I see the United Methodist church as another unjust institution. These vows that we are compelled to take to be a member or to become ordained are the price we must pay to be a part of this system. It is the tax. We give to the United Methodist Church that which is of the United Methodist Church - empty, hollow words. At the same time, we give to God our hearts and our lives, including our work that requires us to work within the unjust sytem of the United Methodist church so that someday we will have justice for All People.
I've written previously on the subject here.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Gay Scientists Isolate the Gene that Makes People Christian
[Video Link] Don't interpret this post as a change in my stance on the morality of homosexual behavior. I just think that this video is funny.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Union of Transgender Rights and Gay Rights
Antony Hebblethwaite of Reconciling Ministries Blog argues that bundling the two causes together is appropriate. My own contrary view is here.
Friday, October 17, 2008
"God Made Me This Way" as an Argument in Christian Ethics
John Meunier examines a particular approach in the homosexuality debate and finds it wanting:
I’m not arguing for exclusion, but I’m interested in how this conversation can be formed in a way that does not fall back on “God made me this way.”
Why?
Because of all the reasons above. “This is the way I am” arguments can be used by anyone to justify virtually any behavior. As a faith that teaches we must be reborn to come into a right relationship with God, we teach everyone that the way they were born is not fully the way God wants them to be.
If “God made me this way” becomes the doctrine of the church, then don’t we have to pitch out holiness entirely?
[snip]
My problem with both arguments is what happens when a teenage boy who wants to have casual sex with five different girls uses them to justify his feelings. Or what happens when the church member who drives spends his whole life in a mad pursuit of wealth tries to use them to explain his needs?
I’m not arguing for exclusion, but I’m interested in how this conversation can be formed in a way that does not fall back on “God made me this way.”
Why?
Because of all the reasons above. “This is the way I am” arguments can be used by anyone to justify virtually any behavior. As a faith that teaches we must be reborn to come into a right relationship with God, we teach everyone that the way they were born is not fully the way God wants them to be.
If “God made me this way” becomes the doctrine of the church, then don’t we have to pitch out holiness entirely?
[snip]
My problem with both arguments is what happens when a teenage boy who wants to have casual sex with five different girls uses them to justify his feelings. Or what happens when the church member who drives spends his whole life in a mad pursuit of wealth tries to use them to explain his needs?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Response from Dean Snyder
Dean e-mails with regards to our recent conversations. Posted with his permission:Dear John
Thanks for emailing me. I hope you and everyone on the blogroll are well. I especially hope seminary is a good experience for you. I miss being part of the Methoblogging community but the demands of life took me to other places.
It is interesting to read your blog and other's comments. Proclaiming my sincerity seems to me futile, since those who doubt it would also be likely to doubt my claims to be sincere. I can say a few words about how we got to this place.
Given my experience in ministry and my biblical and theological understanding, if I were not a United Methodist I would almost surely celebrate or solemnize same-sex unions. But I am a United Methodist. I am a United Methodist for many reasons that I believe to be good reasons. I love our heritage and I love our church. I don't think we are perfect but, thankfully, perfection is not a requirement in order to love or be loved.
I was appointed to my first appointment in 1968. I have lived through a time when official policies of our church were racist ... and not just moderately so but about as blatantly racist as an institution could be racist. I didn’t love our racism but I still loved our church. I’ve lived through our struggles to include women fully in the leadership of the church even when it was hard for some to reconcile some verses of Scripture with this decision. I witnessed some people badly wounded during those times and did not love the attitudes about gender that caused the wounds, but I still found myself loving our church. So it remains today.
More than three years ago a group of Foundry members started to meet to discuss how they felt about the lesbian and gay members of our church who were obviously living in caring and committed relationships, some of whom were traveling to Canada or going to churches of other denominations to have their relationships solemnized. It felt wrong to them that we encourage and support and reinforce commitments between our straight members and not our gay and lesbian members when their relationships also demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit.
At the same time we were uncomfortable with the idea of breaking the covenant that the Book of Discipline is. So the question became: is there a way to not just ignore the commitments of our lesbian and gay members while celebrating the commitments of our straight members? (And we really do celebrate the commitments of our straight members. We have oodles of weddings. We have several pre-Cana weekends annually to help couples prepare for their vows and weddings, and they almost always reach the maximum number of participants we can handle. Weddings are a big deal here. We believe in marriage.)
But it seemed uncharitable to make such a big deal about the commitments of our straight members and do nothing at all to even acknowledge or try to support our gay and lesbian couples in their committed relationships.
So the attempt was to come up with a way that we could at least acknowledge and honor the commitments of our gay and lesbian members without violating our United Methodist covenant. This is what we are trying to do.
Ours is not a very adequate solution. It feels separate and unequal. I feel it does not adequately honor the commitment and caring that our gay and lesbian members demonstrate in their lives. But we decided it was better than nothing.
As a result of the work of the original study group, I asked the congregation to help me figure out what we ought to do in my annual State of the Church sermon in November 2006. There were many discussions. In my State of the Church sermon in November 2007, I read the letter stating my intention to make myself available to lead worship services that recognize and honor the committed relationships of our lesbian and gay members and constituents without conducting, celebrating, or solemnizing same-sex unions. I asked the congregation to have further dialogue with me about this before I took this step.
I did not ask the church to take any official action because matters having to do with worship in the United Methodist Church are the responsibility of the pastor. Foundry’s Council chose to support my decision with a resolution, and I am grateful they did this even though I did not request it. The timing was based on the internal work of our congregation. My personal hope was that no one would much care about this outside our congregation, but I am also aware enough to know that others might be bothered by this decision. I worried about when would be a good time to do this in case it got a negative reaction outside our congregation but finally decided that there really is no way to figure all that out, and we moved when it made sense internally, largely shaped by November being the time when I do my annual State of the Church sermons.
I hope this is helpful to you, John, and to anyone who wants to get a sense of how we have come to this place. Stay well. (And I hope your rabbits are doing okay, too.)
UPDATE: John Meunier has a roundup of responses, as well as his own. Also, Amy Forbus weighs in.
Monday, February 18, 2008
An "Anything Goes" Polity
In our recent discussion about Foundry UMC's decision to hold gay weddings, contrary to the Discipline, Jonathan Marlowe commented:
John, I do not agree with what Dean is doing at Foundry, and I think his actions violate the spirit of the Discipline. However, they do not violate the letter of the Discipline. I therefore think your headline, "Foundry UMC Plans Gay Weddings" is misleading. They are not planning weddings. I know that you would say in response, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, etc..." but I think we ought to take Dean at his word when he says he does not understand these services as weddings.
So chargeable offenses should be left to the deliberate misinterpretation of the individual elder? Let's look at the ramifications of following this approach.
¶ 2702.1b provides that a pastor may be tried when charged with "practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies...."
Emphasis added. Now, Dean is proposing that what he is doing is not actually in violation of this statute, and Jonathan is proposing that we take him at his word. Let's apply that another chargeable offense, namely ¶ 2702.1a, which forbids "immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage."
Do we really want to leave it up to the individual pastor to interpret how s/he will uphold this standard? If we buy into Dean's argument, than another pastor can just as easily argue "What you saw me doing with the church secretary wasn't adultery because I choose not to define it as adultery."
Do we want that?
Now, Dean and Jonathan were already red-lining my BS detector when Andy Bryan came along and blew the gauge apart (although admittedly, it was quite worn-out by this point). Thanks a lot, Andy. I had plans for this afternoon, but now I have to drive into Gainesville and find a replacement. Andy writes:
Can this story really be contrary to a Book of Discipline that allows for the "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective" (para. 104)? Isn't that what's happening here?
In the context of ¶ 104, um, no. If this were true, it would not be improper for a UMC pastor to set up idols to Baal in his/her sanctuary and start cultic prostitution in the fellowship hall -- all in the interest of "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective."
Come on, guys. You know better than this. I can respect honest disagreement about theology and ethics. But I can't respect conscious, deliberate falsification of the Discipline.
And we certainly can't function as a community of faith if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along.
Do you disagree? Please state specifically how Dean's argument can be true but the hypothetical adulterous pastor's argument cannot be true.
Also: John Battern shares his thoughts.
John, I do not agree with what Dean is doing at Foundry, and I think his actions violate the spirit of the Discipline. However, they do not violate the letter of the Discipline. I therefore think your headline, "Foundry UMC Plans Gay Weddings" is misleading. They are not planning weddings. I know that you would say in response, "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, etc..." but I think we ought to take Dean at his word when he says he does not understand these services as weddings.
So chargeable offenses should be left to the deliberate misinterpretation of the individual elder? Let's look at the ramifications of following this approach.
¶ 2702.1b provides that a pastor may be tried when charged with "practices declared by The United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teachings, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual union; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies...."
Emphasis added. Now, Dean is proposing that what he is doing is not actually in violation of this statute, and Jonathan is proposing that we take him at his word. Let's apply that another chargeable offense, namely ¶ 2702.1a, which forbids "immorality including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not faithful in a heterosexual marriage."
Do we really want to leave it up to the individual pastor to interpret how s/he will uphold this standard? If we buy into Dean's argument, than another pastor can just as easily argue "What you saw me doing with the church secretary wasn't adultery because I choose not to define it as adultery."
Do we want that?
Now, Dean and Jonathan were already red-lining my BS detector when Andy Bryan came along and blew the gauge apart (although admittedly, it was quite worn-out by this point). Thanks a lot, Andy. I had plans for this afternoon, but now I have to drive into Gainesville and find a replacement. Andy writes:
Can this story really be contrary to a Book of Discipline that allows for the "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective" (para. 104)? Isn't that what's happening here?
In the context of ¶ 104, um, no. If this were true, it would not be improper for a UMC pastor to set up idols to Baal in his/her sanctuary and start cultic prostitution in the fellowship hall -- all in the interest of "testing, renewal, elaboration, and application of our doctrinal perspective."
Come on, guys. You know better than this. I can respect honest disagreement about theology and ethics. But I can't respect conscious, deliberate falsification of the Discipline.
And we certainly can't function as a community of faith if everyone can make up their own rules as they go along.
Do you disagree? Please state specifically how Dean's argument can be true but the hypothetical adulterous pastor's argument cannot be true.
Also: John Battern shares his thoughts.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Foundry UMC Plans Gay Weddings
Former Methoblogger Dean Snyder made the news by announcing that his church, Foundry UMC in Washington, D.C. will henceforth offer homosexual weddings. In a pastoral letter, Dean states that although he can't actually offiate at a wedding or union because that would violate the Discipline, he can and will:
...lead services which recognize and honor lesbian and gay committed relationships. These will not be "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions," but will instead be worship services which recognize and honor committed relationships of lesbian and gay members and constituents.
Uh, huh. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink. As I said before, it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from Beth Quick and Gavin Richardson.
...lead services which recognize and honor lesbian and gay committed relationships. These will not be "ceremonies that celebrate homosexual unions," but will instead be worship services which recognize and honor committed relationships of lesbian and gay members and constituents.
Uh, huh. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink. As I said before, it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is.
UPDATE: Related thoughts from Beth Quick and Gavin Richardson.
Monday, September 03, 2007
The Separation of Church and the Predatory State
A United Methodist camp in Ocean Grove, New Jersey has been the scene of another of the denomination's recent sexuality wars. The camp is composed of a highly-developed beachfront area south of New York City featuring restaurants and shops in space leased out by the Methodist organization governing the property. Several months ago, a lesbian couple attempted to secure a pavilion for a civil union commitment ceremony and were turned down by the camp organization due to their sexual orientation.The couple responded by filing a complaint with a state agency, claiming that the decision violated state laws about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Supporters have argued that the camp has received large sums of state and federal funding for economic development and therefore must abide by government standards on discrimination. They have also argued that the camp must be open to the public if it is to continue to qualify for a large tax exemption from New Jersey's environmental protection agency.
Last week, a Federal judge handed down an injunction against the state, prohibiting New Jersey from continuing its investigation on whether or not the camp violated anti-discrimination laws.
This dispute teaches us about the voracious, predatory nature of the state. When a church is foolish enough to take funding from the state, it is opening itself up to entanglement by government power. I have heard it said that drug dealers often offer narcotics to non-users for free...in the hope that they may later become addicted and subject to the great demands of the drug dealers. Such is the behavior of government. As Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." The end result of churches taking government money is churches becoming controlled by the government. The Ocean Grove Camp Association should never have accepted government funding, nor a special tax exemption for land usage, and is now paying the price for its foolhardiness.
There are, however, attacks that this organization could not have protected itself from. Churches cannot prevent doctrine from being decided in civil courts if the courts force their way into what are entirely internal decisions of religious bodies. This is a horrendous abuse of government power which does indeed violate, as the defendants argue, the First Amendment. Nevertheless, we can expect that some gay rights advocates will use whatever means at their disposal to push their agenda through mainline denominations. That's why I predict that within two years, there will be a successful suit in civil court against United Methodist standards for ordination with regards to sexual orientation.
To those United Methodists who support the legal action against the camp, I say: beware of making use of government power. Just because the state is your friend today does not mean that it will be tomorrow. A government powerful enough to force doctrinal changes on your church that you like is powerful enough to make doctrinal changes that you won't like.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Does Evangelical Art Set Off Your Gaydar?
Unless your taste in art is restricted to Dogs Playing Poker, you can expect that having an appreciation for the fine arts can lead to doubts about your sexual orientation. I was once called an "art fag" for recognizing that a Vanity Fair cover was a subtle reference to a Manet painting. And I may rave about Greuze's airly play with light in the blogosphere, but I know better than to do that at the monthly United Methodist Men meetings. Still, there is an emerging and very kitschy evangelical art movement, since there clearly isn't enough expensive Christian-themed junk filling up LifeWay stores. Jeff Sharlett took a look at the movement:
Is evangelical art really that gay? If only. DiCianni's, Blackshear's, and God's personal preferences aside, this massively popular reveals an unexplored facet of the Christian men's movement: The manly desire for beauty. Or, to be more precise, the manly desire to look pretty. What's wrong with that? Doesn't that suggest a slightly-expanded idea of gender? Indeed, it does -- the masculine gender ex[anded to encompass and appropriate one of the few virtues fundamentalist men had previously reserved for women.
[snip]
We might write off these sterile representations of women to prudishness, but that still leaves us with the ripped golden muscles and leatherman fetish of DiCianni's man-art. My tentative theory: As religious art traditionally uses eroticism to channel worldly desires toward spiritual concerns, contemporary fundamentalist art uses eroticism to channel sex -- the visual currency of power in an advertising culture -- away from women and toward men. Either that, or it's a vast gay conspiracy.
Sharlett has a very quiet standard for what counts as eroticism, but I get his point: some Christian art looks like it belongs on romance novel covers. As for me, I prefer the classics of Christian art, such as Christ In the Wilderness by Kramskoy:
Hat tip: In the Agora
Is evangelical art really that gay? If only. DiCianni's, Blackshear's, and God's personal preferences aside, this massively popular reveals an unexplored facet of the Christian men's movement: The manly desire for beauty. Or, to be more precise, the manly desire to look pretty. What's wrong with that? Doesn't that suggest a slightly-expanded idea of gender? Indeed, it does -- the masculine gender ex[anded to encompass and appropriate one of the few virtues fundamentalist men had previously reserved for women.
[snip]
We might write off these sterile representations of women to prudishness, but that still leaves us with the ripped golden muscles and leatherman fetish of DiCianni's man-art. My tentative theory: As religious art traditionally uses eroticism to channel worldly desires toward spiritual concerns, contemporary fundamentalist art uses eroticism to channel sex -- the visual currency of power in an advertising culture -- away from women and toward men. Either that, or it's a vast gay conspiracy.
Sharlett has a very quiet standard for what counts as eroticism, but I get his point: some Christian art looks like it belongs on romance novel covers. As for me, I prefer the classics of Christian art, such as Christ In the Wilderness by Kramskoy:
Hat tip: In the Agora
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Ban Childless Marriage
I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I've never cared for the argument that it should be banned because it cannot produce children. By the same principle, straight couples that cannot have children (e.g. the elderly or otherwise sterile) should likewise not be permitted to marry. Now gay marriage activists have acted on this rhetorical flaw:
Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled. . . .
The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.
UPDATE: Joe Carter has a rather draconian response:
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
So if you're disabled or too old to still engage in "marital acts", then you shouldn't be able to marry, by this reasoning
Proponents of same-sex marriage have introduced a ballot measure that would require heterosexual couples to have a child within three years or have their marriages annulled. . . .
The measure would require couples to prove they can have children to get a marriage license. Couples who do not have children within three years could have their marriages annulled.
All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized," making those couples ineligible for marriage benefits.
UPDATE: Joe Carter has a rather draconian response:
A number of factors could prevent a married couple from having a child within three years (e.g., what if the child is stillborn?) so it would be unfair to penalize them for something that is beyond their control. Instead, a more reasonable criteria should be established that is based on actions that are solely within their power. For example, all couples who wish to marry--both gay and straight--must be willing and able to engage in "marital acts", acts that are reproductive in type. To paraphrase the WA-DOMA, those couples who cannot or will not engage in marital acts that are reproductive in type should equally be barred from marriage.
So if you're disabled or too old to still engage in "marital acts", then you shouldn't be able to marry, by this reasoning
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
