[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
IV. Call it the Fallacy of New Love
Elsewhere I have criticized the modern Church for its compromises with the zeitgeist. Perhaps its most egregious compromise is its dalliance with the democratization of truth, of assenting to ideas, beliefs or church policies because of the will of a majority, which is a very fallacious habit. I have also criticized the Church for its tepid defense of ancient creeds and even older truths. This tepidity is exemplified within the Church in what St. Paul aptly called the “form of godliness”†. The “form of godliness”, manifest most acutely in the liberalizing of churches throughout the West, consists almost entirely of a soft-headed view of love, a view which characterizes love as the support and endorsement of behaviors which the Church has held throughout its history as sinful or wrongheaded.
Truly loving people, pulpits are now preaching, are tolerant and open-minded, expansive in their permissiveness, non-absolute in their moral constructs, and commited to intellectual relativism [though not really (more later)]. But this godliness is off-base. It is the godliness that denies the power of God and the power that is to be found in the presence of His holiness. For real godliness believes that God can and will change people, that He will transform them when they themselves cannot affect personal change. Real godliness loves with a love that is hard-headed, and soft-hearted, and not vice versa. It is a love that confronts people with the awful truth of their lives without denying the awful truth of their lives.
A line from The Book of Common Prayer, eucharistic prayer C, Rite II, addresses where so many of us find ourselves regarding our understanding of love. In this beautifully written prayer, the respondent says: “Let us not presume to come to this (Eucharistic) meal solely for solace, but strength; not solely for pardon, but renewal.” The prayer admits that there is a tendency in the heart of every supplicant to seek only what one wants to hear from love––the comfort, forgiveness, and approval––and not the other side of love as well. That side is where God gives us strength to be better than we presently are; it's the side of love that confronts us by saying that each of us needs to be renewed, not just emotionally, but totally: sexually, spiritually, intellectually, physically. This is the side of love we don't really want to hear, for it implies that we are not quite as good or as whole as we pretend to be.
Herein lies the great fallacy of new love: love has become mere approval solely to make things easier. If, for example, society sweepingly reformed itself, moving from censorship of herion addiction to celebrating such addiction as beautiful and lovely, everyone with a heroin addicted child would find it easier to love that child. If an alcoholic father actually received monetary and social promotion, even fame and glory for his alcoholism, his children might not find him at all embarrassing when he stumbles into their school Christmas pageant. So, too, with homosexuality: remove the sinfulness or the aberrance of such behavior and one finds it easier to love those who behave homosexually, or “are” homosexuals. I could feel this type of love make its strong, tempting appeal in the recent [1993 remember] meeting at my parish church regarding the confirmation of Gene Robinson. There was a clear, emotional tone to some of the things said in favor of homosexuality; the quality of which suggested that if homosexuality is considered 'sinful' or 'wrong', everything will be so much harder. Of course, we know that true love is confrontational: Jesus, the incarnation of God's love, was not walking about the Levant dishing out approval. He called people 'whited sepulchers' and a 'brood of vipers.' He vandalized a temple market. He also told people not to judge others, and then reminded them not to throw their pearls before swine, which requires them to be judgmental, since one must discern the swine from the clean [(there is power -- and a lesson -- in paradox)].
Yes, Jesus is Love Incarnate; yes, God is love. And we know His love is liberating precisely because it is judgmental: God makes a judgment to purge us of that which harms us.
I often tell people that my father was effective with me when I was a teenager because he loved me more than he loved his rules. A truly loving father, like God, has rules for his children. A father with no rules is not a loving father. A God without rules is no God. But a truly loving father, like God, loves his children more than his own rules. If he didn't, then he would not be a lover of life, but of principles, which are less than life. My father's love for me was never less than his love for his rules. So, when I failed to obey him, I was loved to wholeness. For my dad wished nothing more than to be with me. He never wished to be alone with his rules. This is God's way with us. God loves us more than His rules. But, if we break God's rules, no matter how He restores us, He does not restore us by destroying His rules. God does not say, 'Do not lie. But if you do, I will love you anyway, and you can lie all you want; and there will be no rules about lying.' Instead of granting us some distorted immunity, God sets out to make us truthtellers. Similarly God makes all sinners, straight and gay, thieves and murderers, whole if they just let Him. No one is exempt from this 'difficult' love of God.
So the fallacy of easy love is really about making love less difficult. But that is not real love. It is akin to telling a child not to play with matches and then, when one finds the child striking a match, handing the child a book of matches with a “wink, wink” of the eye. Such a compromise may make it easier to 'deal with' the child, but it will not make it easier when he burns himself. The compromise itself is unloving.
Peace.
[†2 Timothy 3:1-5: 1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.]
Part VII of this series begins here.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part V
[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between [].
Also, please recall that in Part I it was reported that, in response to comments I made to now Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, Mr. Robinson replied "I don't know anybody who is arguing that way." Well, "that way" is pretty much what is printed below. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Trimuvirate? (cont.)
III. Call it the "fallacy of ignoring tradition"
Moving now to the next major fallacy, let us put it forward rather plainly: Tradition has adapted with the times throughout the history of the Church. Once it was traditional for parishioners to own slaves. At one time it was tradition that kept women from the priesthood. But, thank God, tradition has changed. And there is no tradition in the Church worth keeping that would prevent homosexuals from marrying, or being elected as Bishop.
The fallacy here, really, is not that tradition hasn't changed. It has. The fallacy is that there has been a tradition in the Church that precludes homosexuality from ever being accepted, and yet that tradition is dismissed without so much as an argument. It is patently ignored. What is that tradition? It is the tradition of the Sacrament of Marriage, rooted in Judaism, sacramentalized by Jesus the Christ, and honored by the Church throughout the ages. And it is a sacrament that cannot be changed.
Here is the general metaphysics of the sacrament of marriage, hastily outlined, but nonetheless foundational to the tradition of which I am speaking: the Church is Christ's Bride, and He is the wondrous Bridegroom. But men and women, by their very natures (there is no room to expand on this here), perceive Christ differently. The Mary Magdelene character in Jesus Christ Superstar struggles with her affections for a man who does not exploit her: “I don't know how to love Him.” Her confusion is understandable: she's a woman, Jesus is a man. I have heard women speak of Jesus during Bible study groups in ways that border on the romantic. For men––at least straight men––this type of affection is crazily unfamiliar. No man I know would want Jesus to come and 'do spoons' with him in the deep of night. In contrast, I once heard nearly a dozen women "ooh" and "ahh" over one woman's testimony that she feels Jesus come to her on nights when her husband has withdrawn from her. Men and women even perceive Jesus differently because women, theoretically, could be impregnated by the Incarnate God of the Universe. But, and here is the rub, men are called to be Christ's Bride. How do men, who represent something very different in Christian theology, become brides at the Great Wedding?
The Church has said that men gain a better understanding of their futures with Christ by participating in the Sacrament of Marriage. For in that sacrament, a man and woman, representing Jesus Christ and the Church respectively, come to understand something profound about Jesus' love for the Church, and the Church's due response to that love. A man chasing his wife around the house, eager to express his love and eager for her love, is the symbol of Christ's zealous love for His Church. The way a wife responds to the 'husbanding' of her husband is the perfect paradigm of how one responds to Christ's love! And by watching how her husband pursues her, a woman better understands the strength of Christ's love, which is a burning passion any loving husband feels within himself every day. But how does a man respond to that burning love when it is directed at him by Jesus? He responds by imitating how his wife responds to his overtures, his passion, his zeal. And this is a beautiful, ancient, and deeply metaphysical thing!
Furthermore, in honor, celebration and adulation of the joys of their life together, including pure sexual bliss, any loving husband and wife, attempting to incarnate their love; attempting to bring permanance to their union; and attempting to pass on to others the very pleasures in which they indulge, procreate children. Each of us (it is easy to forget) is the product of sexual orgasm. No doubt, sexual beings know how quickly sexual pleasures pass. But there is no doubt either that through procreation, the momentary flashes of pleasure in procreative sex acts reverberate through a couple's progeny every breathing moment. Procreation brings permanance to the sex act! Moreover, procreation shares the joys of love, sex and life with others! [Think of it this way: if sex is so great, would you not want to pass that greatness on to others? I mean, if we brag about the best restaurants with friends, surely we'd want others––our children!!––to know the pleasures of love, commitment, sex.]
All this, of course, emulates Christ's own intercourse with His Bride. For Christ speaks to His Church, He sows His Word in Her eager, loving womb, and new life is created, the life which is His children. Christ and His Church do not indulge in such pleasurable intercourse solely for selfish reasons, but to empower others [converts/children] so they too may know such pleasure. Hence, homosexuality fails to meet this incredible sacrament's power. For a man having sex with a man, no matter how “loving”, does not help anyone learn anything about God. It is, after all, a horrible symbol of Christ having sex with Christ. It is completely self-enjoying. Similarly, sex between two women is the Church having sex with itself. Both types of homosexual images are distortions of the holy union between Christ and His Church. As such, neither image can ever be sacramental: for they symbolize nothing remotely Christian. And if they can never be sacramental, what can they be, but desacramental?
Of course, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, birth control, and abortion are also distortions of this Holy Sacrament; each symbolizes something dreadful. Premarital intercourse is the equivalent of Christ sleeping with several Churches, or the Church rolling in the hay with several Gods, before finding the “Right One.” Adultery is Christ running off with other Brides, the Church running off with other Christs. Divorce is the dissolution of Christ and His Church due to irreconciliable differences (or a myriad of other reasons). Birth control symbolizes Jesus and the Church intercoursing with each other self-indulgently, the Church enjoying the presence of God's Word without having to be burdened (yet) with new members, new converts, new children. And abortion is merely the Church saying to Christ that She is not ready to bring forward the child––the new convert––He has conceived in Her womb.
Please, I am not saying that there are not exigent reasons for any one of these desecrations of the marriage sacrament. Christianity has never said that the earth is perfect, or that it will be perfect. But it has also maintained the tradition that marriage, as a Sacrament, is a standard for a whole host of reasons; and that merely because there are aberrations or difficulties in life it does not follow that one abandons or redesigns the standard. Extremes occur; even Jesus sadly recognized that.
Here, then, ends our description of the fallacy of ignoring tradition. The Church, rooted in Judaism, has held that marriage between a man and woman is a symbol, a sacramental fact, of God and creation, Christ and Church. There is no reformation to take place here. There is nothing to deconstruct. The Sacrament of Marriage is a basal point of Christian theology; foundational, universal, eternal. It is a tradition not only worth keeping, it is a tradition that is rooted in absolute truth, and hence can never be forsaken without great peril.
[It is important to insert here something about Creation. If I do not, someone might assert that I am essentially suggesting that Jesus is indeed a homosexual if He is indeed the Bridegroom of Christian men.
In a hasty sketch, let me simply state that since the earliest times of ancient Israel's history, Israel battled idolatry. Often the idols and false gods it battled were feminine. The reason for this was rooted in the religious starting point of primitive peoples: they started with the earth, the fertile, fecund earth, teeming with life. The earth reminded them of a mother, and it was all they knew. But the problem with that starting point is that divinity then begins to look feminine; it begins to look earthly and earth-bound. Thus the very things of the earth begin to be worshiped and idolized. And not just things hewn from rock or carved in wood. Sex and fertility and wine are idolized, the very glories of the orgiastic goddess which is Mother Earth. Even temple prostitutes draw men and women closer to the goddess. After all, if the Goddess is creation, if She is the earth and the cosmos, then everything in it is her body; is of her substance. That we still think in similar terms today is evident in abortion discussions, primarily when those who speak in favor of abortion claim that a child is not just its mother's, it is its mother's very body. The distinction between Goddess Earth and the things of the earth is not made. The failure to make that distinction is wherein idolatry is born.
In contrast, the Jewish revelation that God is male begins not with the immanence of earth, but with the transcendence of the Creator: He is outside space and time––and earth and wood and stone––the way a human father is outside reproduction: a father ejaculates his word into the womb of his bride and yet he remains -- himself -- transcendent of the creation that follows. God, too, ejaculated His Word into the abyss, and that Word brought forth light and life. But unlike the womb and the Mother Earth, God is outside; He is beyond the sex act like each of our fathers was outside our mothers: the father enters but for a moment, and he remains forever outside. Thus, the concept of a Transcendent God, the transcendent father, shatters the tendency to idolize any earthly THING, for God transcends the earth, the cosmos, the stuff of matter and mother (I believe matter, material and mother all share the same Latin root and do so because the ancients conflated the two ideas). No wonder abortion discussions do not revolve around whether a fetus is actually the father's body: we all assume that fatherhood and transcendence are synonymous. This revelation that God is male compared to creation gave not only Israel the proper foothold for climbing out of the idolatrous womb, it gave us all that opportunity: there are no idols if True Divinity is outside everything that is made.
Hence, not only is the Sacrament of Marriage a sacrament that illuminates Christ's relationship to the Church, it is a sacrament that illuminates the Father's relationship to all of Creation. Through such we learn that, by comparison, all of us, men and women alike, are feminine in comparison to the Transcendent God. Hence, even men––even truly manly men like me!––are feminine in comparison to God. Thus, transformed by Christ's ministry and the Holy Spirit, and informed by the Sacrament of Marriage, I, as a man, learn to become a Bride of Christ. This is not then a Male God marrying a male follower in the fullness of time: it is a simple man submitting to the sobering fact that he is not God. It is a simple man accepting his limitation: Jesus is the Man, and I, as man, must decrease: I am but a type who is female in comparison to God. There is no gender confusion here: this is just the dance between the transcendent and the immanent, the creator and the created, the independent and the contingent. Masculine and feminine remain in perfect harmony and balance.]
Peace.
(Tomorrow: the fallacy of the new love)
Part VI of this series begins here.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth
Also, please recall that in Part I it was reported that, in response to comments I made to now Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, Mr. Robinson replied "I don't know anybody who is arguing that way." Well, "that way" is pretty much what is printed below. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Trimuvirate? (cont.)
III. Call it the "fallacy of ignoring tradition"
Moving now to the next major fallacy, let us put it forward rather plainly: Tradition has adapted with the times throughout the history of the Church. Once it was traditional for parishioners to own slaves. At one time it was tradition that kept women from the priesthood. But, thank God, tradition has changed. And there is no tradition in the Church worth keeping that would prevent homosexuals from marrying, or being elected as Bishop.
The fallacy here, really, is not that tradition hasn't changed. It has. The fallacy is that there has been a tradition in the Church that precludes homosexuality from ever being accepted, and yet that tradition is dismissed without so much as an argument. It is patently ignored. What is that tradition? It is the tradition of the Sacrament of Marriage, rooted in Judaism, sacramentalized by Jesus the Christ, and honored by the Church throughout the ages. And it is a sacrament that cannot be changed.
Here is the general metaphysics of the sacrament of marriage, hastily outlined, but nonetheless foundational to the tradition of which I am speaking: the Church is Christ's Bride, and He is the wondrous Bridegroom. But men and women, by their very natures (there is no room to expand on this here), perceive Christ differently. The Mary Magdelene character in Jesus Christ Superstar struggles with her affections for a man who does not exploit her: “I don't know how to love Him.” Her confusion is understandable: she's a woman, Jesus is a man. I have heard women speak of Jesus during Bible study groups in ways that border on the romantic. For men––at least straight men––this type of affection is crazily unfamiliar. No man I know would want Jesus to come and 'do spoons' with him in the deep of night. In contrast, I once heard nearly a dozen women "ooh" and "ahh" over one woman's testimony that she feels Jesus come to her on nights when her husband has withdrawn from her. Men and women even perceive Jesus differently because women, theoretically, could be impregnated by the Incarnate God of the Universe. But, and here is the rub, men are called to be Christ's Bride. How do men, who represent something very different in Christian theology, become brides at the Great Wedding?
The Church has said that men gain a better understanding of their futures with Christ by participating in the Sacrament of Marriage. For in that sacrament, a man and woman, representing Jesus Christ and the Church respectively, come to understand something profound about Jesus' love for the Church, and the Church's due response to that love. A man chasing his wife around the house, eager to express his love and eager for her love, is the symbol of Christ's zealous love for His Church. The way a wife responds to the 'husbanding' of her husband is the perfect paradigm of how one responds to Christ's love! And by watching how her husband pursues her, a woman better understands the strength of Christ's love, which is a burning passion any loving husband feels within himself every day. But how does a man respond to that burning love when it is directed at him by Jesus? He responds by imitating how his wife responds to his overtures, his passion, his zeal. And this is a beautiful, ancient, and deeply metaphysical thing!
Furthermore, in honor, celebration and adulation of the joys of their life together, including pure sexual bliss, any loving husband and wife, attempting to incarnate their love; attempting to bring permanance to their union; and attempting to pass on to others the very pleasures in which they indulge, procreate children. Each of us (it is easy to forget) is the product of sexual orgasm. No doubt, sexual beings know how quickly sexual pleasures pass. But there is no doubt either that through procreation, the momentary flashes of pleasure in procreative sex acts reverberate through a couple's progeny every breathing moment. Procreation brings permanance to the sex act! Moreover, procreation shares the joys of love, sex and life with others! [Think of it this way: if sex is so great, would you not want to pass that greatness on to others? I mean, if we brag about the best restaurants with friends, surely we'd want others––our children!!––to know the pleasures of love, commitment, sex.]
All this, of course, emulates Christ's own intercourse with His Bride. For Christ speaks to His Church, He sows His Word in Her eager, loving womb, and new life is created, the life which is His children. Christ and His Church do not indulge in such pleasurable intercourse solely for selfish reasons, but to empower others [converts/children] so they too may know such pleasure. Hence, homosexuality fails to meet this incredible sacrament's power. For a man having sex with a man, no matter how “loving”, does not help anyone learn anything about God. It is, after all, a horrible symbol of Christ having sex with Christ. It is completely self-enjoying. Similarly, sex between two women is the Church having sex with itself. Both types of homosexual images are distortions of the holy union between Christ and His Church. As such, neither image can ever be sacramental: for they symbolize nothing remotely Christian. And if they can never be sacramental, what can they be, but desacramental?
Of course, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, birth control, and abortion are also distortions of this Holy Sacrament; each symbolizes something dreadful. Premarital intercourse is the equivalent of Christ sleeping with several Churches, or the Church rolling in the hay with several Gods, before finding the “Right One.” Adultery is Christ running off with other Brides, the Church running off with other Christs. Divorce is the dissolution of Christ and His Church due to irreconciliable differences (or a myriad of other reasons). Birth control symbolizes Jesus and the Church intercoursing with each other self-indulgently, the Church enjoying the presence of God's Word without having to be burdened (yet) with new members, new converts, new children. And abortion is merely the Church saying to Christ that She is not ready to bring forward the child––the new convert––He has conceived in Her womb.
Please, I am not saying that there are not exigent reasons for any one of these desecrations of the marriage sacrament. Christianity has never said that the earth is perfect, or that it will be perfect. But it has also maintained the tradition that marriage, as a Sacrament, is a standard for a whole host of reasons; and that merely because there are aberrations or difficulties in life it does not follow that one abandons or redesigns the standard. Extremes occur; even Jesus sadly recognized that.
Here, then, ends our description of the fallacy of ignoring tradition. The Church, rooted in Judaism, has held that marriage between a man and woman is a symbol, a sacramental fact, of God and creation, Christ and Church. There is no reformation to take place here. There is nothing to deconstruct. The Sacrament of Marriage is a basal point of Christian theology; foundational, universal, eternal. It is a tradition not only worth keeping, it is a tradition that is rooted in absolute truth, and hence can never be forsaken without great peril.
[It is important to insert here something about Creation. If I do not, someone might assert that I am essentially suggesting that Jesus is indeed a homosexual if He is indeed the Bridegroom of Christian men.
In a hasty sketch, let me simply state that since the earliest times of ancient Israel's history, Israel battled idolatry. Often the idols and false gods it battled were feminine. The reason for this was rooted in the religious starting point of primitive peoples: they started with the earth, the fertile, fecund earth, teeming with life. The earth reminded them of a mother, and it was all they knew. But the problem with that starting point is that divinity then begins to look feminine; it begins to look earthly and earth-bound. Thus the very things of the earth begin to be worshiped and idolized. And not just things hewn from rock or carved in wood. Sex and fertility and wine are idolized, the very glories of the orgiastic goddess which is Mother Earth. Even temple prostitutes draw men and women closer to the goddess. After all, if the Goddess is creation, if She is the earth and the cosmos, then everything in it is her body; is of her substance. That we still think in similar terms today is evident in abortion discussions, primarily when those who speak in favor of abortion claim that a child is not just its mother's, it is its mother's very body. The distinction between Goddess Earth and the things of the earth is not made. The failure to make that distinction is wherein idolatry is born.
In contrast, the Jewish revelation that God is male begins not with the immanence of earth, but with the transcendence of the Creator: He is outside space and time––and earth and wood and stone––the way a human father is outside reproduction: a father ejaculates his word into the womb of his bride and yet he remains -- himself -- transcendent of the creation that follows. God, too, ejaculated His Word into the abyss, and that Word brought forth light and life. But unlike the womb and the Mother Earth, God is outside; He is beyond the sex act like each of our fathers was outside our mothers: the father enters but for a moment, and he remains forever outside. Thus, the concept of a Transcendent God, the transcendent father, shatters the tendency to idolize any earthly THING, for God transcends the earth, the cosmos, the stuff of matter and mother (I believe matter, material and mother all share the same Latin root and do so because the ancients conflated the two ideas). No wonder abortion discussions do not revolve around whether a fetus is actually the father's body: we all assume that fatherhood and transcendence are synonymous. This revelation that God is male compared to creation gave not only Israel the proper foothold for climbing out of the idolatrous womb, it gave us all that opportunity: there are no idols if True Divinity is outside everything that is made.
Hence, not only is the Sacrament of Marriage a sacrament that illuminates Christ's relationship to the Church, it is a sacrament that illuminates the Father's relationship to all of Creation. Through such we learn that, by comparison, all of us, men and women alike, are feminine in comparison to the Transcendent God. Hence, even men––even truly manly men like me!––are feminine in comparison to God. Thus, transformed by Christ's ministry and the Holy Spirit, and informed by the Sacrament of Marriage, I, as a man, learn to become a Bride of Christ. This is not then a Male God marrying a male follower in the fullness of time: it is a simple man submitting to the sobering fact that he is not God. It is a simple man accepting his limitation: Jesus is the Man, and I, as man, must decrease: I am but a type who is female in comparison to God. There is no gender confusion here: this is just the dance between the transcendent and the immanent, the creator and the created, the independent and the contingent. Masculine and feminine remain in perfect harmony and balance.]
Peace.
(Tomorrow: the fallacy of the new love)
Part VI of this series begins here.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth
Monday, July 10, 2006
Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part IV
[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
II. Call it the Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance
[Hermeneutics is the "science (or theory) of interpretation". In this case, we are referring to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.]
The Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance (if you will permit me to be overly didactic), is the fallacy employed to denigrate the arguments of those who cite Biblical or scriptural references allegedly condemning homosexuality. It is as common as sleep. In fact, one could recite it in one’s dreams. Here it is: scriptural texts are so imbedded in their respective milieus that one cannot take them at face value. Using all the modern techniques available to critique biblical passages, it becomes clear that passages traditionally or prima facie interpreted as condemning homosexuality in fact do not condemn homosexuality per se. That they appear to is solely due to our ignorance of certain cultural biases inherent in the original writers’ worldviews. Thus, certain passages in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, for example, prima facie condemn homosexuality, but a closer look reveals no such thing. Instead, Romans condemns heterosexuals who go against their pure natures and commit homosexual acts. As for loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not only is the Bible generally silent about such relationships, it even seems to support them; love, commitment, and covenantal fidelity are requisites for Godly relations. Surely gay men and women can be “covenantal” in their relations with their life partners, no? The long and short of it is that certain biblical passages are so embedded in the cultural predilections of their time that one might even say that the lens through which the original writers drafted those passages was significantly distorted. [After all, what did ancients know of nature, psychology, sexuality and biology?]
Of course, the fallacy is immediately evident: the Church of 2003 is embedded in a particular milieu. The Church of 2003 -- in 1000 years (for example) -- will be looked upon as one "blinded by certain cultural presumptions" (let’s not forget that some day these very years will be called the Middle Ages). Hence, if the Church of today is embedded in a culture, and that culture has its own predilections for certain things, then the modern Church can neither absolutize its frame of reference nor can it be certain it understands the original biblical texts regarding relevant matters. For if St. Paul’s lens was distorted, perhaps our lens is also distorted (as surely it must be); if that is the case, then perhaps the distortion we see in Paul’s lens is actually the distortion of our own lens as we look at Paul! Perhaps Paul’s lens is quite clear, free of astigmatism!
Moreover, why is Paul (and the early Church) deemed biased, and even untrustworthy, in understanding homosexuality, and yet he is reliable when speaking about matters of fidelity, covenant and equality? [What about Paul's cultural bias when it comes to his understanding of covenant and love?] What conundrums such arguments create! But there is more that is damnable in the argument as posited. For if the Epistle to the Romans condemns heterosexuals who act against their true nature and perform homosexual acts, why would God condemn such a thing, if homosexuality is indeed morally acceptable? And what would be gained if God did create people with "different natures"? If the homosexual acts are permissible, what does it matter if one is created a certain way or not? If it is lovely to say “God bless you”, what is to be condemned if a man, born mute, nonetheless tries to say “God bless you” against his nature? If the act can’t be condemned, then what does one’s propensity have to do with it? A baseball player that is naturally right-handed in fact is commended if he learns to bat from both sides of the plate. This for no other reason than that people realize that if an action is commendable, there is no genetic proclivity that requires that someone must abstain from that act to be true to nature. Plus, where does this all lead us when discussing Mr. Robinson? Here’s a man who once submitted to the Sacament of Holy Matrimony, who consummated that sacrament, fathering two children with a lovely wife. Eventually, he rejected his sacramental vows, divorced his wife, and moved in with a man that was neither husband nor wife. Was Mr. Robinson not a heterosexual at one time? Is he not a homosexual now? What, then, is his true nature? Is he condemned as a straight man who strayed from his true nature in homosexuality? Or was he gay to begin with?
That we cannot ever answer these questions about Mr. Robinson is rather clear. What is also clear is that the reconstructed view of Paul’s argument in Romans can be used by anyone slipping between straight and gay sex, invoking what Mr. Robinson himself must have invoked, that such a person is merely “trying to find [my] true nature.” What does the Church have to offer to help people discover their true natures, if Mr. Robinson himself jumped from side to side, apparently confused? Or does the Church let people decide such an important matter for themselves? If that is the case, then why would Paul condemn shifting sexual allegiances, if people must decide for themselves? Either Mr. Robinson is a straight man who should be condemned for acting gay, or he is a gay man who determined his true nature with no help from Scripture, Tradition, or the Church regarding who he “really is.” If the latter, then there is no way Paul condemns homosexuality under ANY conditions regarding "natures"! Forget bi-sexuals: They’ve apparently got no true nature. If the reconstructionists supporting Mr. Robinson are right, there is no room in the kingdom for bi-sexual people. [And if St. Paul condemns those who act against their true heterosexual nature and act homosexually, would he condemn homosexuals who act against their "true" nature and enter heterosexual relations? And if one's nature determines how one must behave, then how are bi-sexuals supposed to behave, if they have either two natures or can't determine which "one" is their true nature? And what of the man who claims that nature has endowed him with a powerful predilection for having sex with a different woman every night; that his promiscuity is entirely natural to him? Where do we turn for Christian guidance in these matters? Is heterosexual marriage strictly for those whose nature inclines them toward that sacrament?]
Also, what of the related argument, that Jesus is curiously silent on the matter of homosexuality? How is it that He could ignore such a thing if homosexuality is such a big deal? If Jesus was silent, it seems that not only was homosexuality not a big deal to Him, it was probably something with which He was rather comfortable. The only sexual thing that He does condemn is divorce, and there is plenty of that around today's Church and society!
There is only one thing to say about this twist on the hermeneutic argument: Fallacious! Jesus was silent on, what, about 100,000 moral questions? For He is dishearteningly silent on the environment, drunk driving, hand guns, prison reform, and cannibalism. He is silent on abortion, LSD, airplane pollution, global warming and pornography. He is silent about pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. What, pray tell, shall we infer from His deafening silence on these issues?
(Tomorrow, the Fallacy of the Ignorance of Tradition.)
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Part V of this series begins here.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up, hermeneutics, bi-sexuality
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
II. Call it the Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance
[Hermeneutics is the "science (or theory) of interpretation". In this case, we are referring to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.]
The Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance (if you will permit me to be overly didactic), is the fallacy employed to denigrate the arguments of those who cite Biblical or scriptural references allegedly condemning homosexuality. It is as common as sleep. In fact, one could recite it in one’s dreams. Here it is: scriptural texts are so imbedded in their respective milieus that one cannot take them at face value. Using all the modern techniques available to critique biblical passages, it becomes clear that passages traditionally or prima facie interpreted as condemning homosexuality in fact do not condemn homosexuality per se. That they appear to is solely due to our ignorance of certain cultural biases inherent in the original writers’ worldviews. Thus, certain passages in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, for example, prima facie condemn homosexuality, but a closer look reveals no such thing. Instead, Romans condemns heterosexuals who go against their pure natures and commit homosexual acts. As for loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not only is the Bible generally silent about such relationships, it even seems to support them; love, commitment, and covenantal fidelity are requisites for Godly relations. Surely gay men and women can be “covenantal” in their relations with their life partners, no? The long and short of it is that certain biblical passages are so embedded in the cultural predilections of their time that one might even say that the lens through which the original writers drafted those passages was significantly distorted. [After all, what did ancients know of nature, psychology, sexuality and biology?]
Of course, the fallacy is immediately evident: the Church of 2003 is embedded in a particular milieu. The Church of 2003 -- in 1000 years (for example) -- will be looked upon as one "blinded by certain cultural presumptions" (let’s not forget that some day these very years will be called the Middle Ages). Hence, if the Church of today is embedded in a culture, and that culture has its own predilections for certain things, then the modern Church can neither absolutize its frame of reference nor can it be certain it understands the original biblical texts regarding relevant matters. For if St. Paul’s lens was distorted, perhaps our lens is also distorted (as surely it must be); if that is the case, then perhaps the distortion we see in Paul’s lens is actually the distortion of our own lens as we look at Paul! Perhaps Paul’s lens is quite clear, free of astigmatism!
Moreover, why is Paul (and the early Church) deemed biased, and even untrustworthy, in understanding homosexuality, and yet he is reliable when speaking about matters of fidelity, covenant and equality? [What about Paul's cultural bias when it comes to his understanding of covenant and love?] What conundrums such arguments create! But there is more that is damnable in the argument as posited. For if the Epistle to the Romans condemns heterosexuals who act against their true nature and perform homosexual acts, why would God condemn such a thing, if homosexuality is indeed morally acceptable? And what would be gained if God did create people with "different natures"? If the homosexual acts are permissible, what does it matter if one is created a certain way or not? If it is lovely to say “God bless you”, what is to be condemned if a man, born mute, nonetheless tries to say “God bless you” against his nature? If the act can’t be condemned, then what does one’s propensity have to do with it? A baseball player that is naturally right-handed in fact is commended if he learns to bat from both sides of the plate. This for no other reason than that people realize that if an action is commendable, there is no genetic proclivity that requires that someone must abstain from that act to be true to nature. Plus, where does this all lead us when discussing Mr. Robinson? Here’s a man who once submitted to the Sacament of Holy Matrimony, who consummated that sacrament, fathering two children with a lovely wife. Eventually, he rejected his sacramental vows, divorced his wife, and moved in with a man that was neither husband nor wife. Was Mr. Robinson not a heterosexual at one time? Is he not a homosexual now? What, then, is his true nature? Is he condemned as a straight man who strayed from his true nature in homosexuality? Or was he gay to begin with?
That we cannot ever answer these questions about Mr. Robinson is rather clear. What is also clear is that the reconstructed view of Paul’s argument in Romans can be used by anyone slipping between straight and gay sex, invoking what Mr. Robinson himself must have invoked, that such a person is merely “trying to find [my] true nature.” What does the Church have to offer to help people discover their true natures, if Mr. Robinson himself jumped from side to side, apparently confused? Or does the Church let people decide such an important matter for themselves? If that is the case, then why would Paul condemn shifting sexual allegiances, if people must decide for themselves? Either Mr. Robinson is a straight man who should be condemned for acting gay, or he is a gay man who determined his true nature with no help from Scripture, Tradition, or the Church regarding who he “really is.” If the latter, then there is no way Paul condemns homosexuality under ANY conditions regarding "natures"! Forget bi-sexuals: They’ve apparently got no true nature. If the reconstructionists supporting Mr. Robinson are right, there is no room in the kingdom for bi-sexual people. [And if St. Paul condemns those who act against their true heterosexual nature and act homosexually, would he condemn homosexuals who act against their "true" nature and enter heterosexual relations? And if one's nature determines how one must behave, then how are bi-sexuals supposed to behave, if they have either two natures or can't determine which "one" is their true nature? And what of the man who claims that nature has endowed him with a powerful predilection for having sex with a different woman every night; that his promiscuity is entirely natural to him? Where do we turn for Christian guidance in these matters? Is heterosexual marriage strictly for those whose nature inclines them toward that sacrament?]
Also, what of the related argument, that Jesus is curiously silent on the matter of homosexuality? How is it that He could ignore such a thing if homosexuality is such a big deal? If Jesus was silent, it seems that not only was homosexuality not a big deal to Him, it was probably something with which He was rather comfortable. The only sexual thing that He does condemn is divorce, and there is plenty of that around today's Church and society!
There is only one thing to say about this twist on the hermeneutic argument: Fallacious! Jesus was silent on, what, about 100,000 moral questions? For He is dishearteningly silent on the environment, drunk driving, hand guns, prison reform, and cannibalism. He is silent on abortion, LSD, airplane pollution, global warming and pornography. He is silent about pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. What, pray tell, shall we infer from His deafening silence on these issues?
(Tomorrow, the Fallacy of the Ignorance of Tradition.)
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Part V of this series begins here.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up, hermeneutics, bi-sexuality
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part III
[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
I. Call it the Genetic Fallacy
You’ve heard this argument before: Homosexuals are not made, they are born. It is not a matter of decision to be gay, it is a matter of nature; of genetic compulsion. Since God created all people, God created gay people. And if He created them gay, He must be OK with homosexuality. Moreover, since homosexuality is rooted in nature and the creative fiat of God, it is both laughable and deplorable that peoples throughout the ages have either stigmatized gays as aberrant, second-class citizens or have attempted to offer remedies to change the essential nature of individual homosexuals.
Of course, a child can see through this argument, especially if that child were born blind, or with spina bifida, Down’s syndrome, hemophilia, or countless other maladies which afflict people at birth. There are telethons devoted to raising money to defeat congenital diseases; there are countless foundations seeking to receive grants or give grants to help eradicate all sorts of birth defects. Why change these things if they are natural? Why heal people born with such things if God made them that way? There really is NO counter to this if one argues that "God creates everyone as they are".
But homosexuality proponents don’t mean that God created everybody to be a certain way. They mean something else. I’ll get to that in a moment. But before I do, I want to show the speciousness of the genetic argument.
Anyone reading nearly any popular news periodical over the last fifteen years would undoubtedly have read about scientific inquiries into genetics. There have been articles exploring cancer genes, or genes controlling obesity, alcoholism, depression, heart disease and mania. There have been studies exploring the happy gene, and even the love gene. What, pray tell, will come if one discovers that hate has a gene? What if, in next week’s Time magazine, a study is put forward showing that homophobia is genetic? Are we expected to believe that the pro-gay camp is going to honor homophobia on the grounds that God has created even homophobes, and that out-spoken homophobes are being true to their God-created natures?
No, we do not expect such support, but we should. For that is how the pro-gay camp in the Church has argued. Moreover, they have further argued that the Church should not only not tolerate those afflicted with homophobia, the Church should expect them to change, irrespective of whether homophobes are made or born! Amazingly, pro-gay advocates expect homophobes to change, but ridicule any suggestion that gays and lesbians can find remedial help in therapy, spirituality, and the Christian disciplines.
What can be rather easily posited is that it seems intuitively obvious that nature, through evolution, would indeed endow people with an aversion to something quite unnatural. That there is ample justification for this intuition is clear: there are no compelling examples of homosexuality any where in nature other than in humans. Sociobiologists have further argued that each person’s genes are absolutely dogged in trying to reproduce. Evolution has undoubtedly endowed some (many?) humans with an aversion to homosexuality the same way it has endowed humans with an aversion to the smell of decaying flesh, the heat of fire, and the vertigo of dangerous heights: these things are threats to the human species. So, too, is homosexuality, speaking strictly on evolutionary grounds. For heterosexuality perpetuates the species, including the homosexual impulse in that species (if genetic), whereas homosexuality does not. On a theoretical level, if all people behaved homosexually, there would be no people. But if all people behaved heterosexually, the joys of sexuality, including the alleged joys of homosexuality, would be shared throughout the ages. Sadly, and rather counter to evolution, the gay-marriage advocates may in fact be unwittingly culling from the gene pool homosexuality in total. For if homosexuality is genetic, then it can only be passed on through procreation. If most homosexuals "marry" other homosexuals, without first trying heterosexual activity, it seems that the number of reproducing homosexuals will eventually diminish to such a degree that homosexuality will be obliterated. And in a bitter irony, if homosexuality is an inherited gene, then someone, somewhere, who was apparently gay, or lesbian, chose to be involved in a heterosexual relationship, for the "gene" (or trait) could not be passed on otherwise. Was this sacrifice an act of love, a gift to the future? It seems it must have been. But does homosexual marriage limit the potential for more of that alleged blessedness? It seems it must.
See how far afield such fallacies take us?
Let us return to what homosexuality proponents really mean about genetics, or even the nature/nurture debate. What they mean is that some behaviors -- like homophobia -- are undesirable merely because they hurt others; and that the person with a particular trait or quality -- like Down's syndrome -- cannot live a full life unless freed of societal fears and restrictions of -- and biases against -- that apparent defect. That is why people try to heal birth defects, or limit the rights of those who behave in harmful ways. In the case at hand, opponents to homosexuality who may be homophobes (born or made is irrelevant), encroach upon the pursuit of happiness of others. No doubt this seems reasonable. But this is a very different argument than the one suggesting that God has made people certain ways. Clearly, this apparently reasonable position means to be a more mature expression of that argument attributing every creation to God. It is curious, however, that we are now really nowhere. Why? Because this new argument is nothing other than the very argument those opposed to homosexuality use to censure homosexuality! Alas, the pro-homosexual camp agrees that there are indeed some things that should and can be healed; and that there are some behaviors that should be limited or even condemned!
Ultimately the scientific realities about the genesis of homosexuality are really rather irrelevant. For we know the scientific realities about all sorts of maladies, and yet we cannot determine merely by science what maladies are [socially and morally] acceptable, and which ones are not. The American psychiatry and psychological professional communities determined over 30 years ago that homosexuality was not a mental illness or disturbance, yes. But this decision was not based on anything scientific. Just as there have been no decisive scientific studies proving homosexuality is genetic, there have been no studies showing that homosexuality is psychologically normal. Why? For no other reason than that the psychological communities admit that there is no way to determine a baseline “normal” psychological profile. Hence, the decision to remove homosexuality from the list of psychoses was based entirely on whether a person’s homosexuality was a problem for that person; and on whether any homosexual as homosexual was able to lead a meaningful, balanced life in society.
Curiously, this non-scientific decision is considerably flimsy. Any psychotic may claim that his life is just OK with him, despite evidence to the contrary. In fact, it is undue self-confidence in one’s own psychological health which usually indicates the presence of psychoses. Denial is the better part of valor to the psychotic. Plus, it leads to the rather dubious post-modern habit of complete self-determination. Besides, this whole argument leads to what can only be described as the great hypocrisy of the pro-gay movement. What is that hypocrisy? It is that homophobes are now considered psychologically unfit, and are now considered to be egregious sinners for non-conformity. Once, homosexuality was on the list of sins. Now, homophobia is a psychological aberration (with no evidence that it is), and as such, it is deemed worthy of the list of sins. That is why opponents to homosexuality are stigmatized, mocked, derided, and ostracized. That is why they are often hated by those claiming to know true love and tolerance. Even in a nearby church, which banned the use of its facilities by “homophobic Boy Scouts”, the pastor stated that any one holding intolerant views was not welcome in that church. How sad! Homosexuals, who were once apparently banned from churches, have succeeded only in changing the object of oppression. The same activists who wanted liberty have modeled “true love” and “acceptance” by stigmatizing and banning alleged homophobes. How circular must an argument be before we declare it fallacious?
Surely there are plenty of homophobes whose homophobia is not a problem for them; who live meaningful, fulfilling lives. Why then is their worldview untenable? Simple. Their worldview is untenable solely because they do not conform. This whole issue has nothing to do with truth, or science, or justice. It has to do with power, with who has the most political strength, will, and financial leverage. It is about shouting, shouting louder than the opposition. But even shouting is nothing but a fallacy: It is the fallacy ad baculum, arguing by force, and not by intellectual strength. Those flinging around the "homophobia" label are quick to point out that whereas homosexuality does not impede any one’s pursuit of happiness, homophobia does try to impede. Really? How about my pursuit of happiness, as a heterosexual, to worship God in a Church not given to compromising on moral issues for fallacious reasons? How is my view of God, the world and worship not impeded by those who want to reconstruct God, the world and worship into things conforming to a “post-modern” image?
Trust me. There is a broad and vocal movement committed to eradicating the Church of those who believe certain moral truths are static. That movement is the liberalizing, pro-gay movement, and it has everything to do with impeding other people. If this were not the case, there would never have been the crass interruption and insolent desecration of the Mass in New York’s St. Patrick's Cathedral -- a Roman Catholic Church -- by members of Act-Up in 1989. [That highwater mark (at the time), in which even the Holy Host was desecrated, remains a legendary moment in gay activism. And it's a highwater mark that showed that such activism is about something other than love. But if that is not true, it surely is about impeding the freedom of others.]
[One closing note: it is interesting, in a confusing sort of way, that gays and lesbians have aligned their socio-political activities with trans-gendered folks, those folks who feel the need for sex changes. For if God creates and He makes no mistakes, then it is clear that He indeed has made mistakes, i.e., those people who demand medical treatments for their sexual birth disorders. Trans-gendered folks are by definition defective and "changed"; they are malleable and reeducable. How this alliance was forged between LGBT activists is beyond me.]
(Tomorrow: The fallacy of hermeneutical arrogance)
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Part IV of the series begins here.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up
Friday, July 07, 2006
Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part II
[What follows below, Part II in my series on the Episcopal Church (here is Part I), is an essay I wrote on the eve of the 2003 General Convention. It was initially sent out as a letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Frank T. Griswold. Later, it went out as a batch email; one recipient would submit it to VirtueOnline, a conservative Anglican website, where it received some notice. I will be posting this essay in several installments in what may be the longest series I've ever offered at Contratimes. But the first few posts shall serve mostly as back story.
Over the following few days what I intend to demonstrate is that the Episcopal Church is currently an opponent of reason. The ECUSA is not a bulwark of reasonableness; rather, it is collapsing in a heap of subjectivism. My hope is to accomplish something of a theological tour de force here; my readers shall be able to judge if I've succeeded.
One final note: I have posted the following as originally drafted; any updates or corrections will appear in []. Thank you, and peace. BG.]
Over the following few days what I intend to demonstrate is that the Episcopal Church is currently an opponent of reason. The ECUSA is not a bulwark of reasonableness; rather, it is collapsing in a heap of subjectivism. My hope is to accomplish something of a theological tour de force here; my readers shall be able to judge if I've succeeded.
One final note: I have posted the following as originally drafted; any updates or corrections will appear in []. Thank you, and peace. BG.]
What's Left of the Triumvirate?
Any mindful Episcopalian knows that the Holy Scriptures, tradition, and reason comprise Episcopal discernment. This grand triumvirate, a trinity of illumination, has guided the Anglican Church through many a trial. Sadly, that blessed trinity is so sorely deconstructed as to leave it leaning precariously to one side. Scripture is no longer trustworthy, at least in matters of sexual identity and behavior, or so the post-modern theologian asserts. Tradition is hardly a matter of sturdy guidance, as polemicists have shown that tradition has not only been known to change, it has been known to be rather wrong. Gratefully, attacks on reason are not nearly so devastating or unnerving, as reason itself is invariably invoked to demonstrate its faultiness. Reason, it seems, is all that remains sturdy of the truth-finding machinations of the Church.
So, with that said, all we are left with regarding discussions about the propriety of confirming an openly gay bishop in the diocese of New Hampshire is whether the arguments supporting such confirmation are reasonable. By reasonable, of course, I mean logically valid. I do not mean anything suggestive of emotional validation. I do not mean anything approaching what feels right, or true, or “of God”. I mean purely reasonable, that which one can reason through from point to point, premise to premise, proposition to proposition, syllogism to syllogism. To put it another way, I am asking whether proponents of Bishop-elect co-adjutor Gene Robinson have argued fallaciously, for fallaciousness is the antonym of reasonableness.
Quickly, let us dispense with a few of the obvious fallacies offered by those supportive of Mr. Robinson’s confirmation.
First, to suggest that Mr. Robinson’s election is laudable because most people support that election is to commit the fallacy ad populum, which is to argue that something is good or true because it is popularly held to be so. A companion fallacy to ad populum is the fallacy consensus gentium, which is committed when one avers that a thing is good or true because the majority, perhaps determined via a referendum, poll or election, assert a thing is good or true.
Second, to suggest that Mr. Robinson is somehow entitled or worthy of bishop because he is a good man, a nice person, or a faithful minister of the gospel is easily dismissed as an example of what could be called the fallacy of the tipped scales, as one’s good deeds are weighed against one’s misdeeds in order to tip public approval in one’s favor. The fallaciousness of this argument is obvious. For example, myriads of people do not think that US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is worthy of such a high office, irrespective of his good acts or judicial skill, solely because one woman’s allegations [of sexual harassment] demote him too egregiously to be “good enough” for that office. Journalists daily like to begin stories with the amazingly good qualities of a seemingly normal man -- who did good deeds in church, home and society -- only to end such stories with exclamations of surprise that such a good man could have strangled his child. Even today people are speaking of the taint that will forever be on NBA basketball star Kobe Bryant, regardless of whether he is ultimately absolved of criminal guilt for allegedly raping a woman. Daily, at least through the media (and even private conversation), one bad act often results in nullification of a whole life of devoted service.
Conversely, many good acts are often used to dismiss one bad act. The New York Times recently ran a review of a new biography of assassinated President John F. Kennedy with the headline tease that his good political acts outweighed his personal peccadilloes. Similar arguments have been invoked to commend former President Bill Clinton: one bad act need not spoil the whole bunch. The good acts, in a sense, atone for one’s occasional sins.
If this fallacy is not yet clear, perhaps invoking Adolph Hitler’s name may bring lucidity [I recognize that he is a tired, though helpful, example]. Hitler, no doubt, did good things, perhaps many good things, in his life. Yet his misdeeds truly doom him. He is not worthy of celebration, but condemnation, even if his good deeds outweigh his bad deeds. One cannot imagine a headline in The New York Times that reads, “Despite Hitler’s Murderous Policies, He Nonetheless Did Many Good Things In Private”, even if such a headline were true. We do not reward someone solely because we think he or she has done more good than harm. Conversely, Jesus Himself does not necessarily condemn anyone who has done more harm than good.
That this fallacy is invoked to commend Gene Robinson is undeniable. Recently, in a discussion held at my parish church, a N.H. diocesan spokesman admitted as much; and a parishioner, with tears flowing, shared how blessed she had been by the Christ-like ministry of Mr. Robinson’s personal care (teary arguments are the fallacy argumentum ad misirecordiam [the appeal to pity]). The twist in this woman’s argument is that God could not speak through Mr. Robinson if his homosexuality was all that bad, or all that sinful. But this is just another version of the same fallacy. Scripture shows a devil and demons speaking truth, with some demoniacs even speaking respectfully to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church has insisted that a priest could be in mortal sin and yet still consecrate the Blessed Sacrament; a teaching the Anglican Church essentially affirms. God’s grace is not limited to holy vessels, as the Church has always taught that there are no holy vessels that merit God’s grace [perhaps Mary is the exception here]. In other words, the Church has always insisted that we are all sinners. Hence, sinners worthy of condemnation nonetheless experience the grace of God, and may minister in that grace. Moreover, no matter how fallen any human being is, there remains some fragment of the image of God in that person. No one is totally corrupt.
With that said, however, there are those in the Church who [perhaps] think I have now tacitly endorsed the likes of Mr. Robinson. For if Mr. Robinson is a sinner, and grace is available to all sinners, then Mr. Robinson may indeed minister in the grace of God. But I have not endorsed Mr. Robinson (or the ordination and marriage of homosexuals), solely because in instances where sinners are baptized with the Spirit of God and endowed with God’s grace, such sinners do not immediately stand up and say that their sin is no longer sin. But the likes of Mr. Robinson have done just that. Proponents of homosexuality are quick to point out that the Church has gone nearly mute on fornication and divorce, with this silence somehow serving as a logical corollary to accepting homosexuality. But the argument is duly specious entirely because the Church has not set out celebrating either divorce or fornication. Can anyone find a liturgy celebrating premarital sex, or abject promiscuity? Can anyone find a liturgy that is neither sober nor contrite regarding the "celebration" of divorce? Has anyone been to a “Divorce Pride” parade lately, or held a vigil honoring the oppressed and stigmatized adulterers and lechers among us? The fact is that the Church, irrespective of its silence on certain matters, has not ever hopped about suggesting a broad policy that divorce, adultery or promiscuity are good. And if the word “celebration” is too hyperbolic for some critics, one must ask those who take umbrage with my suggestion that homosexuality is being “celebrated” if that is not, indeed, the case. For celebration is merely the antonym of condemnation, is it not? And if Mr. Robinson’s homosexuality is not to be condemned by the General Convention, would not his confirmation be a cause of celebration for homosexuality? If not, how then is it that Episcopal proponents of Mr. Robinson’s confirmation, on National Public Radio’s July 23 report regarding the Convention, equate his confirmation with gay marriage and ordination? Would these not be celebrations?
All this, then, amounts to an argument that suggests that what was once a sin is now no longer a sin at all. To be homosexual, in fact, is to be a joyous participant in the diverse creativity and blessedness of God! We will return to this argument in a moment. What other fallacies are present in defense of Mr. Robinson? Surely there is the fallacy ad hominem, the fallacy of attacking the person who opposes Mr. Robinson rather than the argument presented in that opposition. Surely opponents of Mr. Robinson’s ratification have been called “regressives” or “homophobes” or “reactionary” or “narrow” or “intolerant”. This is really the fallacy du jour. For there is seemingly no swifter defeat of an opponent than to categorize that opponent as something despicable.
A friend of mine reported to me that in her conversation with a woman about the up-coming national election of Mr. Robinson, she mentioned that I opposed the ratification (both women knew me in college). Immediately the woman dismissed me as prejudiced, asking my friend if I had ever met Mr. Robinson in order to better understand him before I formed my opinion, for then I would have not “pre-judged” him. A lesbian priest recently speaking on New Hampshire Public Radio described those who opposed homosexuality as possessing a “prejudice based on fear and ignorance.” Both women, ironically (and sadly), are profoundly guilty of the very thing they decry, for neither woman has spoken with me to discern who I am or what I represent. Clearly they are prejudiced, and their prejudice is based in ignorance, for they have ignored me and the countless others they have labeled as prejudiced. This is the fallacy ad hominem at its ugliest. (By the way, I have met Mr. Robinson [and I have worked with his ex- wife]; and I really like the man. Moreover, I recognize that the fallacy ad hominem is not unique to one camp. Unfortunately camps pro and con deploy this viciousness.)
Thus far we have touched on five fallacies, the fallacies ad populum, consensus gentium; the fallacy of the tipped scales, and the fallacies ad misericordiam and ad hominem. Each is frequently deployed, each is used to support the heart of the pro-homosexual argument. Let us now turn to some of the most insidious fallacies of all.
(Tomorrow, some of the harder fallacies.)
Peace.
Part III of this series begins here.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop
Theses On The Door: Statements Regarding The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part 1
Prologue: A little about meFor the past three years or so I have been reticent regarding my disillusionment with the Episcopal Church of the United States (ECUSA). I have been reticent for good reason: the Church abandoned me, my family, and my conservative peers. I do not mean by this that my rector or my parish abandoned us, though to some degree many of our brothers and sisters at All Saints' did in fact let us leave with nary a word. What I am pointing to is the abandonment of all that is dear to this family by the liberalizers -- or are they liberators? -- of the ECUSA, particularly those here in New England, and specifically those in New Hampshire. And please note that this writer has been nearly silent about homosexuality in his essays at Contratimes, also for good reason: the personal impact of my very public stance against the consecration of V. Gene Robinson came at great personal cost to me. In fact, I would argue that the several letters written against me in the local papers were more hate-filled than any letter ever published (locally) opposing Mr. Robinson's consecration as the first openly-gay bishop in the ECUSA and the worldwide Anglican Communion. In short, my silence here, and elsewhere, has to do with pain. But enough of that for the moment. To quote someone else (we'll talk about this later), I shall "spare [you] the details and get to the substance of the matter."
What follows (beginning tomorrow) is an essay I wrote in August of 2003 in the aftermath of V. Gene Robinson's nomination to serve as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. I wrote it during that year's General Convention (when Mr. Robinson's nomination was approved). I sent the essay out as an email; one recipient forwarded it to a conservative Anglican website. There it received some attention. I shall replay it here because it speaks, in general, to my initial problem with the ECUSA's consideration (at the time) of the viability of Mr. Robinson's appointment. But the essay, which I will publish in parts, speaks to something very direct, even essential, to the whole matter; it is that toward which I am ultimately moving in the totality of this series, which may consist of more than a few posts.
You see, in the first days of October 2003, I met, face to face, man to man, with V. Gene Robinson for a private 90-minute conversation over coffee and cake at Twelve Pine, the rather tony market in Peterborough, NH. We sat in the northeast corner of that fine café; there we had what I've described as an "elegant dispute", a "genteel disagreement". I listened to him, intently; he listened to me. Our conversation was seasoned with grace, empathy. We walked away gentlemen, though I believe, in the closing minutes, that Mr. Robinson felt he had wasted his time.
Why Mr. Robinson should have met with me is easy: I called him. My rector at the time was friends with Mr. Robinson; and I had known Mr. Robinson's ex-wife (his wife and I worked together -- parttime -- at a local ski area). Moreover, I was involved in my parish: I was junior warden and a vestry member; a lay eucharistic minister, a tenor soloist in the choir, a lector and usher, a book group leader; and member of the Christian Education and Buildings and Grounds committees. Though Mr. Robinson and I had met before, always in group settings, we had never had a direct discussion about homosexuality and the Christian faith.
Not long after I would resign my positions at All Saints', and only days after my conversation with Mr. Robinson, I would join a group protesting his consecration. I joined forces with the more conservative brothers and sisters in the ECUSA; I was called by the Chicago Tribune for an interview (I refused); I spoke in public against the course the ECUSA was taking. Finally, on November 2, 2003, I entered the Whittemore Center Arena at the University of New Hampshire -- where Mr. Robinson would be consecrated that very day -- with a contingent of solemn protestors. Leading our little group was Bishop Suffragan David Bena of Albany, NY. Needless to say, as I entered that arena, and as I stood for the grand procession (with myriad marching priests festooned with stoles of the gay pride flag), tears copiously flowed down my cheeks: I was nearly inconsolable as I watched my rector and deacon pass in front of me; and when Brian, a gay priest I know, passed me moments later. The whole assembly, save a few of us, was singing about God's wonders. Then, at the appropriate time in the liturgy, my small contingent (I remained at my seat) stood in the center of the arena while two letters were read to the thousands gathered, one of which was by Father Bena, another by a young woman from New Hampshire. The presiding bishop acknowledged the remarks; we all, quietly, slipped from our places in the arena and left in solemn protest. My weary feet carried me passed members of my own parish.
One irony to the whole process was that as we left that consecration, we could not help but pass the gauntlet of protestors on each side of us; those on the left were pro-gay ordination (mostly college kids who were hardly Episcopalians), and those on the right, who were the vile bunch from Fred Phelps' heinous church (sorry), the "God hates fags" reprobates. Of course, the media presence was huge. But the irony is that the pro-gay folks, confused by the sudden media rush of cameras in our faces, began to applaud us, thinking we had just completed the consecration. They did not know what we had just done, or didn't do; nor did they know that from there we all were to attend a "protest" Eucharist, of sorts, where I would serve, with others, as a lay eucharistic minister under Father William L. Murdoch (his brother-in-law is my closest friend).
It was the last time I served the cup of our Lord.
***
Let me return to my meeting with Mr. Robinson and share with you one thing he said to me. I had spoken to him of my thoughts about his consecration; I spoke at length about the sacraments of marriage and priesthood; about the theology of the human body and the order of creation. I know that my remarks, which served as a rebuttal to his own defense, were received by him with surprise: he had never heard the arguments before. That is why his only reply to my challenge was this: "I don't know anybody who is arguing that way."I realize now that much of my reticence was due to expectations: I expected that the ECUSA would see the error of its ways; and that the Anglican Communion would come rescue those of us ousted by the spirit of Unitarian-Universalism coursing through America. But I see now that the ECUSA is recalcitrant and that the Anglican Communion can do little to help. The latest General Convention of the ECUSA has confirmed my fears. I am confident there is now no turning back.
What begins tomorrow is only the preamble to my argument against Mr. Robinson's bishopric. There is much more to say than what follows. But it strikes to the heart of what is now the Episcopal Problem: the Church has lost its authority. For Episcopalians, Scripture, Tradition and Reason comprise the rule of spiritual discernment and authority: what is codified in Holy Writ, what the Church has taught through the ages, and the sweet reasonableness of God's revelation, combine to inform believers the precise nature of God, of Christ, of Christian living and charity. Alas, this Grand Triumvirate lies in fragments at the feet of V. Gene Robinson. It was not smashed by him; it was smashed by many if not all of us: by those who loathe the Grand Triumvirate -- the liberalizers enamored of their own gnosticism -- and by those of us -- fearful, tired, cowardly, self-doubting or lazy -- who let them smash it. Mr. Robinson, on the eve of his consecration, stated rather boldly that his consecration would not result in the collapsing of the Church's roof. What he did not realize was that the roof collapsed before he was even nominated bishop. And if that is not true, surely Mr. Robinson sees that the roof is collapsing right now.
Let me formally begin this series by posting my letter of resignation that I submitted to All Saints' Church, Peterborough, NH on September 29, 2003. It sets the tone for all that is to follow. Please note that at the time the All Saints' vestry was deep in the process of calling a new rector. We stood on the threshold of receiving a list of nominees from the Search Committee, and we had been given diocesan guidelines regarding the calling process.
Peace.
***
Letter of ResignationTo the All Saints’ Parish Senior Warden, Vestry and Interim Priest,Part II of this series begins here.
Please accept this letter announcing my resignation as Junior Warden effective immediately. It is submitted only after much thought and consideration. I pray that you receive this resignation as it is intended: a gracious and respectful withdrawal from my responsibilities and duties.
My reasons for resigning are complex. Some have to do with increased domestic responsibilities, particularly related to my elderly mother. But the primary reason has to do with (of course) the controversial election of our Bishop-elect co-adjutor. I will spare you the details.
As I sat on Vestry last week, I realized that there was no possible way I could, in good conscience, support the calling of a rector who was either gay/lesbian, or supportive of a gay/lesbian episcopate. Since there is no longer any effective room for a conservative voice in the New Hampshire diocese on this matter, and since there will be no conservative candidates for All Saints’ rector nominated by the Search Committee (I infer this from the philosophical stance of our diocese), it would not only be divisive of me to sit on Vestry, it would be wasteful. Moreover, I knew, after listening to Ms. Fairman, that I could not honestly reach ‘consensus’ with the Vestry on the matter of a rector. (I realize that other Vestry members might oppose any candidate, but I can only speak for myself.)
Two relevant quotes challenge, even haunt me (forgive the look of pedanticism):‘Tocqueville shows how a democratic regime causes a particular intellectual bent which, if not actively corrected, distorts the mind’s vision. ... ¶The great democratic danger, according to Tocqueville, is enslavement to public opinion.’ [emphasis added] - The late Allen Bloom, Professor in the Committee on Social Thought, University of Chicago
‘It will never be known what acts of cowardice have been motivated by the fear of not looking sufficiently progressive.’ - French writer Charles Péguy
I am challenged because I find these statements to be true. True not only in my life, but in the lives of others I know as well. And they are particularly true in the case of the election of our future bishop. Democracy (and the fear of not looking advanced) can be a dangerous thing, especially in the Church. Both have led to the devolution of Episcopalianism.
Episcopalianism is an essentially sacramental faith. It is evident in its liturgy, and its heirarchy. Everything in the All Saints’ church proper is in some way sacramental; as is everything that is performed therein. No doubt some things, like baptism or Eucharist, are sacraments which portend salvation from alienation, sin, and death. But others, like the shape of the building, the placement of the altar, the apposition of lectern and pulpit; the vestments, candles, and every action related to worship and consecration, are also sacraments, though of lesser degree. If how one offers bread and wine; if how one bows at the passing of the crucifer during procession; if how one extinguishes candles after benediction; if each of these matters sacramentally, how is it that sacramentalism stops at genitalia, at our sexuality, at our maleness and femaleness? This question pesters me to distraction during worship.
There is a passage in the Koran where God asks, ‘Do you think I created heaven and earth in jest?’ A Christian amendment might read, ‘Do you think I created male and female in jest?’ What a question. For Christianity has always said that male and female mean something; that they are each parts of a blessed sacrament, comprising the very image of God. How one uses one’s sexuality, then, also matters, and bodies mustn’t be used or defined in any old way (no matter how progressive). If the Church cares about the very words of consecrating the bread and wine, how is it that the Church is carefree about the sacramental aspects of sexuality? Is not the body that receives the Eucharist of more value (in God’s eyes), and more sacramental, than the bread and wine such a body receives?
I believe the democratization of truth is ruining the Episcopal Church, gutting it of its sacramentalism. Mr. Robinson’s telling remark that he doesn’t want to be ‘the gay bishop, but the bishop,’ highlights the division or separation of form and substance in our Church. For if Mr. Robinson’s homosexuality is substantively essential to who he is, as has been argued, then how is it that he can leave that aspect of himself outside the Church? He does so only because he has desacramentalized his sexuality, where it has no real relevance to his ministry as bishop. Even a priest I know has recognized this, and has told Mr. Robinson that he as bishop can ‘never call homosexual unions a sacrament.’ The national Church apparently has also recognized this in its decision not to call gay unions ‘marriages.’ But if gay unions are not sacramental, then what can they be in a sacramental Church?
This is just a small part of my polemic against the Episcopal Church. And as I have said many times elsewhere, I have not heard or read one valid argument supporting homosexuality, or justifying homosexuality among clergy. Trust me when I say I’ve studied this issue exhaustively. That doesn’t make me an authority; it only means I am open to learning about the issues at hand.
Hence, my convictions lead me to remove myself from a position of leadership at All Saints’. That the ‘Hot Button Questions’ segment in the diocese’s Search Process handbook (distributed to Vestry last week) does not include one question about homosexuality and yet includes queries regarding a female priesthood and abortion (two done deals), indicates that discussion in the diocese about homosexuality has not only stopped, it never even started. Moreover, that people are leaving the Church over this issue without any meaningful, diocese’s-led dialogue reveals the shallowness of our time. Those who leave are mere apostates of popular opinion, it seems. In short, I find I am just too old-fashioned for the Episcopal Church.
The most difficult thing for me in all of this: I like Gene Robinson, and yet I disagree with him profoundly.
It has been a pleasure and honor to work with the Senior Warden, the Vestry and the Interim. You are a lovely, talented group of people. (I have no issue with any of you.) I wish you all the best and I thank you for your kindness and support over the past year. I have tried to serve well, though I know that one hope of my term of service was that I would effectively build bridges between the older demographic of our parish and the younger, bringing more middle-aged folks into service. At this I have failed, largely, I think, because of my traditionalism: I’m an antique among younger parishioners.
It is my deepest hope that each of you has sensed from me, at some time, love, respect and encouragement. I know I have felt such from you. All Saints’ is a blessed place, and I am blessed by you all. Peace to you.
With regret,
Bill Gnade
29 Sept 03
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Rolling Stoned: Who Is To Blame For Our Plight?
There are days I wish I could wash my soul; I wish I could yank it out of my skin and toss it into a sink or drop it off at the cleaners. Sometimes it is a conversation that sullies me, or something foolish I've said during a dinner party. Sometimes it is a film or a play or a bit of music; sometimes it is something I've read. But there is no easy place to go to take out the stains, the stains of sin, or the stains of intellectual incontinence. One can only pray, confess, kneel at the altar; receive.
Today, besides the myriad blights that assail me, turning my green leaves brown, there is something political that infects my mind. No doubt there are not a few readers who might find all this rather melodramatic, dismissing my reaction as an undue over-reaction to something rather harmless. But there IS harm in what assails me, because it is utter deception. It is deceit couched not merely as fact, but as a fact smugly presented, a sort of "everybody knows but the stupid" sort of smugness. It is an elitism that is urbane and casual; it is even a casual sin.
Of course, I permit you to laugh when I tell you that the source of my melancholy is none other than Rolling Stone magazine's interview with former United States Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. But I'll take your laughter any day over the prevaricators which are Mr. Gore and Rolling Stone. As Ambrose Bierce once so aptly defined, a prevaricator is "a liar in the caterpillar state."
What can we say of Rolling Stone's very first sentence to Al Gore 3.0? The article begins with this subhead:
The man who won the presidency in 2000 is looser and more outspoken than ever. Is his global-warming movie a warm-up for a third run at the White House?
I ask, where else can one go from here but straight to hell? "The man who won the presidency in 2000." I seriously cannot say that sentence without sounding like an old-time hack muttering obscenities in the break room.
What is amazing about Rolling Stone's opening line is not so much its audacious ignorance of reality. What is amazing is that it did not stop me mid-stride; it's even a bit like blowing out a tendon just getting into the starting blocks. But I sprinted, limping, for sure, to the finish line. I can only tell you that the refreshments offered at the end are cups filled with bitter gall, even bitter gore.
Irrespective of the foolish debate regarding the recount, and re-recount, and the myriad re-re-recounts of the 2000 election tallies in Florida (which have shown repeatedly that Mr. Bush won that state); and irrespective of Mr. Gore's puny and statistically insignificant majority vote from the 2000 national election (both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush took 48% of the votes), let us admit that George W. Bush did not steal an election in 2000. Let us admit frankly, and even with pride, that the democratic process was completely evident in every step of that election. Let us further admit that the Bush v. Gore (2000) decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States made a glorious clamor, and was a rousing example of democracy in action.
Is the Supreme Court a mere club? Is it a simple collection of simple tyrants, an illegal chamber of men and women who have clawed their way through closets, stealing other people's robes? Or is it itself a result of democracy? Did not both Democrats and Republicans elect -- fairly and according to law -- leaders who appointed justices to that court? Did not both Democrats and Republicans elect -- fairly and legally -- senators to approve or disapprove of those appointments? It's too bad, at least for Democrats, that they have not been as successful in electing presidents who will stack the court in their favor; but no one is denying that Democrats have been given fair chance. It's a bit like throwing out a runner in baseball: in close plays the "tie goes to the runner." Why? Because the defense on the diamond needs to demonstrate -- overwhelmingly and with superior skill -- that a runner is decisively out because of the defense's blatant superiority. Make the play at first place too close and the umpire will penalize you for laziness or incompetence. Since the Democratic Party has failed to win enough presidential elections to secure a court that will always decide in the party's favor, the Supreme Court ruled against it for such incompetence. This is not tyranny or theft; it is democracy, loud and clear. The Supreme Court spoke with a voice that was fairly elected and fairly appointed.
Recently, at Yearly Kos 2006, blogger extraordinaire and progressive spokesman Markos Zúniga said, "Republicans failed us because they can't govern. Democrats failed us because they can't get elected." The point is rather telling. For what Mr. Zúniga is actually telling us is that the current state of national and world affairs -- whether poverty or war or torture or global warming -- is all the fault of Democrats: Democrats can't get elected. If they could, THEY would know how to govern; they would restore order to the world.
But since Democrats have failed so miserably to merely get elected these past few years, it is clear that I can blame them for the world's problems. But I should think that Mr. Zúniga's statement is one of the dumber things ever uttered. For it is clear that the only obstacles, apparently, to Democratic hegemony have been things like talk radio, media bias, some portions of the blogosphere, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the Wall Street Journal and country music fans. One should think that a superior party that is able to govern with superiority could govern itself and its voters around such weak and paltry obstacles. I mean, surely FoxNews is NOT more difficult than let's say, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, or oil prices or a war on terror. Surely Toby Keith and Bill O'Reilly cannot stand in the way of a Party that is expert in governance. Surely Karl Rove is not stronger than the whole mighty machinery that governs the Democratic Party.
What is rather ironic in Mr. Zúniga's remarks is that Republicans at least know how to win. Democrats, by Mr. Zúniga's admission, cannot even do that. Therefore they have not shown us that they know how to govern. Doubly ironic -- if that were possible -- is that Democrats (particularly its progressive wing), love to point out that Republicans are all about getting rich, with their big businesses and big houses taking priority over vital national interests. But one wonders how Republicans can be so adroit at managing big business if they have proven to us that they can't govern. Or are these contradictions something I should ignore?
So, in the end, the reality is this: Al Gore lost the election in 2000, John Kerry lost in 2004, and the Democrats are poised to lose again this year and 2008, all because of incompetence. As a result, we are at war with Iraq, oil is sky high, global warming continues its rampant course over Al Gore's film, and Osama bin Laden still runs loose. All this is the Democrats' fault solely because they do not know how to govern or win.
And if I can not wash my soul clean with that fact, perhaps I could throw a particular Rolling Stone into the laundry, or purify it in a fiery furnace. Of course, that too will contribute to global warming. So I shall lay that Rolling Stone outside and let it decompose, static, not rolling at all, only gathering moss and the mildew that comes with damp intellectual stagnation.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Rolling Stone, Al Gore 3.0, Al Gore, Bush v. Gore, Daily Kos, Markos Zúniga, Ambrose Bierce, Election 2000, Florida Recount, Will Dana
Today, besides the myriad blights that assail me, turning my green leaves brown, there is something political that infects my mind. No doubt there are not a few readers who might find all this rather melodramatic, dismissing my reaction as an undue over-reaction to something rather harmless. But there IS harm in what assails me, because it is utter deception. It is deceit couched not merely as fact, but as a fact smugly presented, a sort of "everybody knows but the stupid" sort of smugness. It is an elitism that is urbane and casual; it is even a casual sin.
Of course, I permit you to laugh when I tell you that the source of my melancholy is none other than Rolling Stone magazine's interview with former United States Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. But I'll take your laughter any day over the prevaricators which are Mr. Gore and Rolling Stone. As Ambrose Bierce once so aptly defined, a prevaricator is "a liar in the caterpillar state."
What can we say of Rolling Stone's very first sentence to Al Gore 3.0? The article begins with this subhead:
The man who won the presidency in 2000 is looser and more outspoken than ever. Is his global-warming movie a warm-up for a third run at the White House?
I ask, where else can one go from here but straight to hell? "The man who won the presidency in 2000." I seriously cannot say that sentence without sounding like an old-time hack muttering obscenities in the break room.
What is amazing about Rolling Stone's opening line is not so much its audacious ignorance of reality. What is amazing is that it did not stop me mid-stride; it's even a bit like blowing out a tendon just getting into the starting blocks. But I sprinted, limping, for sure, to the finish line. I can only tell you that the refreshments offered at the end are cups filled with bitter gall, even bitter gore.
Irrespective of the foolish debate regarding the recount, and re-recount, and the myriad re-re-recounts of the 2000 election tallies in Florida (which have shown repeatedly that Mr. Bush won that state); and irrespective of Mr. Gore's puny and statistically insignificant majority vote from the 2000 national election (both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush took 48% of the votes), let us admit that George W. Bush did not steal an election in 2000. Let us admit frankly, and even with pride, that the democratic process was completely evident in every step of that election. Let us further admit that the Bush v. Gore (2000) decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States made a glorious clamor, and was a rousing example of democracy in action.
Is the Supreme Court a mere club? Is it a simple collection of simple tyrants, an illegal chamber of men and women who have clawed their way through closets, stealing other people's robes? Or is it itself a result of democracy? Did not both Democrats and Republicans elect -- fairly and according to law -- leaders who appointed justices to that court? Did not both Democrats and Republicans elect -- fairly and legally -- senators to approve or disapprove of those appointments? It's too bad, at least for Democrats, that they have not been as successful in electing presidents who will stack the court in their favor; but no one is denying that Democrats have been given fair chance. It's a bit like throwing out a runner in baseball: in close plays the "tie goes to the runner." Why? Because the defense on the diamond needs to demonstrate -- overwhelmingly and with superior skill -- that a runner is decisively out because of the defense's blatant superiority. Make the play at first place too close and the umpire will penalize you for laziness or incompetence. Since the Democratic Party has failed to win enough presidential elections to secure a court that will always decide in the party's favor, the Supreme Court ruled against it for such incompetence. This is not tyranny or theft; it is democracy, loud and clear. The Supreme Court spoke with a voice that was fairly elected and fairly appointed.
Recently, at Yearly Kos 2006, blogger extraordinaire and progressive spokesman Markos Zúniga said, "Republicans failed us because they can't govern. Democrats failed us because they can't get elected." The point is rather telling. For what Mr. Zúniga is actually telling us is that the current state of national and world affairs -- whether poverty or war or torture or global warming -- is all the fault of Democrats: Democrats can't get elected. If they could, THEY would know how to govern; they would restore order to the world.
But since Democrats have failed so miserably to merely get elected these past few years, it is clear that I can blame them for the world's problems. But I should think that Mr. Zúniga's statement is one of the dumber things ever uttered. For it is clear that the only obstacles, apparently, to Democratic hegemony have been things like talk radio, media bias, some portions of the blogosphere, Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, the Wall Street Journal and country music fans. One should think that a superior party that is able to govern with superiority could govern itself and its voters around such weak and paltry obstacles. I mean, surely FoxNews is NOT more difficult than let's say, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, or oil prices or a war on terror. Surely Toby Keith and Bill O'Reilly cannot stand in the way of a Party that is expert in governance. Surely Karl Rove is not stronger than the whole mighty machinery that governs the Democratic Party.
What is rather ironic in Mr. Zúniga's remarks is that Republicans at least know how to win. Democrats, by Mr. Zúniga's admission, cannot even do that. Therefore they have not shown us that they know how to govern. Doubly ironic -- if that were possible -- is that Democrats (particularly its progressive wing), love to point out that Republicans are all about getting rich, with their big businesses and big houses taking priority over vital national interests. But one wonders how Republicans can be so adroit at managing big business if they have proven to us that they can't govern. Or are these contradictions something I should ignore?
So, in the end, the reality is this: Al Gore lost the election in 2000, John Kerry lost in 2004, and the Democrats are poised to lose again this year and 2008, all because of incompetence. As a result, we are at war with Iraq, oil is sky high, global warming continues its rampant course over Al Gore's film, and Osama bin Laden still runs loose. All this is the Democrats' fault solely because they do not know how to govern or win.
And if I can not wash my soul clean with that fact, perhaps I could throw a particular Rolling Stone into the laundry, or purify it in a fiery furnace. Of course, that too will contribute to global warming. So I shall lay that Rolling Stone outside and let it decompose, static, not rolling at all, only gathering moss and the mildew that comes with damp intellectual stagnation.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Rolling Stone, Al Gore 3.0, Al Gore, Bush v. Gore, Daily Kos, Markos Zúniga, Ambrose Bierce, Election 2000, Florida Recount, Will Dana
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Truly Independent, Still (2005)
[As I said yesterday, the "Summer Respite" is still on, irrespective of activity here. In the meantime, I thought I'd reprint last year's Independence Day essay, particularly since little has changed since it was first posted at Contratimes.]
Good morning, and may this be a grand Independence Day for you.
The older I get, and the more informed I become, so much the grander are these patriotic holidays we celebrate. Not that everyone celebrates them, which is too bad. But many of us do.
If I were to make a fine distinction between a conservative and a liberal (both worn out and confusing labels, no doubt); or between a rightist and a leftist, it might be this: that conservatives ultimately believe that there is no REAL, ontological Bill of Rights, but a bill of privileges. Liberals, in contrast, raise rights to the status of idols, or gods, believing that not only are rights entitlements; they are ontological and natural facts. They are not abstractions. They are concrete. And the list of rights is an ever-increasing one.
I am not here to quibble over my distinction. I am not given to it with any sort of conviction. I am only here to ask a question: Which perspective engenders gratitude? Which perspective invokes a spirit of thanksgiving?
I firmly believe that the only healthy-minded perspective is that which sees everything life offers us as a gift, and a tenuous one at that. The gifts of life come in an overstuffed bundle of privileges that can only inspire awe, humility, and, not least, gratefulness. There are no rights; no one can go find a right, or point to one, or put one in their pocket. And no one can demand that LIFE give them what they deserve, or that to which they are entitled. Everything is ultimately privilege.
Of course, I admit that rights have been given me, but the gift of rights itself is NOT a right. That gift is a privilege, a privilege earned throughout history, with conflict and bloodshed, sacrifice and prayer, and intellectual and spiritual agony forming the very foundations of that gift. Yes, I have the RIGHT to speak, or to VOTE, or to DISSENT, but I know in the core of my being that what I call rights are only legally secured privileges. Such rights could disappear in the swiftness of a coup, revolution, occupation, or the deft stroke of a nuclear holocaust on our nation's capital.
Today, then, is another day of thanks. It is a privilege to breathe, to plan, to sit on the deck or dock or verandah or yacht, to ooh and aah at fireworks in the summer's night sky. But it is all the more a privilege to do these things freely, independently, without compulsion. We are free to celebrate today, or not. We are free to choose either bratwurst or burgers; beer or lemonade; ice cream or strawberry shortcake (or both). We are not behind bars; we are not under tyranny; we are not occupied.
Pray that it remains so. Pray to fight against those who would take it away. And pray, too, that Iraq someday will have its own national days of gratitude, without the vestiges of tyranny and compulsion forcing them to comply to the diktats of a few.
And pray that our country, the United States of America, not get so enamored of its gifts that it believes such gifts are entitlements, rights, or something far more idolatrous.
We are independent, and yet, paradoxically, our independence depends on whether we remember how tenuous independence is. If we forget that independence is a gift, we'll quickly find ourselves wishing we hadn't.
July 4, 1776. Remember why. Live free. Today. Tomorrow. Always.
Contratimes
September 11, 2001. Never forget.
©Bill Gnade 2005, 20o6/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Independence Day, Fourth of July, Liberal, Conservative, Gratitude, Iraq, Fireworks
Good morning, and may this be a grand Independence Day for you.
The older I get, and the more informed I become, so much the grander are these patriotic holidays we celebrate. Not that everyone celebrates them, which is too bad. But many of us do.
If I were to make a fine distinction between a conservative and a liberal (both worn out and confusing labels, no doubt); or between a rightist and a leftist, it might be this: that conservatives ultimately believe that there is no REAL, ontological Bill of Rights, but a bill of privileges. Liberals, in contrast, raise rights to the status of idols, or gods, believing that not only are rights entitlements; they are ontological and natural facts. They are not abstractions. They are concrete. And the list of rights is an ever-increasing one.
I am not here to quibble over my distinction. I am not given to it with any sort of conviction. I am only here to ask a question: Which perspective engenders gratitude? Which perspective invokes a spirit of thanksgiving?
I firmly believe that the only healthy-minded perspective is that which sees everything life offers us as a gift, and a tenuous one at that. The gifts of life come in an overstuffed bundle of privileges that can only inspire awe, humility, and, not least, gratefulness. There are no rights; no one can go find a right, or point to one, or put one in their pocket. And no one can demand that LIFE give them what they deserve, or that to which they are entitled. Everything is ultimately privilege.
Of course, I admit that rights have been given me, but the gift of rights itself is NOT a right. That gift is a privilege, a privilege earned throughout history, with conflict and bloodshed, sacrifice and prayer, and intellectual and spiritual agony forming the very foundations of that gift. Yes, I have the RIGHT to speak, or to VOTE, or to DISSENT, but I know in the core of my being that what I call rights are only legally secured privileges. Such rights could disappear in the swiftness of a coup, revolution, occupation, or the deft stroke of a nuclear holocaust on our nation's capital.
Today, then, is another day of thanks. It is a privilege to breathe, to plan, to sit on the deck or dock or verandah or yacht, to ooh and aah at fireworks in the summer's night sky. But it is all the more a privilege to do these things freely, independently, without compulsion. We are free to celebrate today, or not. We are free to choose either bratwurst or burgers; beer or lemonade; ice cream or strawberry shortcake (or both). We are not behind bars; we are not under tyranny; we are not occupied.
Pray that it remains so. Pray to fight against those who would take it away. And pray, too, that Iraq someday will have its own national days of gratitude, without the vestiges of tyranny and compulsion forcing them to comply to the diktats of a few.
And pray that our country, the United States of America, not get so enamored of its gifts that it believes such gifts are entitlements, rights, or something far more idolatrous.
We are independent, and yet, paradoxically, our independence depends on whether we remember how tenuous independence is. If we forget that independence is a gift, we'll quickly find ourselves wishing we hadn't.
July 4, 1776. Remember why. Live free. Today. Tomorrow. Always.
Contratimes
September 11, 2001. Never forget.
©Bill Gnade 2005, 20o6/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Independence Day, Fourth of July, Liberal, Conservative, Gratitude, Iraq, Fireworks
Monday, July 03, 2006
Stomping Out For Jesus
While my announcement, "A Summer's Respite", is still in effect (in a very ineffective way), I could not resist a few comments after reading a series of posts at Daily Kos regarding patriotism and church. I bring to your attention the words of Radical Faith, who insists that his/her essay, Red, White and Blue Idolatry & Why I Walked out of Sunday Morning Service, is his/her first and most likely last essay at Daily Kos. One wonders. But I would encourage you to read the essay, and then read the first 12-15 comments (or so) that follow. None of this will take much time.
Let me begin by quoting Radical Faith:
Today I walked out of church about a third of the way through the service. A soloist was performing "God Bless the USA." I have always found that song to be especially cloying, but when I noticed it listed in the bulletin I decided to attempt to tolerate it. And I might have managed to do just that had not one or two individuals prompted the entire congregation to stand.
The irony is I've never once noticed the congregation being prompted to stand during a solo performance of a hymn or a choral anthem lauding the teachings and sacrifice of Christ. That says something about priorities, I suppose. [Emphasis added]
My first impression here is that this particular church-goer is either a novice or attends a thoroughly dead church. If we are to assume that this essay is about an evangelical church -- the allegedly most pro-American congregations -- then it utterly rings hollow: evangelicals stand all the time, for hymns, praise, prayer, the raising of hands. Some of us might even recall leaping from our seat (as children) to "Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus (Ye soldiers of the Cross)". That this writer even offers that this is a southern "UMC" (United Methodist Church?) in the comments thread suggests something dubious. "On fire" Christians stand for Christian hymnody -- and prayer and praise -- constantly.
But let me forgive and forget that small point.
I agree thoroughly that idolatry, whether it be that which invades Christian liturgy or that which swirls around us in any form whatsoever, is to be rebuffed and rebuked. At the very least, Christianity damns idols, or at least it should. Moreover, it is to be noted that the emphasis is on idolatry "in ANY form", irrespective of religion or political party. Idolatry is just plain bad (and I am willing to accept that many idols go undetected).
Now, let's turn to the song, God Bless The USA, that so offended our writer. Here are the lyrics from the 1984 song:
God Bless The U.S.A.
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
Let me begin by quoting Radical Faith:
Today I walked out of church about a third of the way through the service. A soloist was performing "God Bless the USA." I have always found that song to be especially cloying, but when I noticed it listed in the bulletin I decided to attempt to tolerate it. And I might have managed to do just that had not one or two individuals prompted the entire congregation to stand.
The irony is I've never once noticed the congregation being prompted to stand during a solo performance of a hymn or a choral anthem lauding the teachings and sacrifice of Christ. That says something about priorities, I suppose. [Emphasis added]
My first impression here is that this particular church-goer is either a novice or attends a thoroughly dead church. If we are to assume that this essay is about an evangelical church -- the allegedly most pro-American congregations -- then it utterly rings hollow: evangelicals stand all the time, for hymns, praise, prayer, the raising of hands. Some of us might even recall leaping from our seat (as children) to "Stand Up, Stand Up For Jesus (Ye soldiers of the Cross)". That this writer even offers that this is a southern "UMC" (United Methodist Church?) in the comments thread suggests something dubious. "On fire" Christians stand for Christian hymnody -- and prayer and praise -- constantly.
But let me forgive and forget that small point.
I agree thoroughly that idolatry, whether it be that which invades Christian liturgy or that which swirls around us in any form whatsoever, is to be rebuffed and rebuked. At the very least, Christianity damns idols, or at least it should. Moreover, it is to be noted that the emphasis is on idolatry "in ANY form", irrespective of religion or political party. Idolatry is just plain bad (and I am willing to accept that many idols go undetected).
Now, let's turn to the song, God Bless The USA, that so offended our writer. Here are the lyrics from the 1984 song:
God Bless The U.S.A.
by Lee Greenwood
If tomorrow all the things were gone,
I’d worked for all my life.
And I had to start again,
with just my children and my wife.
I’d thank my lucky stars,
to be livin here today.
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom,
and they can’t take that away.
And I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
From the lakes of Minnesota,
to the hills of Tennessee.
Across the plains of Texas,
From sea to shining sea.
From Detroit down to Houston,
and New York to L.A.
Well there's pride in every American heart,
and its time we stand and say.
That I’m proud to be an American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
And I’m proud to be and American,
where at least I know I’m free.
And I wont forget the men who died,
who gave that right to me.
And I gladly stand up,
next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain’t no doubt I love this land,
God bless the USA.
OK. Let's call it doggerel if we must. Let's call it adolescent sentiment. Let's call it trite. Let's even call it idolatry. But let us not do one thing, the very thing so many "fundamentalists" are accused of doing: Let us not take the song literally. Before I explain myself, let me quote Radical Faith again:
How could I in good conscience stand to embrace the lyrics "I'm proud to be an American" in the very same week we learned U.S. soldiers raped an Iraqi woman then murdered her and her family to cover up the crime? What spiritually unwise person planned this nonsense?
OK. Please note that Radical Faith has committed a small but thoroughly common intellectual crime: the writer has taken the lyrics literally and has projected on the singers such laughable things as naivete, blindness, over-zealousness. The writer attributes to the singers a thoroughly "my country right or wrong" sort of jingoism; the writer suggests that these folks are singing glibly about the "bad things", like rape and war, as if they were a good thing, an American thing. But no one is singing that way at all. For if these singers were indeed singing so uncritically, without a hint of wistfulness for an ideal to which America has not yet attained, then the writer must admit that the singers are thus left singing praises about America's wonders in total, like abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, doctor-assisted suicide, stem cell research, and the use of illegal narcotics. In short, if the congregation is idolizing America, it is idolizing things I suspect Radical Faith actually celebrates too.
If my meaning is not yet clear, let me put it this way: The congregation is not singing about America as is -- as if it is perfect. It is not singing the song literally; it is singing it as metaphor, as emblem, even as poetry. It is singing about what America can be, and has been; it is singing about having the freedom to hate or love America, and not just one or the other. It is singing about a country that is obese, or stupid, or wrong; and it is thanking the heavens that there is a country where people are free to be fat, dumb and wrong, and where they are free to change those things if they wish. No one in that congregation is dancing about, drunk with awe, that America has the nuclear bomb or gay rights or thin people: it is singing gratefully that there is a place on earth where someone is free to have -- or NOT have -- those things. This may be idolatry and it may be foolish; but one thing it isn't is abject literalism. In fact, the only literalist is the writer who walked out of the offending church.
But what is perhaps the most important thing to observe is the sort of intellectual hypocrisy of it all: the writer is looking for a church that has idols the writer can accept. For surely Radical Faith is looking for a church that has God's view of America; has God's view of politics and nations and social justice and even worship. Radical Faith is interested in a progressive church, which means one given to following the ideals of the Democratic Party as handed down to the disciples of Jesus Christ from the Lord Himself. The writer is looking for a church that has its "priorities" in order. The series of comments that follows Radical Faith's essay are telling and disappointing: they all point to churches that have conformed themselves to "progressive ideals". And if we accept that Jesus Christ Himself was the first or chief progressive, and that not only churches but political parties follow His powerful example, then we are forced to conclude that religious progressives have no qualms marrying religious ideals to the activities of state. The wall of separation is a good thing, as long as one faith keeps out all others.
It is easy to walk out of a church that holds to that sort of thing.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Daily Kos, Radical Faith, Lee Greenwood, Faith, Politics, Idolatry
Saturday, July 01, 2006
A Summer's Respite, Albeit A Brief One
I am truly sorry. But it is summer in New Hampshire, which means there is a weekend of warm sunshine that has fallen upon us. Sadly, I must report that there are other chores to do than write essays for Contratimes. I must be off here and there for a few days, no doubt running around pell-mell for who-knows-what. But I will return soon. I promise.In the meantime, you may want to tour some of the sites of my lovely friends listed in the right hand column of this page. Or, if you can't resist, you can always look at my essays from last year's Fourth of July weekend (which is a big holiday here in America -- the Fourth that is, not my essays). I particularly liked "Kneeling At The Corner Of Church And Liberty", though I was pleased with how "Dissenting Toward Deep Impact" finally turned out. Of course, the latter might leave you nonplussed by my comparison of deep space exploration -- The Deep Impact project -- with the collapse of the World Trade Center. But there is a point to be found there, and I think it is not only a clear one; it is an important one.
Enjoy your life away from here. Go play croquet; go drift lazily about on a tube on a lake. Look up and promise the sky that you will never again forget that blue.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)