Doxos

ARGH.

THINGS THAT MAKE You want to be an atheist…

1) I do, really, believe there is a right way to do CHristianity and a wrong way to do it.

2) I do, really, believe that this right and wrong has little to do with “doctrine” per se (iota sized technicalities about begetting and essence and accident and que) and much to do with practice (do justice, love mercy, pray for enemies, forgive, etc).

3) I do, really, believe that Christianity is judgmental in the first-person only. I am the only sinner I’ll ever know, all others are to be Christ to me.

4) I do, really, believe that Christianity is communal. None of the above is possible without a community: iron sharpens iron, rocks tumble in the river, sharpened edges grind down and we are saved together or not at all.

5) I do, really, believe that “saved” has to do with all of the above. “Heaven” or “Afterlife” or “Pie in the Sky” is unimportant in this equation: if you think there is a “Heaven” why not make that lifestyle present here, now, always. If it’s around in the sky, that’s just a cool bonus.

6) I do, really, believe that right worship is found in a community that is “doing it right” and – at the same time – Traditional, “high church”, etc. Montesorri Grade School silliness is not church, not worship: it is me-oriented, not God-oriented. It prevents “Doing it right” because being me-oriented in worship results in being me-oriented in the world. Being God-oriented in worship results in being God-oriented (ie, my neighbour) in the world.

Finally, because of Number 6, my experience is that numbers one through five need the traditional God-doctrines of Christianity to work. Trinity, Church and Eucharist are the only ways this unity-in-diversity works at all. THerefore,

7) I do, really, believe that persons who (without the above in mind) can be called doctrinally devout Christians have come to differing conclusions on the issue of human sexuality. My experience has been that persons who agree Trinity, Church and Eucharist can (with the above in mind) actually worship together in peace.

I do, really, believe that’s the Kingdom of God on earth, taking over the world, destroying the systems of evil that man puts up and replacing it with Love.

Having said all that… news that the State-Ratified Gay Genocide Bill to Be Enforced in Orthodox Churches, Warns Archbishop Jonah of Kampala and All Uganda (Catholic and Anglican Leaders Threaten Likewise) coupled with the near total silence of global religious leaders (Canterbury, the Pope, Constantinople, Russia, and almost all American preachers and Denominational leaders across the spectrum) makes me wonder why the hell Jesus ever bothered to care about us at all and makes me wonder why the hell I should bother because it is clear that the man failed.

If this doesn’t make you know the Church is not infallible, nothing will. (And those of you who want to quibble about doctrine can go stuff it. Siding with the state – or anyone – in hate and genocide is not time for playing that “when she’s wrong, she’s not the Church” shell game.)

ECUSA elected a Gay Bishop last weekend, btw, and all those who are silent about hate launched into some SERIOUS hate very quickly about that…

UPDATE: Fr Peter responds in grace and love and keeping to the traditional teachings of his church. Amen!

Update (2) Rick Warren does the right thing

UPDATE (3) Rod’s on board.

Update (4) The Vatican Chimes in today as well. They hedge their bets but that’s ok: I didn’t expect *anyone* to say “Gay is Good”. I just don’t want gays dead… and I don’t want to feel that giving my money to the local Greek church or Agnlican congregation (or Rick Warren book purchase) will, ultimately, support the holocaust against gays in Africa.

10 Responses to “ARGH.”

Chris Jones
December 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

I have a hard time believing that an Orthodox bishop would support this despicable legislation. In following the links from blog to blog to actual news coverage, I don’t find an actual quote from the Archbishop nor any corroboration that the bill is “to be enforced in Orthodox Churches” (since when has the Orthodox Church been “enforcing” laws anyway?).

If homosexual behaviour is a sin then it is the business of the Church to call sinners to repentance, not to help the State to punish them. And there can be no repentance after a person has been put to death. There is a hard-and-fast line between the Church’s ministry of reconciliation and the State’s role of punishment; one need look no farther than the seal of the confessional to see that.

If indeed the Archbishop supports this legislation and purports to help “enforce” it then he is not only hateful but also heterodox.

Huw
December 10th, 2009 at 8:38 pm

I agree with your description of the process of curing or healing or whatever…

But I note that really none of the churches except the Anglicans in Uganda have a website. It’s *entirely* possible that the Newspaper (being run by pro-gov’t forces) made the whole thing up. But there are no quotes from anyone else, either.

The gov’t is suggesting a slow backing away from the legislation out of one side of its mouth whilst pushing it forward from the other side. And they are being guided by American evangelicals such as the “Family (sic) Research (sic) Council” and various American preachers. Notably, the law provides for hefty punishments for those who “counsel” homosexuals. My guess is that would include clergy who want to follow the patristic path of curing the sinner instead of the protestant path of beating him up.

But this is Uganda: the heavy ties of the Evangelical Anglicans there and in the USA – and both together with the “Manhattan Declaration” are not to be discounted. Jonah of the USA has signed that document as has Bishop Basil of the Antiochians. My former pastor is offering links for folks to sign it on his blog.

We are surrounded by supporters (in fact, if not their minds) of this “despicable legislation”.

Chris Jones
December 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

There is nothing in the Manhattan Declaration that supports the persecution of homosexuals nor that advocates therapy to “cure” homosexuals by turning them into heterosexuals. It is instead a straightforward statement of the traditional Christian teaching on marriage and human sexuality (which does not involve or require persecution or “reparative therapy”). To link the Declaration to the sort of active homophobia represented by the Ugandan legislation is an intellectually sloppy attempt at guilt by association.

It is perfectly possible to uphold the Christian teaching without participating in or condoning persecution, as you yourself acknowledge that Fr Preble has done. I am not denying that there are some traditionalists who do demonize homosexuals, and it may well be that some of those might be found among the signers of the Declaration. But the Declaration itself does no such thing, and having one’s signature on the Declaration is not prima facia evidence of homophobia.

FWIW I have not signed the Declaration and I don’t intend to.

Huw
December 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

There is nothing about killing gays. You’re right: in fact, I rather like the first and last statements in the MD. The middle one, however, claims that the church has a special right to be defended in her teaching by the civil law.

Last I heard, demanding special rights was what *I’m* supposed to be doing.

The MD is nothing short (in the gay section, anyway) to the Church asking not only for the right to her teachings but for the right to insist that everyone else in the society has to follow her teachings just to make her feel better.

And while the second section recognises that others “might disagree” or “might feel their relationships to be marital”, it is the Church’s teachings that must be defended by law.

And it’s coming from the same folks as were (until a few hours ago) supporting the Ugandans in droves. This latter coalition, however, seems to be falling apart.

Mind you: I think the main problem with the Ugandan thing is that the Churches there are expecting the Gov’t to back their (mistaken, warped) understanding of scripture and judgement for sin and the Gov’t is taking that into their own (near fascist) desire to be rid of their colonial past. This two-headed dog is guarding the gates of a theocratic hell. Why? Because Christians like to suck up to powerful gov’t.

And when the gov’t ignores them – they like to throw a three year old’s hissy fit on the floor in front of the company to get attention. Why ++Jonah (USA) and +Basil feel they need to saddle up with the likes of Chuck Colson, the IRD, et al is beyond me. And why ++Jonah (Ug) feels the need to saddle up with the likes of ++Henry Orombi and his American IRD financial Backers is equally beyond me.

Chris Jones
December 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pm

The middle [statement], however, claims that the church has a special right to be defended in her teaching by the civil law.

So it might appear, but on closer examination I think it is not so.

I think perhaps the language of the Declaration that you object to is this:

Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good.

It is true that this sentence claims that heterosexual marriage ought to be defended by law. But it bases that claim not on Christian revelation but on “objective reality.” The claim is that marriage is a core part of human nature, and that this fact can be learned simply by observing nature, without recourse to divine revelation. One may argue with this claim, but one cannot say that it is an attempt to privilege the specifically religious teachings of a particular religion.

I think it is true that marriage was not and is not created by law. Instead it is an enduring social phenomenon which the law recognizes and regulates as a pre-existing reality. I am not sure that homosexual marriage exists in the same way that heterosexual marriage exists, and has always existed, with or without laws to regulate it. The way forward, in my view, for homosexual marriage is for it to be demonstrated that it is an existing and enduring social reality that the law must take cognizance of (as the law has had to take cognizance of heterosexual marriage). If that objective reality cannot be demonstrated then any new type of marriage created by law cannot last.

Huw
December 10th, 2009 at 11:53 pm

If one denies that claim – that it is an objective reality – then they are, exactly… demanding special rights.

The issue here in marriage is not the religious definition of it. The state grants – de feacto and de jure – a whole set of rights to married persons and denies these rights to other persons. If the state wishes to take this stand, it must do so on a secular basis only.

It is conventient that the “natural law” is always just what the churches want it to be. But there is no natural law. That’s a medieval invention we’d do well to let go of.

There is human culture and it changes: communal/tribal families, polygamist structures, non-familial hunter-gatherer tribes, animals (including humans) that are monogamous or not… and, in some cases homosexual pairings.

But I see no evidence of a natural law.

Feel free to admit we’re going to disagree from this point on.

POint 2 on The Manhattan declaration is churches asking – simply – for the right to be anti-gay bigots. Period.

And to have laws enforcing that prejudice on the rest of society simply to make the churches feel comfortable.