Drawing the Line
My good friend Moderate responded very thoughtfully to my comments to him in which foxhole to die in with the question on where to draw the line in the current debate. Several very significant points are made and I wish to take them one by one.
He writes in his first paragraph:
I understand (I think) what you are attempting to suggest. In essence, you wish to say that we will grant you some latitude in sexuality, but we will hold firm with Christology, soteriology, and other aspects of creedal orthodoxy. Indeed, it is a tempting option. (And, like you, I have friends that fit into that category.) But this raises several issues itself.
First, orthodoxy entails an entire hermeneutic and theological vision, not just discrete doctrines bundled together. My concern has been that in order to get me to a place where the revisionists want me I have to employ a theological method that is actually corrosive of the very orthodoxy I seek to affirm. That was the point of my post “are we wrong?” This is not to say that there are some very wonderful Christians who hold to this position, but I still maintain that the unintended consequences for the church will be devastating.
Second, let us grant for the sake of argument that we will draw the line “after homosexuality.” Now we have to raise the slippery slope question. Where do we draw the line? I remember that Fleming Rutledge gave what she intended as an orthodox and irenic address after General Convention ’03 trying to moderate in just the ways that you would. Her suggestion was (as I remember it, and I do apologize if I misrepresent her) that we would continue to hold up heterosexual marriage as normative for Christian sexual existence, but for pastoral reasons tolerate (my word here, I don’t remember hers) gay and lesbian relationships within the church without making them equal with marriage. Blessings of gay couples would be understated affairs, perhaps in the pastor’s office, with no language suggesting that they are married. But neither would there be discrimination against gay and lesbian people in parish life.
It is a noble attempt to draw a line, but one that cannot satisfy those with same-sex attraction. A sort of Plessy vs. Ferguson approach.
On the other hand, we have folks like the MCC (and compatriots in ECUSA) who suggest that there is more than one way to understand “faithful, lifelong relationship.” That is, that genital exclusivity is not intrinsic to monogamy, but refers to emotional honesty and intergrity. As evidence let me present this comment from a review of a book on same sex unions by Presbyterian ethicist Marvin Ellison:
He writes in his first paragraph:
Of course my quote intended to question whether or not it is possible to draw
the line after homosexuality somewhere. As I said I know at least two folks who
are orthodox in every respect but happen to be gay. Both are desperately seeking
a way to reconcile their beliefs (even beliefs on the sanctity of traditional
marriage and its relation to the Christ's love for the Church) with their sexual
orientation. I would love to find such a reconciliation, but cannot, leaving my
friends and me in a difficult spot.
I understand (I think) what you are attempting to suggest. In essence, you wish to say that we will grant you some latitude in sexuality, but we will hold firm with Christology, soteriology, and other aspects of creedal orthodoxy. Indeed, it is a tempting option. (And, like you, I have friends that fit into that category.) But this raises several issues itself.
First, orthodoxy entails an entire hermeneutic and theological vision, not just discrete doctrines bundled together. My concern has been that in order to get me to a place where the revisionists want me I have to employ a theological method that is actually corrosive of the very orthodoxy I seek to affirm. That was the point of my post “are we wrong?” This is not to say that there are some very wonderful Christians who hold to this position, but I still maintain that the unintended consequences for the church will be devastating.
Second, let us grant for the sake of argument that we will draw the line “after homosexuality.” Now we have to raise the slippery slope question. Where do we draw the line? I remember that Fleming Rutledge gave what she intended as an orthodox and irenic address after General Convention ’03 trying to moderate in just the ways that you would. Her suggestion was (as I remember it, and I do apologize if I misrepresent her) that we would continue to hold up heterosexual marriage as normative for Christian sexual existence, but for pastoral reasons tolerate (my word here, I don’t remember hers) gay and lesbian relationships within the church without making them equal with marriage. Blessings of gay couples would be understated affairs, perhaps in the pastor’s office, with no language suggesting that they are married. But neither would there be discrimination against gay and lesbian people in parish life.
It is a noble attempt to draw a line, but one that cannot satisfy those with same-sex attraction. A sort of Plessy vs. Ferguson approach.
On the other hand, we have folks like the MCC (and compatriots in ECUSA) who suggest that there is more than one way to understand “faithful, lifelong relationship.” That is, that genital exclusivity is not intrinsic to monogamy, but refers to emotional honesty and intergrity. As evidence let me present this comment from a review of a book on same sex unions by Presbyterian ethicist Marvin Ellison:
He thinks “a lively debate is needed,” for instance, on whether marriage
should
now be redefined to recognize “polyamorous” people, those involved
with
“multiple partners.”
He wonders, “How exactly does the
number of
partners affect the moral quality of a relationship? … Could it be
that limiting
intimate partnerships to only two people at a time is no
guarantee of avoiding
exploitation?”
Besides pondering marriage
for bisexuals, he protests that the narrowly “bipolar” definition of marriage
excludes “intersexuality, transgenderism, transsexuality and other sexualities.”
posted by peregrinator at 2:49 PM
2 Comments:
I should of course wait for you to continue as you say you will.
You are correct in your understanding that a part of me desperately wishes there were a way to draw such a line as you suggest. I made that new line a nebulous suggestion when in fact I think any line should be more specific than you imply, that same sex couples be held to the same traditional standards as heterosexual ones (monogamy, marriage, counseling, etc... Which of course means a line drawn before Mr. Ellison). The Rutledge suggestion is indeed an attractive one in that sense.
You also must realize that your Plessy v. Ferguson suggestion is a provocative one (in the same way my often used Civil War analogy is, i.e. that I feel like it is 1861 and I'm in Maryland, sympathetic to the Cause but surrounded by Federal forces and otherwise unready to secede). For the ultimate solution to the injustice of "separate but equal" was integration. If Rutledge is such a compromise, then to deny homosexuality entirely is tantamount to telling Mr. Plessy he could not ride the train at all. I realize this is not what you intended with the analogy but the question is still raised.
I also wish it to be stated that I said in my original post that I cannot at this time draw such a line, for the very reasons you cite (though I think those reasons bear further discussion, particularly with regard to ways in which the revisionist hermeneutical changes are "corrosive"). But it still aches my heart that I cannot do so.
I look forward to your comments on some of my other questions, mainly regarding where the line is to be drawn then and what our pastoral response is then to be.
The reference to Plessy v. Ferguson is problematic, and was chosen deliberately to make myself uncomfortable. I am very tempted by Rutledge's attempt. It is a temptation to smuggly say "look, I'm orthodox and pastoral!"
Frankly, I think she may be on to something. But her perspective is not without problematic political undertones.
Post a Comment
<< Home