Gay Rights

[Neonchameleon]

It is perhaps important and interesting to note, though, that the US branch of the Episcopalians voted to *allow* gay marriages days after the recent Supreme Court ruling.

I'm not sure whether it is or not; it depends on who is talking to whom. For individual Episcopalians and people dealing directly with them it is important - but for people dealing with Christians as a whole it comes under the heading of #NotAllChristians.

This is doubly true when (a) the point is that the Episcopalian Church is *no worse* than the majority of the country, only voting to allow what they could after it was already legal, (b) are part of the Anglican Communion as a whole and thus under the umbrella of the Anglican Communion.

Indeed I could go so far as to say the ECUSA is the exception that proves the rule. When Christians are being held up as good for simply matching up to mainstream society, something has gone deeply wrong with Christian ethics and identity.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure whether it is or not; it depends on who is talking to whom. For individual Episcopalians and people dealing directly with them it is important - but for people dealing with Christians as a whole it comes under the heading of #NotAllChristians.

Just to start with - note that I am not Episcopalian.

That out of the way - Oh, gods, please no hashtags! And, I think this constitutes an abuse of the concept.

"Not all men," is a problem as a knee-jerk response to the report of a problem, as it constitutes a deflection from discussion the problem to mollifying the feelings of one person who feels they are being unjustly targeted, shifting focus from the problem to the rights of the accused. That's not happening here.

On the flip side, it is important that those who are the victims of discrimination do not engage in negative stereotyping, because then the moral high ground is lost. The response to, "Not all men!" isn't, "Yes, all men!" But is instead, "Yes all *women*" - a refocusing on the problem, not on insisting on accusing all members of a demographic or group.

Moreover, when considering what to do with the problem, it is *vitally* important to examine where things are improving - if you want to work to getting Christianity to change, the examples of where it is changing are your natural first places to start analyzing the phenomenon of change. This is why I said it was interesting. Why did the US Episcopalians move when the rest did not? What makes them different? If we want change, we ought to find out.

This is doubly true when (a) the point is that the Episcopalian Church is *no worse* than the majority of the country, only voting to allow what they could after it was already legal,

That's not the whole story - in 2012, they authorized a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships, and discrimination against transgender persons in the ordination process was officially prohibited. So, it isn't exactly that they *only* moved when it was made legal. The Canadian branch had its commission meeting to revise their marriage canon to include same-sex marriage back in April 2014. And local Episcopalian Bishops have been supporting the move for some time - the Bishop of Chicago was a major proponent for his state to recognize same-sex marriage, for example.

Thus, we can see the organization has been moving (yes, more slowly than many want, but moving) in this direction for years. It looks rather much like the change in law was really just what allowed them to more quickly get where they were going anyway.

It is very common to characterize change in terms of "it isn't what I think there should be, so there is *nothing*", but that's not accurate. If we want to encourage motion, we need to know why some move, and others do not.

Indeed I could go so far as to say the ECUSA is the exception that proves the rule.

Yes, it does. In the original sense. You know how "Begging the question" doesn't originally mean, "Begs the question be asked". It means, "Assumes the answer of the question."

Well, "exception that proves the rule," doesn't originally mean, "exception that shows the rule to generally be true, by only being an exception." It means, "exception that *tests* the rule."

So, your rule is "Christian religions are homophobic." Fine. The US Episcopalians test that rule - they have been slowly moving towards inclusivity since the 1970s, even. When their precursors (Catholics and Anglicans) don't accept it, and other major organizations in the country don't accept it, why do they? They've been a bit ahead on other issues as well - ordination of female priests and bishops, for example.

One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason.

 

[painted_klown]

this demonstrates you are blinkered.

I am not sure what you are meaning by that, but I am aware that it's not positive. I did not call anyone names, and I would appreciate the same respect in turn.

When Christians are being held up as good for simply matching up to mainstream society, something has gone deeply wrong with Christian ethics and identity.

You are bashing on an entire religion, simply because you do not follow it. I did not come in this thread to bash on anyone, I came in with a message of love.

Trying to demean my religion is NOT helping your argument at all. It causes me to dismiss any points you are attempting to make as you are name calling and bashing...isn't that EXACTLY why you do not like Westboro? Are those tactics ok for you and not for them?

Not defending Westboro, just pointing out the obvious.

 

[Umbran]

I am not sure what you are meaning by that, but I am aware that it's not positive.

"Blinkered," is a term for a horse that is wearing blinders - shields by their eyes to narrow their field of view so they are not startled by things around them. He's saying that you don't see the full picture, essentially.

You are bashing on an entire religion, simply because you do not follow it.

Well, we don't know *why* he's saying things - we are not mind readers. But I feel a need to point out that "you don't follow" is not a motivation. Following sometimes provides people with motivations, but failing to follow does not. "If you are not with us, you are against us," is not generally true.

Not defending Westboro, just pointing out the obvious.

He's perhaps not as diplomatic as he might be, but is it bashing to point out their publicly acknowledged positions on the matter?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Just to start with - note that I am not Episcopalian.

That out of the way - Oh, gods, please no hashtags! And, I think this constitutes an abuse of the concept.

"Not all men," is a problem as a knee-jerk response to the report of a problem, as it constitutes a deflection from discussion the problem to mollifying the feelings of one person who feels they are being unjustly targeted, shifting focus from the problem to the rights of the accused. That's not happening here.

Yes it is. There are two textbook deflection replies to any comments about Christianity and homophobia. The first is "Not all Christians are Westboro Baptist Church" and the second, when it's pointed out just how much of mainstream Christianity preaches homophobia is "Stop bashing my religion".

It is #NotAllChristians. First using Westboro as the not all example and then the two-step into the feelings of Christians when it's pointed out how pervasive it is within mainstream contemporary Christianity. A pattern I've seen time and time again.

Exactly the way you are talking about.

Moreover, when considering what to do with the problem, it is *vitally* important to examine where things are improving - if you want to work to getting Christianity to change, the examples of where it is changing are your natural first places to start analyzing the phenomenon of change. This is why I said it was interesting. Why did the US Episcopalians move when the rest did not? What makes them different? If we want change, we ought to find out.

Fully focussing on that problem would take a whole book - I know because I'm literally procrastinating writing it while posting on ENWorld.

Why did the US Episcopalians move? What makes them different? Two things.

The first is listening to the membership and empowering the members to speak to themselves. One reason the (UK) Quakers are almost always among the fastest to move to the right side of any social issue is that the Quakers have their own holy book, Quaker Faith and Practice, that's both updated every ten years and updated with hopefully full discussion with the membership and basically boils down to a collection of things they've found useful and learned over the centuries. And all Quakers are theoretically equal at contributing.

The second reason is giving up on giving in to Conservative blackmail. Most liberal churches (the ECUSA among them) place a high value on Christian unity or at least denominational unity and this allows the Conservatives to threaten to leave and break communion if they actually change things for the better. In the case of the ECUSA the enforcers included Rowan Williams (yes, Anglicans, he may have looked fuzzy and talked like a liberal - but he always sided with those saying "Not Yet", no matter the theology of the situation). In 2009, the Conservatives finally did what they had been threatening to do for a long time. They formed the Anglican Church in North America. And threats like that have power only until they are used. (The Church in Nigeria for that matter had already broken communion with the ECUSA in 2003).

But. This leaves the elephant in the room.

If Christianity is morally good why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?

And the answer to that among English-speaking Evangelical Christianity can IMO be traced back to the First Great Awakening and the slave-owner and successful lobbyist for the expansion of slavery George Whitefield being the most influential preacher of the Great Awakening, and his preaching a form of Christianity that did its best to counter the abolitionists. But going through how this worked is what takes much of the book.

The Canadian branch had its commission meeting to revise their marriage canon to include same-sex marriage back in April 2014.

A mere nine years after it became legal in Canada... And of course if the ECUSA had been trying to be progressive, while worried about legality, they could have endorsed gay marriage in any state it was legal long before it was legal in the whole USA.

Yes, it does. In the original sense. You know how "Begging the question" doesn't originally mean, "Begs the question be asked". It means, "Assumes the answer of the question."

Well, "exception that proves the rule," doesn't originally mean, "exception that shows the rule to generally be true, by only being an exception." It means, "exception that *tests* the rule."

I do know that and that is how I used it.

Major mainstream denominations of Christianity are homophobic. Test case: the ECUSA. Is it a major denomination? Nope (although it seems to be heading that way). It's part of the Anglican Communion which is homophobic so it's not a denomination. Also it is backward even when compared to the legal system. The ECUSA is only a minimal part of the problem but it is still part of the problem.

So, your rule is "Christian religions are homophobic." Fine.

That is you putting words into my mouth. Indeed I explicitly mentioned the Quakers to demonstrate that not all forms of Christianity are homophobic.

The US Episcopalians test that rule - they have been slowly moving towards inclusivity since the 1970s, even.

Indeed. And they are doing so more slowly than the society they are a part of.

As for only legalising gay marriage after the law did, you are aware that the religious institution of marriage and the legal one are not the same? I went to an Anglican wedding the weekend before last that was not a legal one (and will need formalising at the registry office when his divorce paperwork clears). The Quakers have been holding religious marriages for gay couples in the UK since 1994.

When their precursors (Catholics and Anglicans) don't accept it, and other major organizations in the country don't accept it, why do they? They've been a bit ahead on other issues as well - ordination of female priests and bishops, for example.

The ECUSA ahead on ordination of female priests and bishops? Not really. To pick one example, the United Methodist Church has been ordaining priests since it was formed in 1968. For that matter if you want to see progressive on womens' ordination, John Wesley himself authorised female preachers starting in 1761 and not all the Methodists stopped after his death.

The first women ordained in the ECUSA were illicitly ordained in 1974 - deep into second wave feminism in the USA. The first actually legally ordained were in 1976.

And this is the point. The ECUSA only looks progressive when you put it against the backdrop of the Church of England (or the Roman Catholic Church). When you put it against a backdrop of American society as a whole it looks pretty close to the centre, held slightly back by its bedfellows within the CofE. A discussion within the ranks that mirrors the one within society, only endorsing things when they become mainstream.

One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason.

Hooker's Tripod I'm afraid works within the CofE as well as the ECUSA. So it can't be that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If Christianity is morally good why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?

..."on this issue" are the words missing from this sentence, and they matter.

If you look at any major faith tradition or philosophy, you'll probably find some points of incongruity between them and the cultures in which they are most prevalent.

Why?

Because humans.

Codified rules only change as fast as the people in charge of changing them. Societies are more fluid. Rules set a baseline against which we compare actual and normative behavior. Then we either conform to the rules, or change the rules to conform to us.

However, people also interpret rules differently because rules are just words, and- as was recognized in "Stairway to Heaven"- sometimes words have two meanings. Just looking at Christianity, add in the inevitable introduction of error due to translation from Greek, Aramaic, and Latin into English and other languages, coupled with removal of the context of an agrarian society to a modern post-industrial world 2000 years down the road?

Well, its hard to keep on the moral path.

Ghandi famously noted he loved out Christ, but didn't so much appreciate Chtistians...and that's why. Who among us actually lives up to the ideal Christ set down? I think the next one will be the first.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

One possibility is that, in contrast to the fairly strict "tradition and Papal authority" of the Catholic church, or the primacy of scripture of American Evangelical traditions, the US Episcopalians claim a triad of sources of authority - scripture, tradition, and reason.

Actually, it is forgotten even by many Catholics, but even St. Augustine taught that faith cannot be used as a reason to deny what can be proven by logic and reason. To use the language used upthread, logic and reason test our faith. If faith is leading you to reject the evidence of science and reason, you need to reexamine your faith, because both come from the same divine source, and cannot be in conflict with each other.

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/ar...nfessions-and-the-harmony-of-faith-and-reason

 

[Neonchameleon]

..."on this issue" are the words missing from this sentence, and they matter.

True. But only if you add "and on so many others from slavery to civil rights to contraception." (Just to pick some amazingly obvious ones). And even on economics the Christian record is incredibly mixed despite some pretty blatant comments by Jesus. (I used to think "The poor shall always be with you was not meant to be a mission statement" was dark satire until I read someone using that passage of the Bible to oppose social safety nets - second only to the hopefully apocryphal "Now let us thank God we are like the tax collector").

However, people also interpret rules differently because rules are just words, and- as was recognized in "Stairway to Heaven"- sometimes words have two meanings. Just looking at Christianity, add in the inevitable introduction of error due to translation from Greek, Aramaic, and Latin into English and other languages, coupled with removal of the context of an agrarian society to a modern post-industrial world 2000 years down the road?

And finally add in the ideological underpinnings and dubious translations of one of the most popular versions of the Bible...

 

[Umbran]

It is #NotAllChristians. First using Westboro as the not all example and then the two-step into the feelings of Christians when it's pointed out how pervasive it is within mainstream contemporary Christianity. A pattern I've seen time and time again.

And humans are never, ever deceived by what the perceive to be a pattern? Since I fit the pattern, you have decided my motivation. Unfortunately, you are incorrect in this case.

I will make this request only once - please stop telling me why I say things. Don't make Charisma your dump stat.

Why did the US Episcopalians move? What makes them different? Two things.

The first is listening to the membership and empowering the members to speak to themselves.

...snip...

The second reason is giving up on giving in to Conservative blackmail.

That tells us *how* they came to change, but doesn't tell us *why* they changed. Why is the ECUSA "liberal", while the CoE is more "conservative"? I'm asking about root cause, here.

If Christianity is morally good why are almost all branches of Christianity behind rather than ahead of the enviroments they come from?

Oh, well, that's simple. I reject the premise. Christianity isn't morally good.

I make a distinction here - in this context "Christianity" is a collection of religious organizations. Organizations are tools - they have no innate moral character, and are neither evil nor good in and of themselves. Good only comes from how people use the tool. History has shown us over and over that the organizations have been used in morally questionable ways, and/or for morally questionable ends, because the people who used them were not exemplary themselves.

Moreover, large organizations are powerful, but typically slow and clumsy tools, They have inertia, especially when their definition is partly based on following tradition. We would expect them to generally lag behind the environments they come from. It may well be that the organization *must* lag behind the environment - organizations don't lead. Individuals lead. We may be seeing this with the Catholic Church now, with Pope Francis. It is very clearly he who is leading, not the church as a whole.

Hooker's Tripod I'm afraid works within the CofE as well as the ECUSA. So it can't be that.

As Danny has noted - many Catholics do not know their Augustine. Perhaps in the CofE, it is given lip service more than actual practice? Then, why? What's the difference between the organizations?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

More importantly, most people in organizations do what they're told. In the context of religion, this means that even if someone reads the holy texts of one's faith, they're more likely to follow the textual interpretations taught by religious educators or what they hear from the preachers in the pulpit rather than their own judgement.

There is good reason for this- those people tend to have more formal education in the text than Joe Believer, but that still means there are additional layers of human thought between the divine and the believer.

Add to that the known psychosocial dynamics of group pressure. If not only your learned cleric but also the vast majority of the faithful say that to be a member of a given faith means you must believe in ________ doctrine...

That is difficult psychological territory to then not follow the doctrine.