"Rites Matter." [UPDATED AGAIN]

*Christopher and C., members of a Benedictine lay community, are bound in a Christian rite of "holy Fratrimony," at Bending the Rule. People of many denominations are so moved by the liturgy he and friends put together that they ask him to officiate, and *Christopher contemplates a new calling.

I guess quite a few people would read of this beautiful commitment blessing -- yep, gay marriage -- and recoil in horror. I think they're weird.

UPDATE: Sure enough, the confident condemnation and superior sorrow this post attracted in the Comments make me feel sad and ill and scared. (And I'm not even gay.) If this is Christianity, then it is definitely not for me. Too bad, because Jesus was very compelling. (And he said, as I recall, exactly nothing on this subject.)

*Christopher and C. aren't "anything goes" people. They are trying to discipline their love and join it to the love of God, which is all any human could hope to be capable of, unless you believe celibacy is the highest calling. We live now, and part of the work and understanding of now is not to reject or despise the living world but to uplift and transfigure it. I'm sorry, but that you could take a book written by humans thousands of years ago -- temporally conditioned and dimly divinely inspired, as all such things come to us through a glass darkly -- and be dead sure that it expresses the mind of God for all time, to my mind reveals only a desperate need for an impossible certainty.

UPDATE II: I'll let Alan Stewart Carl have the last word in this comment at Donklephant:

As a practicing Episcopalian, I’m quite satisfied with my denomination’s more open view of homosexuality and don’t see it as “taking risks” with my spiritual life. We’re not Catholics and don’t interpret the Bible with nearly as much textual literalism. Nor do we feel obliged to continue bigotry simply because it is “traditional.”

I do not believe there is any moral relativism in adhearing to Jesus’ many commands to live with open arms and open hearts. And there is no arrogance in admitting that there are laws in the Bible that no one, not even fundamentalists, follow. There is, I think, a degree of moral relativism in cherry-picking the prohibition against homosexuality while ignoring other prohibitions that are as harshly worded. The multi-fibered clothes is a good example. But I also point to Jesus’ many warnings against acquiring excessive wealth and lending money with interest. Jesus said nothing of homosexuality. How is this any less “moral relativism” than the willingness to accept homosexuality?

I could go on and on. Biblical history and interpretation is a bit of a hobby of mine. But I will just end by saying homosexuality is much more a cultural issue than a Biblical one. Using the Bible to declare homosexuality a “sin” is just a trick to give a bigoted opinion moral weight. But, in my opinion, it simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

What he said.

Comments

[Funky Dung]

Benedict would certainly be horrified. I don't blame him.

[amba]

Funky, I hope that you have read, or will read, the post and some others on Regula before you rush to judgment.

[Funky Dung]

I looked at the post, though I did not read it in depth. I certainly do not believe that anyone in the Body of Christ should offer any kind of blessing for gay unions/marriages.

Was there something in particular you wanted me to see? Feel free email me if you think this conversation might not be fruitful or edifying to your readers.

[carla]

Churches seem to spend so much time clucking their tongues and wagging fingers in faces--its refreshing to see one actually bless a union of two people that want to live their lives together.

I've no idea if Benedict would find this particular blessing a horror. But if he did..he'd be wrong.

If more people spent their days contemplating ways to bring society together rather than wedging it apart we wouldn't have a President and his entourage flying into a war zone that we created for no reason.

[karen]

I don't recoil in horror- i just feel a deep sadness. It's not because i'm disgusted about homosexuality- to each his own, i say. But, when clothed in the Sacramental aspect of the Church- it's blasphemous.

We so called Christians should be putting the pleasure of the Lord and all that is Good in His eyes- as 1st. We come second.

I do wish C&C all the best, but i still have to agree w/Funky- Benedict is not honoured by this usage of prayer and Rite. It goes against all he believed.

[amba]

Hello -- please show me where Jesus said anything about homosexuality..

[amba]

Funky -- we could have this conversation again, but it may not be necessary as it's all been said over and over, on both sides, and they are irreconcilable.

I do not know which comes first in certain Christians -- their visceral revulsion at homosexuality or their fidelity to the Bible. I do know the two form a compound that is more authoritatively virulent than either one alone would be.

[Funky Dung]

"We live now, and part of the work and understanding of now is not to reject or despise the living world but to uplift and transfigure it."

Actually, I quite agree with you. However, I do not believe that embracing and blessing homosexuality is a valid means of uplifting and transfiguring the world. I do not reject or despise gays any more than I reject or despise blind people, deaf people, kleptomaniacs, manic-depressives, cancer patients, or anyone else afflicted with a disorder.

"I'm sorry, but that you could take a book written by humans thousands of years ago -- temporally conditioned and dimly divinely inspired, as all such things come to us through a glass darkly -- and be dead sure that it expresses the mind of God for all time, to my mind reveals only a desperate need for an impossible certainty."

"Dimly divinely inspired" is obviously a prerequisite to your religious opinions, and one I do not share. It's somewhat moot, though, because I'm far more convinced that active homosexuality (as opposed to the mere inclination) is wrong based on natural law and the personalistic writings of John Paul II than the bare Scripture texts.

[karen]

Just because God loves us doesn't mean He's gonna bless us when we feel so compelled to do as we wish.

The Bible may have been written so many thousands of years ago and i don't really try to portray myself as any kind of expert- or all that knowledgeable in any way, but i know there are verses that speak of homosexuality- and then, as w/intentional abortion(of which the Bible fails to mention) i don't believe the Bible condones that act, either. It's the Book of Life, eh?

I believe in absolutes and for some reason-conditioning probably being one of them, yeah- i don't believe these unions should be/are consecrated before the Lord.

I admire the Faith of these men. It does seem, though- that they are trying to worship at two alters. Hey- that's just me(the Christian that makes most puke, i guess). I see it as contrary to the ways of the Lord- not complimentary.

[amba]

Funky -- hmmm, natural law means genitalia were designed for male-female reproduction. But in nature animals use them for other purposes as well, including dominance and aggression, or as a social, er, lubricant.

I suppose that's because Adam disobeyed, right? Before that everything went off as planned?

I would be interested (genuinely) to know which writings of John Paul II you're referring to.

My question: why would God make people in such a way that they were forbidden to love whom they love? To torture them? Because it certainly does seem that some homosexuals are born that way, and are aware of their difference from a very early age.

Most human behaviors have multiple determinants, and I would agree that not all homosexuality is inborn -- some of it is situational, as in prisons; or an imprinting on early molestation or seduction; or a flight from trauma -- I think some lesbians, for instance, are seeking refuge from men because males have brutalized them. But the key word is some. All the evidence points to some people simply loving their own sex. (And as for natural law, some animals and birds pair off homosexually as well.) So did God make these people only to torture and deprive them? Some God.

[amba]

Made in our own image, I'm afraid.

[Funky Dung]

"I would be interested (genuinely) to know which writings of John Paul II you're referring to."

Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body.

"My question: why would God make people in such a way that they were forbidden to love whom they love? To torture them? Because it certainly does seem that some homosexuals are born that way, and are aware of their difference from a very early age."

I can't answer that question any more than I can explain why some people are born conjoined to a twin, with missing or deformed limbs, or afflicted with diseases/disorders like diabetes, cerebral palsy, and downs syndrome. The issue at the root of all this is the problem of pain/evil. I'm not competent to address this topic, but I can recommend C.S. Lewis' The Problem of Pain as a place to start.

"Most human behaviors have multiple determinants, and I would agree that not all homosexuality is inborn -- some of it is situational, as in prisons; or an imprinting on early molestation or seduction; or a flight from trauma"

I often wonder why homosexuality is treated like just another normal expression of human diversity. Regardless of pathology, I believe that homosexuality is a disorder to be treated, not a human right to be defended. Gays should be treated with love, dignity, and respect, just as any human being should, but that does not mean that their behavior must be tolerated, encouraged, and/or blessed.

I have an intellectual exercise for you. Suppose that both pedophilia and homosexuality could be cured with a new medical procedure. Would the treatment of the latter be received as well as treatment of the former? Few would argue that curing pedophiles would be a violation of their civil rights or human dignity. I wonder, though, if cured homosexuals would be regarded by gays as some deaf people regard those among them who receive cochlear implants, i.e., as traitors and outcasts.

Where do we draw the line between mal- or dysfunction and acceptable human diveristy? I don't claim to have a clear answer to that question, but I think it's an important one to ask if one is to seriously debate the acceptability of homosexuality.

[Tom Strong]

I often wonder why homosexuality is treated like just another normal expression of human diversity.

Because, unlike every other pathology that can be listed off, homosexuality is benign. It is harmful to the individual only on the basis of their ability to procreate - and even then, not so much. The same could be said of being short, for males anyway.

And it is not God who tortures the homosexual - homosexual animals are, as far as we can tell, perfectly happy in nature - but society. Particularly those societies which refuse to accept homosexuals as full members.

[Tom Strong]

Just because God loves us doesn't mean He's gonna bless us when we feel so compelled to do as we wish.

Karen, love itself is a blessing. As someone who has clearly felt a lot of love in her life, you know that. Who are you to say that that love does not come directly from God?

[Funky Dung]

"Hello -- please show me where Jesus said anything about homosexuality.."

I have always taken Matthew 19:12 as a reference to homosexuals and others who must live celibate lives. Besides, no first century Jew would have considered acceptance of homosexuality to be a matter open for discussion or debate. Jesus did not speak exhaustively about God's commandments, and those regarding homosexual acts were not in question so they were not addressed (or at least not recorded by the evangelists).

[amba]

Funky --

If homosexuality appears in many animal populations in some percentage of the population, who are we to say authoritatively that it's always a "disorder"? Maybe it serves some purpose, or is a side effect of something else that serves a purpose.

[karen]

I may be in trouble here, but i believe it's a side effect of something else that serves a purpose. I say this because i've watched my cows ~hump~ eachother when in heat and this signals our knowing when to breed that cow. Sometimes she's the one on top, sometimes on the bottom- ya gotta know which ;^).

All love is not expressed physically. When i was little, i was very physical. I used to climb into any man's lap available (issues). A priest broke me of that habit (funny, eh?) by putting me back on my feet. It wasn't an acceptable way to show my affection.

I tried this in later years as well, figuratively- and i had no one inclined to teach me a lesson for my own good- so i learned the hard way that love is a fickle thing.

What happens if two people love eachother, but they are married to other people? Do they uphold vows taken or give in to love.

I don't think all love is so good, sometimes and i believe that evil can masquerade as good- devil's disguise. I won't go so far as to say that's what this is- I know this is love. Do i have to accept it a a Blessing to be a ~good~ Christian?

I don't believe God tortures or deprives- He tests us. We can't have all the things we want and sometimes we want for the very things we need. If we can humble ourselves to ask, maybe it will be given to us. We have to adjust our boundries to fit into God- not the other way around. It sucks sometimes. It's sacrificial.

[karen]

I may be in trouble here, but i believe it's a side effect of something else that serves a purpose. I say this because i've watched my cows ~hump~ eachother when in heat and this signals our knowing when to breed that cow. Sometimes she's the one on top, sometimes on the bottom- ya gotta know which ;^).

All love is not expressed physically. When i was little, i was very physical. I used to climb into any man's lap available (issues). A priest broke me of that habit (funny, eh?) by putting me back on my feet. It wasn't an acceptable way to show my affection.

I tried this in later years as well, figuratively- and i had no one inclined to teach me a lesson for my own good- so i learned the hard way that love is a fickle thing.

What happens if two people love eachother, but they are married to other people? Do they uphold vows taken or give in to love.

I don't think all love is so good, sometimes and i believe that evil can masquerade as good- devil's disguise. I won't go so far as to say that's what this is- I know this is love. Do i have to accept it a a Blessing to be a ~good~ Christian?

I don't believe God tortures or deprives- He tests us. We can't have all the things we want and sometimes we want for the very things we need. If we can humble ourselves to ask, maybe it will be given to us. We have to adjust our boundries to fit into God- not the other way around. It sucks sometimes. It's sacrificial.

[karen]

I'm sorry for the double post :0(

[*Christopher]

amba,

If this is Christianity, then it is definitely not for me. Too bad, because Jesus was very compelling.

If this all Christianity were I would have to say I agree with you. I won't respond to the comments here, as I've been through that cycle yet and again, and no matter what I do or don't do, say or don't say no convincing is possible. Rather I can offer the hope that God is doing in our own lives and in the lives of lgbt Christians and be there to guide them through as they offer themselves to one another in the sight of God and before the Church gathered. Minister or no minister, priest or no priest, pastor or no pastor, we can live into the place of graciousness God has already prepared for us as his queer children.

What I can say is that C and I are also the face of Christianity. As I understand theology, the Church does not bless, God does and that is shown in human flourishing, for it comes from God's blessing of goodness upon all of Creation from the beginning. The Church witnesses to what God does in human lives that shows forth signs of God's graciousness in love, fidelity, mercy, kindness, compassion, gentleness, patience, courage...

Much of the vitriol comes from a deep understanding that God has it out for folks or that grace is limited, and we project our fears onto others. Katie Sherrod, using James Alison's theological approach, writes excellently on this.

As one of the hymns begins that we used in the rite: "Where charity and love prevail, there God is."

pax
*Christopher

[Squat]

Please allow me to preface my comment with a story.
There was a man who was married for 33 yrs. During this time he and his wife had two children. After 33 (apparently happy)yrs of marrage this man decided to be true to himself and left his wife and family for another man.
This relationship didn't work out for him and he came crawling back to his family who welcomed him back with open arms and no questions asked. About 10 yrs later, after the children moved out, he ran away again to be with another man. This relationship also fell through and he came back again, but the arms that welcomed him back were not so open and this time there were questions.
Some of you may say, "Good for him! He needs to be true to himself and his family will be fine without him."
I however can not say this. This man was and is my father. It has torn our family apart. He is still my father and I do love him, but I have lost all respect for him. I try to reach out to him but he doesn't return my calls. He has all but broken off contact. Looking back at my youth, he has left me little but broken promises.
Now for the comment:
Christ calls us to love each other. This is the love all men and women should have for each other. This is the love I have for my father, my priest, my neighbor, and every other human on the planet.
We are also called to love God. Some are called to love Him through others in by getting married. Others are called to love Him through others through celibacy (ie. priest). In either case we are sharing in Gods love. It is a self-donative love. This is the love I have for my wife and children. I am being an icon of Christ for them to bring them closer to Him.
This is not the "love" homosexuals have. Their "love" is based on selfishness and "I'll do what feels good" mentality. At least this is the "love" that I have been shown. There is another name for this type of "love". It is called lust. Lust IS listed as a sin. This is why I believe (and always have even before my father left the first time) homosexuality is a sin.
It is based on lust.

[amba]

Squat,

That's a tough one. Suppose your father had been able to be "true to himself" from the beginning -- you would not exist.

But how is running away from one's family to a same-sex lover so very different from running away from one's family to an opposite-sex lover? The spouse and children still are hurt and abandoned. In either case it's a kind of selfishness that our society encourages. We worship the "rush" of infatuation, which is lust-plus -- it is more than just sexual -- over the longer-term kind of love that comprises patience and work and attachment and committment. IMO that is a much bigger problem than which sex one gets infatuated with.

What you and other conservative Christians are saying is that the desire of a man for a woman (and vice versa) can be merely lust, or it can be civilized and transfigured into that other kind of love, but the desire of a man for a man or a woman for a woman can only be lust, because . . . ? Because it can't produce children, I guess?

Emotionally, that just isn't true. Gay couples become devoted and attached and committed to one another for decades, for a lifetime. By denying this possibility to people whose romantic and emotional (not just sexual) yearnings are homosexual, you would condemn them either to a celibate sainthood you don't demand of yourself, or to a hell on earth of shame-filled promiscuity. You create a self-fulfilling prophecy, in other words, and then point your finger.

[amba]

And what I really don't get is why it is your business at all. What's it to you what other people are doing -- particularly when what they're doing is aspiring to be orderly and devoted and the opposite of disruptive?!

[Funky Dung]

"And what I really don't get is why it is your business at all. What's it to you what other people are doing -- particularly when what they're doing is aspiring to be orderly and devoted and the opposite of disruptive?!"

Claiming that God, through the Church, blesses gay unions is disruptive. When anyone's public teachings/actions contradict Church teachings, it is disruptive.

[amba]

It's the nature of those two-edged swords, freedom and pluralism, that much of what people do will be emotionally disruptive and cognitively dissonant to someone else. We no longer live in a monolithic world, and this causes difficulty for people who want to rest in the assurance of an absolute authority.

[*Christopher]

And part of that is that pluralism is understanding the Church is more than the Roman Catholic Church, which Funky may not so do. I'm Episcopalian, my partner is Lutheran and our traditions teachings are more flexible on such matters. And sometimes frankly in the history of the Church it has been the disruptions that have brought the Church to greater understanding of what is. I can think of Harriet Tubman or Martin Luther King or Desmond Tutu as examples. I'm proud to be a part of a tradition that has long-honored agreement in essentials and liberty in non-essentials and the freedom to disagree and partake of the Body of Christ together. Let's hope our middle holds this GC.

[pc]

Claiming that God, through the Church, blesses gay unions is disruptive. When anyone's public teachings/actions contradict Church teachings, it is disruptive.

Some people confuse Church teachings with God.

Church teachings = human interpretation. And, unfortunately humans are fallible and come from a place of ego.

God = omniscient & love

The God that I have come to know loves everyone – we are all spirit - and wants them to be happy and show their fellow man kindness; compassion; love; and to live in joy.

I would hate to know this God that would frown on any of his creation.

[Bryan]

Matt. 19:12 (referred to above as a passage where Jesus possibly speaks of homosexuality):

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

With some very liberal interpretation and no context, I could see how this could be construed to possibly be talking about homosexuality. But the context of this verse is very explicit - Jesus was talking about what an awful thing divorce was. Frankly, for all of the veiled hints and winks and nods the Bible gives about homosexuality, it (and Jesus himself) is forceful and explicit about how bad divorce is. Yet I don't know of any large church groups who deny sacraments or membership to men and women in second marriages, though the Bible is very clear that this is living in sin. Even the Catholic churc makes very obvious allowances in the form of anullments - an end-run around the topics of divorce. If people were truly against homosexuality for religious or ethical reasons, they would do far better to encourage committed homosexual relationships (which truly are not discussed in the Bible) and champion anti-divorce legislation and church bylaws.

Even where the modern interpretations of the Bible seem to be clearly anti-homosexuality, you have to understand that the Classical Mediterranean culture (Galilee and Judea included) had very, very different worldviews. People used to sell themselves into slavery because they judged it better to be a well-fed slave than lean and free. Can you imagine that today? Rabbinic Judaism of 2000 years ago did forbid homosexuality, but the homogenity of Judaism then could be compared to global Catholicism of today, with its Santaria and Mary Cults and other regional adaptations. To say that no Jew of the 1st century would have considered homosexuality a topic of debate is rather limited, and it assumes complete homogeny no Hellenisation of Judea, which is a documented fact. One could also say that no Jew of the 1st century would consider adultery a matter of debate, but there were certainly many thriving bordellos.

To say that homosexuality is unnatural is to hide your eyes behind your hands. How many species do you need to practice frequent homosexuality for it to be natural? There are hundreds, just in the mammallians classes. In fact, there are even species that change gender, or mate with themselves. How do you like that?

To say that homosexual relationships are lust-based is disingenous. Evidence for that is precisely due to lack of social support for homosexuality. One could have said the same thing about interracial relationships 100 years ago - they were lust based, because no one would marry them and they couldn't be seen together, so the only outlet in which you ever heard about them was when they were caught en flagrante. Tell the old lesbian biddies who have been together for 30 years that their relationship is lust-based, and be ready for a good laugh.

The only reason that I can see for opposing homosexual marriages is that in raises your hackles - it makes you queasy and uneasy. But believe me when I say that most people's grandparents felt the same way when they saw a black man walking down the street holding a white woman's hand. We can only hope that your children will shrug off two women kissing as easily as your eyes move past mixed-race children today.

[amba]

We can only hope that your children will shrug off two women kissing as easily as your eyes move past mixed-race children today.

Bryan: whether they will shrug off two men kissing is a bigger question.

By the way -- I'm embarrassed by seeing anyone soul kissing in public.