Welcome to An Exercise in the Fundamentals of Orthodoxy. If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the RSS feed to keep up to date with what I'm writing. Alternatively, if you want to contact Peter in relation to issues of human sexuality, please use the contact form here. Thanks for visiting!
Mr Robinson is complaining again…
Never have I felt more in need of your prayers. As I write this, the opening service of the Lambeth Conference is going on at Canterbury Cathedral. I am a few miles away — but it feels like a much further difference. I am not appearing at the opening service, as I promised the Archbishop.
Yesterday was a painful day. I am feeling frustrated and angry. I dare not write too much, because I don’t want to sound like I’m whining, nor do I want to say anthing intemperate. But making my first trip into Canterbury and the campus on which the Conference is occurring was difficult.
I don’t want to come across as a bore Gene, but what did you expect? You were explicitly not invited to the Lambeth Conference, but still you came. You could just have stayed in New Hampshire and been a Simple Country BishopTM but instead you hopped on a plane to launch the next stage of the global "Look at Me, I’m the Gay Bishop, let’s change all the rules just for me" tour.
The level of fear and anxiety, especially among the Conference powers-that-be, is out the roof. No matter what I say, no matter what assurances I give, I seem to be regarded as a threat, something to be walled off and kept at a distance. Greeting a few American bishops in passing, and then at a dinner for General Seminary alumni last night, has been pleasant and supportive. But even though I thought I was properly prepared for the feeling of being shut out, I am stunned by the depth of that feeling.
I am not participating in any kind of official way at the "inclusive opening service" being held this afternoon on a green off campus. I will sit in the congregation with those American bishops who choose to show up in support of this service of inclusion. I know that a number of them will be present, even though they’ll have just finished a long service at the Cathedral. This means so much to me that they would do so, especially at this time.
Well that’s good to know Gene that you weren’t going to do yet another Anglican service while you’re over here. How noble of you.
The most infuriating blow came this morning with news that when the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops meets on Tuesday afternoon (each of the 38 "national" provinces of the Communion will have its own gathering), I will not be allowed to participate, because this would look like I had become a "participant," and the organizers seem intent on enforcing my status as a non-invitee. If nothing can be done to change this decision, it will be a particularly painful blow. At our House of Bishops meeting in March, I pleaded with the House not to let Lambeth separate us. For me to be excluded from my own House of Bishops seems especially cruel and unnecessary.
I remember at the 2005 Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham, the absolute outrage of some of the delegates that the US and Canadian delegation were practically ignoring the request for them to withdraw. Despite the fact that they had been asked to not attend, the American contingent were dining with the other delegates and mixing and mingling as though there was no problem with what they had done. It seems obvious to me that the ACO want to avoid that kind of debacle again.
Let’s get this clear Mr Robinson. You are not invited to the Lambeth Conference. The Tuesday meetings are for the bishops attending. QED, you are not part of it, in the same way that I can’t simply waltz up to the Church of England session and demand that they seat me - what utter nonsense. You need to get off your high horse and realise that you weren’t invited because your consecration was the single act that has caused so much damage and pain in the Communion. As the Bishop of Colombo said today, "We are a wounded Communion. Some of us are not here and that is sign that all is not well". All is not well Mr Robinson because in consecrating you TEC shoved two fingers up not just at the rest of the Anglican Communion but the whole world-wide catholic church.
Gene Robinson and the LGBT lobby at Canterbury are not the victims, though they play the card continuously. We are the victims, since we are suffering and experiencing huge division because they want to rewrite the Scriptures and tear up all normal Christian morality. They are not the victims, though they are carefully stage managing such a view, which is why Sky News, BBC News and 20 different assorted photographers turned up to get live interviews with the Simple Country BishopTM visited St Rumwold’s. Blimey!! How lucky were all those journalists to be there at the same time as Gene Robinson. What a coincidence!!!
So please, pray for me. Pray that God will reveal to me what I am to do and how I am to do it, best reflecting God’s love and spirit of reconciliation. Pray that when given an opportunity to speak to one or to many, God might replace my words with His words, my heart with His heart. In the end, I keep reminding myself, I’m going to heaven.
Let me attempt to speak what God might be saying to you Gene. Listen carefully, for here it comes…..
"Go Home. Just humbly accept that you weren’t invited, go home, and let the rest of the Bishops get on with the task of sorting out the huge mess your consecration caused".
I fear though that the Simple Country BishopTM isn’t finished yet. I’m booking my ticket for the "Simple Country BishopTM visits Canterbury Cathedral from which he was so viciously excluded and weeps" event in a few days time. Who wants to join me?
Tags: American Bishops, Anxiety, Assurances, Canterbury Cathedral, Dare, Fear, Fear And Anxiety, First Trip, Gay Bishop, Greeting, Inclusion, Intemperate, Lambeth Conference, Mr Robinson, Nbsp, New Hampshire, Prayers, Seminary
July 20th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Serious question : is there much actual *dialogue* between the rival factions of the church? I’m a liberal (of sorts!)
but I’m reading a Gagnon essay “Why the Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practise” and am more than willing to change my mind if the evidence and arguments compell me too ( I would note that I don’t know any liberal who would argue that the fact that the prostate is the male gspot proves that God is in favour of anal homosex, so I don’t find Gagon’s “the fittedness of the penis and vagina” observation has the force he thinks it does). But I get the impression that a lot of what of going on is a case of pick a side and come out swinging. Can you and have you sat down with liberals and changed their mind, or is it a fruitless process? I’m genuinely curious.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:42 am
so…. are you the weed or the wheat?
just curious given the evisceration of your apparent opposite. truly Christian.
but then again, you not being an Episcopalian and all, and not at Lambeth either, I suppose you have the right.
July 21st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Here’s the deal Ryan. Every time we try and sit down and have discussion, the goal-posts get changed. For example, I was in a discussion with one of the leading gay rights activists in the Church of England. He was asked “If i could prove to you definitively that the Bible condemned all homosexual activity, would you ‘change sides’”. The answer? “No”.
That’s the real split Ryan - those who place themselves under the authority of the Bible and those who don’t.
July 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am
Ahh well that might just give us a clue as to why the conservative position is so flawed; you put yourselves under the authority of a book whereas Christians are called to put themselves under the authority of God and his son Jesus Christ. That is a signficant distinction….
July 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Good point about victim status. Is anybody at Lambeth reading through I Corinthians ? Paul in ch. 6 tells Christians that they should not be so keen on asserting their rights, and just afterwards says that people who commit various sins including homosexual activity will not inherit the Kingdom. He then says ’such were some of you; but you were washed,
sanctified, etc.’
Asserting rights and going to the courts of unbelievers is precisely what the LBGT lobby have been doing to the
church; dragging the issue across the secular media, which effectively is used as a court to put the orthodox
on trial. I think one way to deal with this is for all traditionalists to refuse to have interviews with the media,
to refuse to play along in any way. The court of media opinion is NOT what decides how Christian moral theology
ought to be conducted.
July 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
And yet Sound, liberals will happily refer to Jesus’ words in Scripture…
(I believe that’s your second contradiction in one hour).
July 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Peter, as so often, you miss the point.
Jesus’ words are not quite in scripture. What we have in scripture are the words of the early church. They are not verbatim reports of things that happened 40 years plus earlier….they are simply a testament to the WORD of God.
You’ve based your whole (new) life on a very few out of context proof texts, and that’s really rather sad….
July 21st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Go Home. Just humbly accept that you weren’t invited, go home, and let the rest of the Bishops get on with the task of sorting out the huge mess your consecration caused”.
Peter - I was very surprised by your comment. Frankly - if Gene “just going home” were enough to sort out this problem then there would be many ways forward for the communion. Indeed, if you
really believe that this is what God is telling Gene (he can go home, go home with his partner, keep ordaining his candidates, keep running his parishes and services) then there must be great hope for the communion.
Because what I though you’d think God was saying to Gene was:
Repent for all the damage you have done!
Leave your partner and live a celibate life
Remove all gay clergy, liberal clergy, and clergy who support them from your diocese, withdrawing their licenses for conduct unbecoming
Remove any gay laypeople, and any gay-supporting laypeople from their positions in your diocese
Resign from your see, your consecration, and your ordination vows
(and I’m not sure about the last one - either:
live in chastity, poverty and obedience, with absolutely no further public appearances
or
live in chastity while doing as much publicity as possible for your post-gay lifestyle
But just Go Home?
I don’t get it.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 am
Sound.
If the Bible were a fallible and/or corrupted document, as you assert, then it would be impossible for any of us to have a personal relationship with our Lord and Savior. The catch, you fail to appreciate, is that if you truly believe that the text is no longer faithful to its original intent, then you will be compelled to search out “learned authorities” that can tell you what it really was supposed to say. This is the paradigm common in Eastern religions and is what justifies the role of a guru to help a seeker in his/her path to enlightenment.
But the end result is that a person’s loyalty then extends to their guru or teacher. It is then a fellow human being whose words they end up listening to and following, and not Christ’s words, as recorded in the Gospels.
So my question for you to ponder is this… if you believe that the Bible is a corrupted document, and that Christ’s voice no longer speaks faithfully through it, in a plain, direct and unadorned manner, then how can any one of us ever hope to come to know his will on our own?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
Hi Wildiris
I didn’t say what you are saying that I said by any means….I never use the word corrupted…I simply think it is essential to understand what the bible is and what it is not. We have never, as Anglicans, subscribed to a vew of biblical infallibility..
We come to have a personal relationship and hear the authentic voice of Christ through a variety of means, ONE of which is scripture, one of whch is the Church (which develops and changes) and one of which is human reason, (which develops and changes too). The holy spirit is our guide in all three….. if we go down the sola scriptura route, then we are not being Anglican. It’s fine to go down that route if you want, but don’t pretend that’s what is Anglican is all I am saying…
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
James,
I understand where you’re coming from. The point that many commentators are trying to make is that Gene Robinson has essentially turned up for a gathering to which he is not invited and is trying to muscle his way in. Imagine if I had a family party and you turned up, out of the blue, and demanded entry. Would I be under any obligation to let you in? What if you then staged photo op after photo op and you and your friends time after time stood in front of the cameras saying how you were pained that that evil Peter Ould wasn’t letting you in. What about if you stood outside the party looking forlorn, having called all the journalists to be there as well. Would we think you were being noble and courageous or entirely self-absorbed?
So the message is very simply this. Go home Gene.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
And of course that is exactly what some of Martin Luther King’s fellow clergy said to him…be quiet Martin, don’t make such a fuss about being black and discriminated against…go home Martin….be quiet
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hello Sound,
I think your understanding of scripute, tradition and reason in Anglicanism is a bit idiosyncratic. This threefold authority is fully consistent with sola scriptura when that principle is properly understood. Tradition is concerned with those issues which are not found in scripture, which is why the CofE decided to keep bishops at the reformation, for example. Reason is actually a subset of the authority of scripture, meaning that we as human beings have the ability to understand the scriptures properly (It is actually a reference to the perspicuity of scripture). The three are not meant to be in competition with each other, although I recognise this is how liberals like to interpret it these days.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Did they Sound, did they? Perhaps a URL or two would help…
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Just google it Peter…you’ll find it easily enough…
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I’m a busy chap. You google it and you post the URL. Back up your claims with some evidence.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:06 pm
MLK wasn’t a feminist from what I’ve read, and (apropos nothing) wouldn’t think much of many evangelical churches who somehow reconcile regarding Paul as infallible on homosex but wrong on gender.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Peter are you doubting this letter exists? Have you really never heard of it before? Letter from a Birmingham jail… two seconds to find it…..and a sample from it….I know this is exactly as some of our gay clergy feel….remeber that some clergy had written to MLK pleading with him not to make any demonstration…and so he said…
“Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial “outside agitator” idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.
You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city’s white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.”
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Firstly as a Brit I have never heard of this letter. Please give us a URL so we can read it in context with the letter to him that prompted it.
Secondly, trying to imply that homosexuality and race are identical justice issues will not get you very far. You would need to demonstrate first that just like race or sex, homosexual behaviour was an uncontrollable natural phenomenon with a clear biological determinant. So far (unlike sex and race) no-one has been able to do so and the scientific jury is still out as to whether they will be able to.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Peter-
I think this is the letter that Sound might be referring to (tell me if I’m wrong, Sound).
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Ar.....ngham.html
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
As a Brit I simply assumed you had done some history about the civil rights movement?! I assume you have heard of Rosa Parks?
As the scientific jury is still out you will have to work hard to convince me that the two are NOT similarly justice issues. And the theological jury, biblical interpretation jury is a bit split I think you’d find……’An acceptable sacrifice? - whose text is it anyway?’ Ed Dormer and Morris is a good read to get a balanced view about the biblical view on homosexuality…
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Hi Jonathan,
That’s a good letter. I wish I’d known of it earlier.
Sound,
The burden of proof is still upon you. The Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is immoral, so unless you can demonstrate that such the control of such activity is beyond the scope of human ability (i.e. in the same way that a negro cannot control his skin colour or a woman cannot control their sex) then you have failed to make the claim for the equivalence in terms of justice. You might take the line that Andrew Sullivan does that he should be permitted to do what he wishes to do regardless of the causation of the desire to commit that particular action, but in doing so you will be admitting that we are now discussing discrimination on the grounds of activity, not ontology which is what discrimination on the grounds of race or sex is (a discrimination on the grounds of ontology).
I have “An Acceptable Sacrifice” on my shelf. If you want me to address the essay by Dormer and Morris in another blog post then I can do so, but it is a very poor piece in my opinion.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Well it’s good to know that we can differ about our opinions Peter….and we have to disagree too about the clarity of the bible.. Paul is clear that in certain circumstances homosexual behaviour is immoral.. and I agree with him.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Sound,
Firstly, your statement “in certain circumstances” is disputable and in my opinion not supported by the text. Secondly, is your failure to continue the discussion on the equivalence of accepting homosexual practice to racial equality as a justice issue an admittal that the points I have made are valid, or are you just dropping out of that debate?
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Peter
I realise you dispute that reading of Paul, and that in your opinion it is not supported by the text. Strangely enough, your opinion is not the only one, and hence the debate in the Anglican communion.
On the question of racial equality and justice, I didn’t think we were having much of a debate. I think you are just saying that you are right and I am wrong. That isn’t debating in any understanding I have. But since you ask, you might like to read this article. Please read it all….
This November, the people of California will be asked to vote on a question of equality, fairness - and love. For the first time, California’s gay and lesbian couples are able to celebrate their lives together on equal terms under state law by entering into the civil institution of marriage.
An initiative on the November ballot seeks to change the California Constitution and take from them that opportunity. Californians should say “no” to the proposed amendment and ensure that our Constitution continues to stand for our best hopes and our highest aspirations.
A constitution is the founding document of a community. It is the statement of principle that protects the ability of all people in that community to live their lives and pursue their dreams. The same constitution that protects the right of churches and religions to decide when to recognize marriage as a sacrament - and the right of every citizen to express their opinions about the issue - also protects the right of gay and lesbian people to be treated equally under state law. That is what the California Supreme Court said last month, and the court was right.
This epic battle has personal relevance for me. In 1970, I fell in love with Gary Paterson, who is white, at the height of the Black Power movement.
Our love antagonized both black and white people.
The Supreme Court had struck down laws prohibiting interracial marriage just three years before in the landmark case, Loving vs. Virginia.
When we decided to marry, Gary’s parents were so appalled that first we eloped to Hawaii and then settled in Oakland.
Gary did not speak to his parents for almost seven years. We had epithets yelled at us in public.
What gay men and lesbians are experiencing now as they seek to marry feels very familiar to me. The state has no right to tell anyone who they can or cannot love or marry. That is why this ballot initiative is misguided and cruel.
There are good people who continue to hold different beliefs about marriage for gay and lesbian couples. But amending our state Constitution is different. Writing a statement of inequality into the founding document of our state affects everyone’s status in our community. It would say to some Californians that they are second-class citizens. We have gone down that road before, and we know where it leads.
That is why Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Barack Obama have both clearly stated their opposition to the proposed California constitutional amendment, even though they do not personally support marriage for gay and lesbian couples. they are opposed because a constitution is different. If a European-American Republican governor and an African-American Democratic presidential candidate can agree on that principle, then I believe the people of California can rally around it as well.
Committed, loving gay and lesbian couples will begin legally marrying next week. Do not take their marriages away from them in November.
We are stronger as a community when we come together to strengthen all of our relationships. Divided, we are weaker.
Our state Constitution has a long history of reflecting the best of California, and bringing out the best in its people, guided by principles of fairness and equality. By rejecting this amendment in November, we protect what is best about our Constitution by ensuring that marriage - and the rights and responsibilities it entails - remains available to all couples.
July 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sound, you haven’t answered in any substance the challenge I made about whether a comparison *can* be made between race and sexual practice as a justice issue. Please read my comment again and respond to the issue about ontology versus function.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Peter
It is so obvious that it is hardly worth spelling out, but, as you don’t seem to get it, let me try…..
I asked you if you had heard of Rosa Parks..you made no answer. She was black lady who was arrseted for sitting in a certain seat on a bus? Ring any bells? It was the function she was arrested for….the sitting down. She wasn’t arrested for the ontology..being black..but because she was a ‘practising’ black she was not allowed to perform certain functions….
You and yours do the same with gay people..you tell them it’s ok to BE gay..you just can’t DO gay…so, it’s discriminatory in the same way that people discriminated against black people…
July 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hi Sound,
I see where you are going with the Rosa Parks example, but let me explain why the analogy falls down.
Take a white person and a black person, ontologically differentiated by race. The US courts ruled correctly that given that ontological differentiation was not within the control of either race, to prohibit one from performing, and here’s the rub, the very same action that the other was permitted was discriminatory. The function was identical, the ontology of those performing the activity was different and uncontrollable.
Now jump to the situation we are discussing and explore the direct parallel. You have two men, one who self-identifies as gay and one who self-identifies as straight. (Let’s pass over the issue as to whether you can even qualify evidentially such a self-identification). Both wish to perform same-sex activity. It is not discriminatory or unjust to say that neither may perform same-sex activity. What would be unjust is if the straight man was permitted but the gay man wasn’t, or vice-versa. Similarly, take the function of marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It would be discriminatory and unjust to say that the straight man could marry somebody of the opposite sex but not the gay man, or vice-versa.
“Aaaahh”, I hear you saying, but gay people want to have gay sex and straight people don’t. Well yes, but now you are positing an argument not based in equality of function regardless of ontology (being able to do the exact same thing as someone of a different ontology) but rather an argument of freedom of function (being able to do whatever I want, regardless of ontology). The point then becomes, “is it just for me to be permitted to perform a specific function simply because I prefer to perform this specific function”. This is Andrew Sullivan’s argument (as I mentioned above) and he freely recongises that such an argument is not a natural justice issue in terms of discrimination on variants in ontology. It’s a different argument and therefore incomparable to the Rosa Parks situation.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Sound,
If you don’t mind, I’d like to publish this section of the comments as a separate post so we can get more people’s input. Is that OK?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Peter
Yes please do publish on a new thread if that helps.
I think you are confusing a number of issues here. The issue I was addressing is whether it is right to make public and political actions. This stemnmed from your complaint about what Gene Robinson was doing. I made the analogy with Martin Luther King, pointing out that fellow clergy had tried to silence him, and that he had felt it right to point out why a principled action was right. And of course it proved to be right.
Your comment above rather falls to pieces because all the things you mention are NOT discriminated agianst at all legally in our country or in the US (or indeed in most countries). They are counted as equal. (well, give or take..)
Gay people are not discriminated against legally for their ontology or their functions. But they are discriminated against by some churches and some sections of some churches for either or both. There is, as we have seen many times, wide variation on this, based on the wide variations of reading some very short pieces of scripture. So for many of us (and indeed I think most people in Britain) the justice question is the key one in so far as it relates to relationships. No one (except perhaps voyeurs) actually wants to know what people get up to in their bedrooms behind closed doors and in private - the functions. So, the discrimination is, practically speaking, based enitirely upon ontology. A straight person is allowed to enter a loving relationship (which is to do with ontology I believe), but a gay person is not.
You will protest that gay people can have loving relationships. So I’d need to challenge you..how far can they go in terms of function before you draw a line? And then we come up against what people who are not married can do physically before they marry. And once again we find widespread differentiation. May they kiss? May they see each other naked? May they talk about sex? I’ve met conservative christians who will not countenance a heterosexual couple even kissing outside of marriage. I really need to ask - do they think thet live on a flat earth? Do you take things *that* far Peter?
July 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
There is an additional problem associated with casting the question of gays in the church as one of civil rights, in that one is invariably drawn to a “civil rights” solution; that is, one of “affirmative action”. And the problem with affirmative action solutions is that rather than dealing with an individual on an individual basis, which is what the Gospels call us to do, the Church now becomes forced to deal with people, on an all-or-nothing basis, based on their group status.
Sound, you can make the argument that gay rights are a civil right if you want. But just remember that by doing so you have now inseparably attached yourself, as a group member, to the whole gay pride parade of perversion that the gay community partakes in. I live near San Francisco, CA, so believe me; I know what a gay pride parade looks like and that is not something I want marching through my Church.
As an aside, this is the same problem with women’s ordination. By casting it as a civil rights issue, they forced an affirmative action solution onto the Church. Women had to be promoted to clergy status, based only on the fact that they were women. Whether or not they were, as individuals, actually qualified to perform the duties of priest/pastor, becoming a completely irrelevant and unaskable question. Thus explaining the gaggle of feminist, goddess-worshiping priestesses that the Church has ended up with.
(Truth in advertising here requires me to indicate that I am a Lutheran. I live in the cultural shadow of the San Francisco Bay area and my church is part of the same synod wherein resides the infamous HerChurch.)
I often wonder what could have happened if the gay/lesbian communities could turn back the hand of time to before 1970, and rather than opting for the legal sledge-hammer solution of civil rights to force their “inclusion” into the Church, they had instead used their time and energy to frame a hermeneutic that could have shown a biblical way forward to recognition and inclusion. (Note, the process of literary deconstruction does not qualify as a hermeneutic!)
July 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Sound,
The issue is whether this is a justice issue similar to the mistreatment of blacks under segregation. I’m countering the specific points you are making and making counter points to argue against them. However, you’re not engaging with the points that I’m making but instead keep throwing up new ones (”how far can they go”). For example, you have completely failed to engage with my last comment on the difference between functionality and ontology. I can’t do a discussion like that - either we do the specific points I’ve raised, or we stop.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Well drop out of it if you want to Peter. That’s up to you. I can’t do a discussion unless i know how consistent you are. The questions I have raised with are entirely material to the discussion, and unless I know how you answer them, I can’t respond to the subtantive point. That is how discussion works in the real world…
You might also recall that on another thread I invited you to e-mail me…I said that shouting at one another on here was uncivilised and i don’t really want to be dragged down to the world of hate that is so wonderfully identified by Bishop Nick Baines on his blog for Fulcrum. Your initial post (on this thread) about Gene is simply ‘hateful’ and I’d love you to read Nick Baines…. so..here is a sample and the URL….
The really weird thing about this morning (apart from the service lasting over 2 hours) was the protesters who lined the streets again. They are a German group who were expelled from the campus a couple of days ago. They seem obsessed with Sodom and the lusts of the flesh and warning bishops that they will roast in hell unless they stop being bishops. These people speak but will not answer questions; they hold their banners and accuse us of ‘being proud’ when we smile, but only seem capable of smiling some real nastinesses. I really wonder what drives such people to give up time to express their obsessions with bodily functions and urge us on our way to hell. There is something wrong with the psyche of people who are able to hate so smilingly while being unwilling to address their own neuroses when questioned.
http://www.fulcrum-anglican.or.....hread=7456
July 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If you’re comparing me with a bunch of peeps with placards then I think you make a very poor comparison.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Peter
You may not be holding placards but you sure are posting up banner headlines all over the internet; it;ls the same thing really. The opening post here is rather hateful, and I’m inviting you, as a brother in Christ, to take it down. Cut the hate. And if you don’t want to be compared with the people Nick Baines is writing about, don’t act the same way as they do…cut out the ‘leading people to hell’ language that you use… I’m also saying that you avoid questions because they face you with difficult nuances about your own views. It happens time and time again on your threads.
I’ve tried various debates on here, but it doesn’t really work because you don’t want to hear that there is another Christian who isn’t on your wavelength about this issue. I’ve tried, if you read it, to address your point about ontology and functionality, and it doesn’t satisfy you, because nothing ever would. The point is that gay people want to express their love - ontology and functionality work together and are inseperable in exactly the same way as they did and were for black people in the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King urged people to take positive action. Gene Robinson is doing the same. Clergy told MLK to just sit quiet. You are doing the same to Gene Robinson. That’s the parallel…and it works. Ontology and functionality are not black and white in either of these cases; the boundary betwewen the two is very blurred.
July 25th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Really Sound, the post that these comments come under is not hateful. Hateful would be “God hates Fags” or “Queers burn in Hell”. I don’t think either that I use “leading people to hell” language, though others do (and I take them up on it).
Here’s my problem with your comments. You write:
“The point is that gay people want to express their love - ontology and functionality work together and are inseperable in exactly the same way as they did and were for black people in the civil rights movement.”
I responded to that kind of argument made further up the page with a reply showing how the mix of ontology and function was entirely different in the case of same-sex activity, and you simply haven’t answered any of the points made in that. Instead you take the conversation off in another direction.
So here’s what we’re going to do. I’m going to post again in this comment the argument I’m making why your comparison of the two rights is incorrect. If you comment again, it is going to be to demonstrate how my reasoning is incorrect. If you can’t do that then simply admit that the two are not identical rights issues. But please don’t fail to engage with the argument I’m making, because I’m going to take a low view of your refusal to engage with my response to a debate you started.
Here’s my reasoning.
Take a white person and a black person, ontologically differentiated by race. The US courts ruled correctly that given that ontological differentiation was not within the control of either race, to prohibit one from performing, and here’s the rub, the very same action that the other was permitted was discriminatory. The function was identical, the ontology of those performing the activity was different and uncontrollable.
Now jump to the situation we are discussing and explore the direct parallel. You have two men, one who self-identifies as gay and one who self-identifies as straight. (Let’s pass over the issue as to whether you can even qualify evidentially such a self-identification). Both wish to perform same-sex activity. It is not discriminatory or unjust to say that neither may perform same-sex activity. What would be unjust is if the straight man was permitted but the gay man wasn’t, or vice-versa. Similarly, take the function of marrying somebody of the opposite sex. It would be discriminatory and unjust to say that the straight man could marry somebody of the opposite sex but not the gay man, or vice-versa.
“Aaaahh”, I hear you saying, but gay people want to have gay sex and straight people don’t. Well yes, but now you are positing an argument not based in equality of function regardless of ontology (being able to do the exact same thing as someone of a different ontology) but rather an argument of freedom of function (being able to do whatever I want, regardless of ontology). The point then becomes, “is it just for me to be permitted to perform a specific function simply because I prefer to perform this specific function”. This is Andrew Sullivan’s argument (as I mentioned above) and he freely recongises that such an argument is not a natural justice issue in terms of discrimination on variants in ontology. It’s a different argument and therefore incomparable to the Rosa Parks situation.
July 25th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Peter, before I respond (yet again) you need to check and we need to clear up what you write. I quote from the page you will find here: http://www.peter-ould.net/2008.....cus-pocus/
You wrote:
The issue with Gene Robinson is that he interprets the Bible incorrectly and that he, and many others, are leading people down a wide path to hell.
So how can you now write that you don’t use language like that?
July 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Let’s clear this up.
When I said “I don’t think either that I use “leading people to hell” language, though others do (and I take them up on it)“, I was specifically referring to the kind of Fred Phelps language that we were both critiquing, where those his ilk are constantly using such pejorative, so much so that those words actually lose their meaning. I, in contrast, have used such language once and once only (to the best of my knowledge) in the past year. You can hardly treat the two instances as identical.
So now that’s sorted, let’s have your proper reasoned response to the ontology / function argument I make (handling the logic of my appeal, not the emotion) or agree to stop commenting on the issue until you can respond.
July 29th, 2008 at 9:22 am
By no means is it ’sorted’. Pull the other one it has bells on! You specifically, in the link I have copied you, refer to the fact that Gene Robinson is leading people down a wide path to hell! And now you try to say ‘ah well, Fred Phelps is worse than me, and we can’t be compared’. I couldn’t make this up if I hadn’t read it Peter. Come on; either Gene is leading people down a wide path to hell or he isn’t….which is it to be? You obviously can’t deny you said it, but you can at the very least apologise and say you didn’t mean it. Or maybe you do…but it can’t be both…
As to the issue of this thread: I’ve answered several times but you don’t seem to get it.
I (not you) raised the question of the parallel with the civil rights movement by referring very specifically to a letter from MLK, answering critical clergy colleagues, and he made the case for action rather than words. You had been criticising Gene’s actions. Not even having heard of the letter from the B’ham jail, you then moved the argument to the question of ontology versus function. I have made it plain that such a split is quite false. What people are is linked with what they do. You can take a different line on that if you want, but will be in great danger of splitting yourself. So your appeal has no logic I’m afraid. Added to that, it is quite clear that the nature/nurture argument with gay people is a very open question, so even if you wanted to take your flawed route, you come unstuck because gay people *might* have that particular ontology by nature, just as a black person is black by nature.