I don't have a problem with the Shroud of Turin. Its claim to be the burial shroud of Jesus doesn't get past the first word. Assuming that the Crucifixion took place more or less as described, Jesus wasn't buried. Pontius Pilate was a strict military governor (in fact, called home once for being overly severe), so he isn't going to break an easy rule. In three hundred years of continuous conquest, the Romans had learned that leaving a tomb -- or any other visible reminder -- of a charismatic rebel leader just leads to a prolonged or recurring rebellion. So, he would not have agreed to Joseph's request, even if Joseph had been fool enough to make it -- admitting friendship with a just executed rebel leader was grounds for arrest and at least a beating.
"But all the texts agree that Jesus was buried." Well, yes, because you need a burial to get a resurrection (if a body got up from the garbage heap where the crucified were tossed, no one would notice or could point to the evidence that one was missing). And the resurrection was necessary to complete, make sense of, the crucifixion. Which is somehow necessary for our salvation (though just how is hard to answer in a way consistent with other theological points).
Of course, the resurrection presents its own problems as well. If Jesus' body was resuscitated, it is a very strange body indeed. The inevitable damage from being dead 36 hours has been repaired, though not the external wounds. It can eat and break bread and be felt, but it can also pass through walls or, more likely, port to or from any place. And it does not seem to be in continuous existence, for there are long stretches when no one knows where it is (I will pass over the levitation at the end). Once you allow all that, the difference from a vision seems mostly verbal. And Paul, who never claims more than a vision, still claims that what he had was the same as what the Twelve and Mary and all had.
But the question is still, what does all this or any part of it have to do with our salvation?
As thatFriend of Jake said. I think I have never been so happy to be wrong. Or nearly wrong, since the resolutions on blessing same-sex unions is still out there somewhere. But for now, Yah-hooo! And a better than 2 to 1 margin: no bad surprises, a few good ones, and the dunnos vastly went for 'Yes.'
Another corollary to the axiom, "A committed life-long relation between two people of the same sex is the moral equivalent of a heterosexual marriage" is (in case I haven't mentioned it before) A committed life-long relation between two people of the same sex deserves all the recognition and support from both church and state that a heterosexual marriage does. That is, the state ought to give out marriage licenses to such couples and the church ought to solemnize, bless and proclaim their union. (I would add that the state ought to have rules for divorces for such couples and the church ought to devise rites for the dissolution of all unions, but that is another issue.)
To review the reasons in favor of taking up these obligations, simple equality aside: The state gets information which will simplify questions about rights and responsibilities of property and the course of public health threats as well as increasing the societal bend toward stability. In short, just the reasons for licensing and recording heterosexual marriages.
The church also have exactly the same reasons for proclaiming and blessing these relations as it has for heterosexual marriages: supporting the stability of the family, channeling desires, and providing temporal images of God's love.
And what can be put up in opposition to these actions of church and state?
They legalize, even bless, sin!
Well, even assuming homosexual sex acts are sinful (oh dear, there's another topic to look at), they are already legal (that is, decriminalized -- finally, but somehow still insultingly). Indeed, states are coming more and more to the realization that criminalizing sin per se is a bad, unproductive, idea -- quite aside from any notion of separation between church (the spotter of sin) and state (the spotter of crime). There are overlaps, of course, but the sins that are also crimes should be outlawed for their criminal (they muck up property transactions), not their religious (they piss God off), content. And, of course, the state doesn't license the sex -- if any -- in a marriage, only the union (and the accompanying property rights and duties -- all the state can deal with, after all.) The same applies to churches, who do not bless the sex acts in a marriage, but the union itself. While sex acts may be presumed to be a part of a marriage, they are not singled out for special consideration.
Well, even if they don't license or bless homosexual sex acts, these actions would provide secure place to carry them out and thus increase their frequency.
How much did the spread of marriage laws and marriage rites increase the amount of heterosexual sex acts in olden times? Or, if that is too speculative, how much has the decline in marriage in modern times decreased the amount of sexual activity? The effect is surely negligible, even if you don't think post hoc ergo propterhoc is a fallacy. And why, exactly, would increased frequency, did it occur, be a bad thing? If the issue is increased sin and damnation, then we need to look again at Paul, who, after all those passages apparently about how awful homosexual desires and actions are, always comes back to the Good News that all of that (and other things also in the tirade) is vanished in the salvific action of Jesus. So, unless you think seventy times seven is a literal limit on the number of times one can be forgiven for something (in which case, you have less than a year and a half before damnation overtakes you) rather than a symbolic way of saying "as long as he asks," a Christian homosexual (and this is not an oxymoron, by this same reasoning) does not fall deeper into sin and damnation at all. (Note: this not urging increased sin so that grace may increase, but merely noting that, if it were sin, grace would be sufficient to cover it.)
Well, even if it doesn't legitimate sin, it does legitimate an unhealthy life-style.
I guess I never understood what the gay life-style was, because, with some few flaming exceptions -- easily matched from straight culture, though in somewhat different form -- the lives of the gays I know or hear about do not seem that different from anybody else's: drag out of bed, slog off to work, drag home, watch tv, sleep. I tend to think, then, that "lifestyle" is again a code for "sex act". So, then, are homosexual sex acts more unhealthy than heterosexual ones (presumably meaning heterosexual ones that homosexuals don't engage in, since most homosexual sex acts are also heterosexual ones, with insignificant -- from a health point of view -- modifications). I suppose that each sex act carries unique risks and, if that danger is realized and the act is stigmatized, proper treatment might be delayed and unhealthy consequences ensue. But then, legitimating the context of the act would go some way toward removing the stigma and the delay in treatment, hence, hopefully, the bad outcome. Yet another way in which marriage is a healthy choice.
So, I see no rational reason against marriage for all couples, and several reasons in favor of it -- for both church and state. All that is left against it is the ick factor, which is no ground for such an important choice.
We interrupt our regularly scheduled blog to bring you this relevant news. We'll get back to love soon.
The Windsor report recommends a number of things. Some , however, seem more important than others as affecting the life of the Church. Since GAFCON and its associates, even within TEC, regularly complain about TEC's "disobedience" to these recommendations, it is interesting to compare their performance with TEC's.
1. Don't consecrate bishop's whose manner of life is objectionable to some members of the Communion.
So far as I know, no one has objected to any bishop consecrated in TEC (or ACC) since the report came out. Have I missed something? GAFCON churches have consecrated a number of people who owe their positions to thievery (or embezzlement or whatever -- and probably simony) and has taken in several deposed bishops of the same persuasion. Stealing is behavior is widely objected to even in Anglican circles. They have also consecrated clerics who have preached in favor of punishing -- even killing -- homosexuals just for being homosexual. Indeed, it seems some have been raised just because they preached that way, This behavior is objected to by many parts of the Communion, even -- officially -- by the Windsor Report and the ABC.
2. Don't establish rites for blessing (etc.) same sex marriages.
Well, I admit this is a fudge, but the Church has not established (or even officially set out to study -- which means that any actual establishment would be 6 years away at least) any such rite. The fudge is, of course, that various parishes and even dioceses have carried out such rites, using ad hoc forms and, perhaps, even some that circulate widely and would surely be considered if the Church were to start a study. GAFCON passes this with flying colors, naturally.
3. Don't cross provincial borders to establish churches.
Well, TEC, because of its history, has churches in all sorts of places, but no new ones since the Windsor Report.
Four or five GAFCON provinces have established churches -- or, more often, taken over existing ones -- in the US and Canada. When they took them over, they regularly tried (and in many cases have succeeded so far) to take over the assets of the church and use them in opposition to TEC and ACC. TEC has sued (successfully in the decided cases) to recover the property-- an unChristian move according to the thieves, as Paul is against going to the government for church matters. Unfortunately, even though this government is not antiChristian (it really isn't) and, so, different from the government Paul was suspicious of, it does have laws of fiduciary responsibility, such that, if TEC had not sued to recover the property, it could itself be sued for heedlessly alienating that property.
4. Accept all lgbt people in the Church as full members of the Church -- and all equally under God's love.
Well, TEC doesn't get an A+ on this, but its record is not embarrassingly bad, certainly better than most other provinces of the Communion, including the C of E (which hasn't even dealt squarely with women yet).
So far as I can tell, no GAFCON province has objected to laws in their countries which criminalize homosexuality, association of homosexuals, homosexual acts and so on. In most cases they have been approving, if occasionally silently, and in some cases have been in the forefront of those advocating more such laws and stiffer penalties. They have also allowed (even encouraged) preachers to preach against homosexuality in terms that would surely come under hate speech and clear and present danger to violent acts in the US and are at least distasteful almost anywhere.
5. Listen to the experiences of lgbt members and others.
Again, TEC does not get and A+, but fares pretty well against others in the Communion and other US Churches. Vocal spokesperson for lgbt inclusion are heard, even if off the record, and there is some indication that some official body will actually sit down and listen to them -- and others not so loud -- on the record.
On the grounds that you can't get anything sensible out creatures lower than dogs or from admitted criminals, no GAFCON province has any program for listening to lgbt people nor plans to have one. They always plead that there are more important things to worry about -- poverty, hunger, disease, corruption, ... but then they don't do much along the lines of dealing with these, either, and actually hamper some efforts since they won't take aid from TEC or other people where men marry men.
Have I forgotten anything important? Have I misevaluated anyone?
No, not Extreme Unction (which sounds like it should be administered by Uriah Heep), but Marriage, the last of the rites to get on the list as a sacrament or something close.
Marriage has been mainly about property. In olden times (e.g. biblical ones), marriage was a contract between two families (usually) involving the exchange of a woman (and some other property) for some property. It was a lifelong commitment because otherwise all the property had to be given back and the one family was stuck with the woman again (and at second-hand value). (This is why biblical marriage were often intrafamilial: first cousins, even half-siblings). People who didn't have property, didn't get married in any legalistic way, they just cohabited or practiced some folk ritual (jumping the broom, say).
Of course, when a couple of propertied families contracted a good marriage, they celebrated the successful conclusion of the negotiations and the signing. And, why not invoke the gods (or, eventually, God) to oversee the contract's execution (it seemed to help with that subdivision last year)? So a ritual evolved for these occasions. And this ritual came to include an expression of the clauses of the contract: life long commitment, exclusivity, sharing property, taking care of one another, etc., to the point where the ritual almost replaced the contract and the contract was not considered valid without the ritual (there are wonderful medieval debates about when the contract came into force, in case one of the participants -- bride, groom, or priest -- died before the whole thing was over). Marriage came to be -- in some people's mind, at least -- not something done by the bride and groom (or their families) but something done by God through the agency of the priest ("whom God has joined together").
The Church (or whatever) saw several advantages in this situation and so institutionalized it, first bringing the ritual into the church (first the informal parts, then the main worship space) then raising it to the status of a sacrament (the Wedding at Cana gave her a needed precedent). She also expanded its scope, so that everyone, whether propertied or not, had to be married to live together or have children (the opportunities for bastards in the strict sense were sharply limited). As noted, knowing who goes with whom is useful information to have, and the Church gave up little to get it.
For a time, then, a Church marriage was the only kind there was (officially). But, with the rise of the modern state and its interest in information about its citizens, civil marriage reemerged and became the only official standard. The church marriage became again a ritual around the signing of a contract, an occasion to proclaim and celebrate the union the contract involved and to bless that union. But much of the aura of the intervening era of sacramental marriage remained, and spread even to civil marriages without ecclesial frills.
Marriage is traditionally a man taking a woman (men were too valuable to be used as bargaining chips). What exceptions there have been we few, widely separated and very temporary, though occasionally historically important.
However, notice that sex is nowhere mentioned in the contracts. It may be assumed, or acknowledged with a Pynthonesque nudge and wink at "union," but it is not dealt with in the clauses. Thus, the contract can serve as well for for a same-sex couple as an other-sex couple, barring reference to 'bride' and 'groom', with their assumed genders, or "this man" and "this woman" with explicit reference, assuming that the couple can fulfill (or commit themselves to try to fulfill) the clauses actually there. And there is no apparent reason why a same-sex couple cannot do this.
And, since the clauses of that old private contract, now made public and civil, informed the church ritual, there is no reason why a same-sex couple cannot have their union blessed. What is blessed (proclaimed and celebrated , too) is the union, the commitment to live out those clauses. Other things that happen in the context of that union are incidental: if they break the clauses (as wife-beating and adultery surely do) then either the union is dissolved or the reconciliatory prescriptions are brought into play; if they don't (as consensual sex acts clearly don't), then these, though unblessed, do not per se affect the union or the blessing on it.
