So, how is Christianity not Magick? How is Simon Peter different from Simon Magus? In the orthodox tradition, so far as I understand it, the answer seems to be what you love. Magus seeks power, or wealth, or knowledge, or fame, or pleasure for himself. Contemplative Christian seeks divinization not for his own salvation only but for the good of the community, indeed of the world,
How does that play out? As the contemplative comes more focused on God, he become more transparent to God's light which can then shine into the world and wright changes, improvements, small steps toward the coming of the [need a good word here: 'kingdom' and the like seem all too tyrannical, 'commonwealth' and the like too democratic]. Presumably, Magus, as he proceeds, interposes his selfish purposes, holding the light in and redirecting it along narrow personal lines. Even the contemplative who seeks only his own salvation, without concern for his neighbors, does not strictly fall inside the Christian sphere.
But does the Magus become a god, can the self-saver find salvation? In Buddhist terms, are the arhants failures, which only the bodhisattvas can correct? Is there something built into the process, a part of the ascetic program, that blocks certain steps from the self-absorbed -- or redirects them on another path, which brings a different reward and one that ties back into the world rather than rising to God?
I just don't know and I can't find the discussion on this to guide me. Comments urgently sought.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Magick Christianity
Behind most Western magick (the real stuff, not prestidigitation) is a single metaphysic/cosmogony/cosmology, with many versions. It antedates Christianity but has developed in close proximity to it, so that certain ideas seem to be common to both (which has allowed some magicians to escape the fires and caused some Christians to be fed to them). One version of this metaphysics underlies much of the mystical quest or the Orthodox pursuit of divinization. Looking at the general pattern of this metaphysic may shed some light on a number of questions that tend to arise. And maybe assuage my worries about contemplative Christianity.
The basic story is this: There is the One, complete in itself. And yet it gives rise to the Second, which is not different from the One, but distinct nonetheless. And these two give rise to the Third, also not different yet distinct. From here the various versions diverge. Most present an array of beings, distinct and different from the top three and one another, and subservient to the top three. At some point, the world is made, whether by one of these subservient beings-- and so evil -- or by the One (or the Second or the Third) -- and so good. This world is a very Ptolemaic one: geocentric, with seven plus spheres around the earth, governed by one (or more) of those subservient beings, and blocking a view of the Three. Now, none of this (or only the last bit) is a temporal succession; it is merely a logical one, explaining a hierarchy.
But the next bit sets time in motion, if the whirling spheres did not already. The Second or the Third is fragmented and a bit enters each thing in the world (I particularly like the story of the Third seeing his -- or whatever -- reflection in world, falling in love with the being it -- or whatever -- thinks it sees there, and diving to reach it, being sliced and diced on the way down by the whirling sphere and the pieces going into everything in the hope of finding the beloved). The other one also permeates the whole world but remains intact, underlying, supporting, and recording all that happens.
However the story goes, the result is the same. There is the One, still self-sufficient, perfect. There is the world, especially Earth, immediately borne by a being that is not different from that One, and in each of us there is a piece of a being not different from the One. And between, a number of other beings who control various aspects of the world under general directions from on high.
Magical conclusions: 1. We can return to the One by getting our bit of the Second or the Third back whence it came, in its unfragmented origin, not different from the One. 2. Since this fragment is not different from the substrate of the universe, we can understand, predict, recall and, to some extent, control what happens. 3.Since this fragment is part of the top layer, it has power over the subservient beings that perform the ordinary events in the world, we can learn to control them and bring about desired events.
However different in theory, in practice these three conclusions intertwined and reenforced one another. One emphasizing the first conclusion (a mystic, say) would probably have to pass through all the spheres, which meant dealing with the subservient beings who controlled them. And that meant knowing their names (Baphomet, say -- not a real name) and the secret rituals which were needed to convince the power that you were worthy to proceed (the pinkie grip handshake, say -- a real one). So they (most of them, anyhow) need to learn the lore that followed from the third conclusion, the original mysteries somewhat updated. Those who focused on the second conclusion (alchemists, say) needed this, too, for often only spirits knew where to find the pure mercury, etc. that the work required. They also knew that to complete the work it might be necessary to purify the worker as well as the material and that process took one a long way toward the Origin. The followers of the third conclusion knew that some names were only to be uttered (if at all) by those well advanced along one of the routes to the origin and knew the basics of protecting themselves when calling on spirits or graving amulets or scrying.
So, can we accept this general view -- greatly expanded, of course, (though you would scarcely believe it if you read most contemporary Christian writing) to embrace a billion galaxies of a billion stars apiece, and Lord only knows (part of the point actually) how many planets and sentient beings and how much and what kinds of stuff in between -- without also accepting the rest of the magick kit? Do we indeed, as Christians (and other "advanced" theologians of whatever sort) want to do without the magick kit? Given an adequately fuzzy sense of quantum mechanics, doesn't science force us to a world like this (or at least cohere with one)? Certainly, action at a distance is nicely accounted for by the underlying substrate that keeps track of everything and is available to all points. And then miracles are just minor tinkerings with the collapsing of probability waves, so as to produce macroscopic effects. And so on: science and religion together at last.
And even without science, this view still does the work for miracles in a rational way. But does it still leave open the possibility of magick: of greedy puddlers making gold in the back room, of angry witches blighting our crops (or our hard drives), of sinners meeting God?
I just don't know. So, when I hear this worldview, however attenuated, I tend to back away in fear. But doing so seems to cut me off from divinization or union or other such mystic goals.
The basic story is this: There is the One, complete in itself. And yet it gives rise to the Second, which is not different from the One, but distinct nonetheless. And these two give rise to the Third, also not different yet distinct. From here the various versions diverge. Most present an array of beings, distinct and different from the top three and one another, and subservient to the top three. At some point, the world is made, whether by one of these subservient beings-- and so evil -- or by the One (or the Second or the Third) -- and so good. This world is a very Ptolemaic one: geocentric, with seven plus spheres around the earth, governed by one (or more) of those subservient beings, and blocking a view of the Three. Now, none of this (or only the last bit) is a temporal succession; it is merely a logical one, explaining a hierarchy.
But the next bit sets time in motion, if the whirling spheres did not already. The Second or the Third is fragmented and a bit enters each thing in the world (I particularly like the story of the Third seeing his -- or whatever -- reflection in world, falling in love with the being it -- or whatever -- thinks it sees there, and diving to reach it, being sliced and diced on the way down by the whirling sphere and the pieces going into everything in the hope of finding the beloved). The other one also permeates the whole world but remains intact, underlying, supporting, and recording all that happens.
However the story goes, the result is the same. There is the One, still self-sufficient, perfect. There is the world, especially Earth, immediately borne by a being that is not different from that One, and in each of us there is a piece of a being not different from the One. And between, a number of other beings who control various aspects of the world under general directions from on high.
Magical conclusions: 1. We can return to the One by getting our bit of the Second or the Third back whence it came, in its unfragmented origin, not different from the One. 2. Since this fragment is not different from the substrate of the universe, we can understand, predict, recall and, to some extent, control what happens. 3.Since this fragment is part of the top layer, it has power over the subservient beings that perform the ordinary events in the world, we can learn to control them and bring about desired events.
However different in theory, in practice these three conclusions intertwined and reenforced one another. One emphasizing the first conclusion (a mystic, say) would probably have to pass through all the spheres, which meant dealing with the subservient beings who controlled them. And that meant knowing their names (Baphomet, say -- not a real name) and the secret rituals which were needed to convince the power that you were worthy to proceed (the pinkie grip handshake, say -- a real one). So they (most of them, anyhow) need to learn the lore that followed from the third conclusion, the original mysteries somewhat updated. Those who focused on the second conclusion (alchemists, say) needed this, too, for often only spirits knew where to find the pure mercury, etc. that the work required. They also knew that to complete the work it might be necessary to purify the worker as well as the material and that process took one a long way toward the Origin. The followers of the third conclusion knew that some names were only to be uttered (if at all) by those well advanced along one of the routes to the origin and knew the basics of protecting themselves when calling on spirits or graving amulets or scrying.
So, can we accept this general view -- greatly expanded, of course, (though you would scarcely believe it if you read most contemporary Christian writing) to embrace a billion galaxies of a billion stars apiece, and Lord only knows (part of the point actually) how many planets and sentient beings and how much and what kinds of stuff in between -- without also accepting the rest of the magick kit? Do we indeed, as Christians (and other "advanced" theologians of whatever sort) want to do without the magick kit? Given an adequately fuzzy sense of quantum mechanics, doesn't science force us to a world like this (or at least cohere with one)? Certainly, action at a distance is nicely accounted for by the underlying substrate that keeps track of everything and is available to all points. And then miracles are just minor tinkerings with the collapsing of probability waves, so as to produce macroscopic effects. And so on: science and religion together at last.
And even without science, this view still does the work for miracles in a rational way. But does it still leave open the possibility of magick: of greedy puddlers making gold in the back room, of angry witches blighting our crops (or our hard drives), of sinners meeting God?
I just don't know. So, when I hear this worldview, however attenuated, I tend to back away in fear. But doing so seems to cut me off from divinization or union or other such mystic goals.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Girl Cooties
I shouldn't comment on the ducks on the other side of the pond, but CofE seems dead set on going to pieces over woemn bishops. Never mind that the Anglican Communion as a whole has decided that women as priests and bishops is not something to split up over, CofE wants to do just that, though I would think the Anglo-Catholics, Extreme Evangelicals and the Centrists and Liberals had more in common thna any of them have with the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), say. (It must noted that the acceptance maybe superficial, since many hold that the present split over known homosexuals as priests and bishops is just a way of objecting to women without the bad pr, since the Provinces that are involved in either are the same as those in the other. So, they can refuse to take communion with -- never mind from -- a woman Primate because she ordains gays, not because she is a woman. Handy.)
While I understand the worries of Evangelicals and Catholics about women as bishops, I think we all need to fall back on basic ecclesiology: the acts of the governing body of the church are the work of the Holy Ghost in today's context. Until proven otherwise ("Councils have erred" etc.). And the proof is a practical one, not a citing of texts or even precedents (all of which can be used to justify anything, as history shows painfully clearly). But, until then, they are to be followed by all the faithful (though they can also work to overthrow them and try to dodge them within the rules, while still being faithful members of the church).
As for the specific worries, a little discussion would show they are basically groundless (show to anyone not committed to the opposite conclusion, of course -- these points will change no minds).
While dating and attributing in Biblical research are thoroughly mixed with subjective factors, it is still the case that the consensus -- even the majority -- view among scholars is that the Pastoral Epistles are not by Paul, not even obviously Pauline School, and, like most of the New Testament, refer to specific problems in specific places and times. What the advice would be at different places and times has to be decided by the proper authorities at that place and time (see above). Loud gossiping women, drunken women talking back to the preacher, and women claiming to be bishops in some weird (even by Christian standards) sect aren't problems that should affect our practices today, where these are not problems (usually) and could be handled otherwise.
The Apostolic Succession is something else again. Assuming, against a fair amount of evidence, that the Apostles really did pass on something significant to certain other people and that these people have passed it on, generation after generation, to the present holders, who have delegated this power to current priests, what problems do women present to this? Well, the Apostles were all men (Junia to the side, for now) and they passed this something to men only (there are no ordination records from the first few centuries, so we have to take this on faith) and so on through the ages (known exceptions being ignored here). And, if there is any doubt, the Twelve were all men (though the angels were female, providing for the troop from their own resources). So a woman would break the chain and the something would not come down to those whom they ordained and thus apparent sacraments would not actually be sacraments and apparent priests and bishops would not actually be such. And those under their sway would thus not receive the means to salvation and be eternally damned. (I suppose something like this line of argument goes on for the Evangelicals as well, at least the last bit.)
So what is this something passed down and delegated? Well. it has something to do with what a friend of mine -- who failed her discernment interview on this occasion -- called "the magic cookie" and the right to speak authoritatively about the faith. And there are basically two view about what that is.
The first, the institutional story, is that all the rites involved are merely the church's way of solemnizing a person's passage into a position in the organization. The upper hierarchy and the people agreeing, the ordinand or whatever now becomes a person in that position. What is transmitted, if anything, is an appropriate part of the power of the church. S/he can now preach and consecrate with authority, subject to local rules. And can be kicked out, of course, and lapse into a peculiar state -- though not from this point of view.
For the state to be peculiar we need the other, spiritual, view, that what happens at ordination is a transference of a spiritual power, a link to God that others lack, and by virtue of which the person now gets power to do the magic cookie bit and have it count and to speak with some authority. But this transference is made only if the institutional requirements are met. So it remains the institution that determines who gets this power. And by the above basic principle, if all the requirements are met, then the Holy Ghost will see to it that the power is transferred, since it is always God (presumably the Holy Spirit) who attend to such matters. Thus a duly ordained person performs valid sacraments until deposed, regardless of personal flaws: if the sacrament offered by a serial pedophile, properly ordained, is valid, then so too is that of a properly ordained woman (the Italian Church has recently equated these two "flaws").
Resisting not only ignores the 39Articles, it denies the power of the Holy Ghost to do new things and all things well.
While I understand the worries of Evangelicals and Catholics about women as bishops, I think we all need to fall back on basic ecclesiology: the acts of the governing body of the church are the work of the Holy Ghost in today's context. Until proven otherwise ("Councils have erred" etc.). And the proof is a practical one, not a citing of texts or even precedents (all of which can be used to justify anything, as history shows painfully clearly). But, until then, they are to be followed by all the faithful (though they can also work to overthrow them and try to dodge them within the rules, while still being faithful members of the church).
As for the specific worries, a little discussion would show they are basically groundless (show to anyone not committed to the opposite conclusion, of course -- these points will change no minds).
While dating and attributing in Biblical research are thoroughly mixed with subjective factors, it is still the case that the consensus -- even the majority -- view among scholars is that the Pastoral Epistles are not by Paul, not even obviously Pauline School, and, like most of the New Testament, refer to specific problems in specific places and times. What the advice would be at different places and times has to be decided by the proper authorities at that place and time (see above). Loud gossiping women, drunken women talking back to the preacher, and women claiming to be bishops in some weird (even by Christian standards) sect aren't problems that should affect our practices today, where these are not problems (usually) and could be handled otherwise.
The Apostolic Succession is something else again. Assuming, against a fair amount of evidence, that the Apostles really did pass on something significant to certain other people and that these people have passed it on, generation after generation, to the present holders, who have delegated this power to current priests, what problems do women present to this? Well, the Apostles were all men (Junia to the side, for now) and they passed this something to men only (there are no ordination records from the first few centuries, so we have to take this on faith) and so on through the ages (known exceptions being ignored here). And, if there is any doubt, the Twelve were all men (though the angels were female, providing for the troop from their own resources). So a woman would break the chain and the something would not come down to those whom they ordained and thus apparent sacraments would not actually be sacraments and apparent priests and bishops would not actually be such. And those under their sway would thus not receive the means to salvation and be eternally damned. (I suppose something like this line of argument goes on for the Evangelicals as well, at least the last bit.)
So what is this something passed down and delegated? Well. it has something to do with what a friend of mine -- who failed her discernment interview on this occasion -- called "the magic cookie" and the right to speak authoritatively about the faith. And there are basically two view about what that is.
The first, the institutional story, is that all the rites involved are merely the church's way of solemnizing a person's passage into a position in the organization. The upper hierarchy and the people agreeing, the ordinand or whatever now becomes a person in that position. What is transmitted, if anything, is an appropriate part of the power of the church. S/he can now preach and consecrate with authority, subject to local rules. And can be kicked out, of course, and lapse into a peculiar state -- though not from this point of view.
For the state to be peculiar we need the other, spiritual, view, that what happens at ordination is a transference of a spiritual power, a link to God that others lack, and by virtue of which the person now gets power to do the magic cookie bit and have it count and to speak with some authority. But this transference is made only if the institutional requirements are met. So it remains the institution that determines who gets this power. And by the above basic principle, if all the requirements are met, then the Holy Ghost will see to it that the power is transferred, since it is always God (presumably the Holy Spirit) who attend to such matters. Thus a duly ordained person performs valid sacraments until deposed, regardless of personal flaws: if the sacrament offered by a serial pedophile, properly ordained, is valid, then so too is that of a properly ordained woman (the Italian Church has recently equated these two "flaws").
Resisting not only ignores the 39Articles, it denies the power of the Holy Ghost to do new things and all things well.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Last Wright
(I don't know how much longer I can work variations on this pun.)
The noted New Testament scholar (i.e., person with the right sort of degrees from the right-sounding place who has written several books about NT and environs, some of which have sold almost as well pulp Christly bodice-rippers -- and to much the same folk), N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, has delivered his last address to the Synod of his diocese. As Americans expect in association with "Durham", it is largely bull. He touches (in a generous use of the term) on many topics, only a couple of which are of interest here, circling inevitably around homosexuality and the Anglican Communion.
I begin with his discussion of adiaphora (things that don't make a difference, not communion deal-breakers). He notes, correctly, that the question of ordaining women was discussed across the communion before it occurred and suggests that it was agreed that this was adiaphora (hereinafter "trivia") and then various provinces ordained or did not, as they chose. What happened, of course, is that, while the communion (meaning mainly the bishops) were still taking a generally negative position on the issue, some provinces (indeed, some dioceses within provinces) just went ahead and did it. After the dust settled -- a few congregations here and there leaving, a little rewriting of some rule books, a few provinces getting in a huff -- it was discovered that the communion still held together, that the issue was trivia. The discussion was good groundwork, but the decision that it was trivia was never made as such and came after the fact.
This leads to the consecration of a lesbian in a committed (20-some year -- match that, breeders!) relationship as a Bishop in Los Angeles. This has not been declared trivia, he correctly notes, and flies in the face of the clear NT prohibition against sex outside of marriage between man and woman, he claims. Where to start?
I suppose by noting how clever Tom Durham is here at avoiding all the interesting issues. As noted above, the issue of a declaration of triviality is irrelevant: they just don't happen until the battle is over, if at all. But notice what the issue that is not officially trivial is: sex outside of marriage -- not homosexual sex, objecting to which by name would open one to a charge of homophobia, which is bad pr, especially Durham, apparently. Duh! No one wants to do away with the prohibition against sex outside of marriage (officially -- practical applications are another matter and one needs it around to deal with public scandals and as reason of last resort firing irksome underlings). The issue has not even come up for discussion, which Tom sees as a necessary precursor for action. The same cannot be said, of course, about the real issue: the role of homosexual person in committed relationships in the orders of the church. No one has even suggested that homosexual sex outside of such a relationship should not be regarded as as serious a block to orders as promiscuous heterosexual sex (indeed, practically it is more effective and more used than the more common kind).
Notice, too, that the issue (which is again a real one in the situation) of the equivalency of committed homosexual relationships with marriage between a man and a woman is nicely finessed by building the assumption that marriage is necessarily heterosexual into statement of the issue (petitio principii), which is, again, taken to be whether sex outside marriage is an obstacle to participation in Christian practices. Further, the authoritative prohibition against sex outside of marriage is restricted to the NT, since bringing in the OT would introduce so many special cases as to make a clear prohibition unlikely (and even when we get a clear case, David has probably violated it and been rewarded by God again -- he didn't even get punished for a flagrant bit adultery, though he did lose a child for trying to cover it up by killing the husband. It's always the cover-up that gets the powerful. But the next child of that particular escapade was Solomon.)
And in the NT is is possible to get a number of passages that are against sex outside of marriage, Paul's "If you can't keep it in your chiton, then get married already" being the most obvious (strictly "It is better to marry than to burn" -- whether in Hell or with lust is unclear). But anyone who talks about a clear prohibition in the Bible is someone who has not read the Bible much or very carefully (hence the snarky remarks about "noted NT scholar" above). Consider (from the OT) how the 10 Commandments of the KJV have become much hazier on investigation ("kill" -> "murder", for example). Even such a clear statement as "A divorced man who remarries commits adultery" (from nearly historical Jesus, not from mythical Moses) is immediately suspect, since it implies that a wife has conjugal rights in a marriage, a concept that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism would get around to introducing later, but was not available to Jesus in 30 CE. But even if it were ever so clear, such a command does not guarantee that the thing prohibited will not be "declared" trivial, as the case of divorce clearly shows. There was some talk about it, then some places started remarrying divorced people, then the rules got changed and lo, the communion remained (I remember a grilling I got for my second marriage, in 1975 -- and the priest who gave it got an even more thorough one from his bishop, and even in 1990, my intended was offered the choice of only spinster or widow -- not her actual, divorcee -- to describe her status. That one was resolved by the suggestion that the parish got to vote on which to apply).
So the jump from "It's in the Book" to "It cannot be changed" doesn't work in fact. So, even if our Tom's strong position, that sex outside of marriage is unequivocally prohibited in the NT and was therefore a block to some roles within the Christian church, were correct. It does not follow that it cannot be "declared" trivial. But, as noted, no one is suggesting that it should be.
A fortiori, the claim that the NT holds certain kinds of sex outside of marriage are a block to some positions in the church or ought not be sanctioned by the church does not mean that they may never become trivia. And it does not mean that these items cannot be discussed and positions acted upon to test the water -- not precluding the outcome that the water stays unperturbed and the issue "declared" trivial. And, of course, someone is suggesting that this should be: homosexual sex within a committed relationship.
To be fair, when the Bible talks about sex outside marriage, it does mean outside heterosexual marriage (although outside an institution very different in most respects from a marriage in the modern world). In Biblical times, there was no official conception of homosexuality and so none of homosexual marriage. Paul does move a bit in the direction the modern notion by talking about people whose erotic attention was turned to members of their own sex, but then he deals with it as an acquired characteristic of "normal" (heterosexual) people (and, moreover, as part of the punishment for -- or general chaotic result of -- sinful society). Classical culture had only two recognized forms of sexual interplay between members of the same sex: pederasty (or "ephebophilia", as participating chicken hawks like to correct us to say), which involved a heterosexual keeping a young person around for sex and maybe (at least officially) for educating, and homosexual prostitution, which involved a heterosexual person going out and buying the temporary sexual services of someone in that business. One cannot use the Bible's failure to speak on the issue of homosexual marriage (or committed relationship) and its relation to other similar phenomena (heterosexual marriage, homosexual promiscuity or "mentoring", heterosexual promiscuity) as evidence that the activity is forbidden (as the promiscuities and the mentoring clearly are). It should be noted that the love that dare not speak its name (indeed, could not, because it didn't have one) surely went in ancient time much as today, either under the mentoring guise or simply by keeping the whole thing well hidden away (we get occasional hints -- and even fairly clear stories -- in the records). Incidentally, Jesus' only recorded contact with this (or a case of regular mentoring) ends with him restoring the mignon without any further comment (you could claim there was no comment because this wasn't such a case, but that is hard to hold reading even the short passage with a sense of what went on back then).
So, the situation that Wright is talking around is this. There is a long tradition in the church that people who are known by the general public to engage in homosexual sex (or are presumed to because they live with someone of the same sex in an intimate way) not be appointed to public positions (ordained ministry and certain sorts of public lay positions) in the church. This is because such sex is outside the only kind of sex in fact (or, indeed, possibly) approved by Scripture. Notice, importantly, that this tradition does not prohibit appointing to such positions people who are homosexuals but not sexually active (that ship sailed before the church was a church and any beep worthy of his stick knows that he can't get by with without his homosexual priests and active parishioners -- gays really like church) . It also does not apply to sexually active homosexuals whose activities are not known outside the cadre, at least if these are in stable relationships (some even become saints!). A parallel tradition is that the church not officially recognize, bless or sanction committed homosexual relationships. This tradition also has an array of exceptions, these, however, being a matter of different times and places, rather than about public knowledge (since, of course, a church blessing or the like would be public in some sense). There is now some discussion about changing these traditions, but no decision has been reached by the communion as a whole. Right now, that is, going against these traditions is officially thought to be a communion buster. A few "rogue provinces" have taken steps that amount to going against these traditions and the dust is now flying.
I want to step back a bit and look again at the notion that discussions are now going on, since Wright seems to think this is important. (Wright is a self-proclaimed strong supporter of women in all orders of ministry, i.e., of women bishops in England now. He does feel, however, that the discussion has not yet reached the point where action can be taken, because it has not yet worked out how the issue can be genuinely trivial , i.e., available to all but forced on none. In practice, this means that no one has come up with a magic salve which will allow any diocese to have a woman bishop and yet allow any extremist (fundy or papist) parish in the diocese to avoid getting lady-cooties from such oversight. In short, he feels C of E should not go ahead until it has found a way for a woman to have the full authority of a bishop and yet not have authority over some parishes within her diocese. One assumes that he would have any discussion on the issue at hand here to continue without action until the parallel self-contradiction is resolved). The discussion so far over the last 40 years, give or take, has been of the form:
A proposes a theological ground that permits the contravention of the tradition and offers some testimony by and about homosexuals, as recommended by the Listening Process
B ignores this and recites a litany consisting of a handful of Bible verses and the claims that it will complicate our life with other churches and with the Muslims. B also claims that there are no such things as homosexuals, or, if there are, there are none in its country/church, or, if there are, they are either foreign or paid agents of some international conspiracy (rather like the leaders of those same churches).
A critically evaluates the passages cited and examines the relevance of other churches and Islam to out church and its mission, showing that these need not prevent the change proposed and adds new arguments for the change and new lgbt testimony.
B ignores this and repeats its litany and denials.
Repeat from step 2.
(I may be unfair to B here a bit, but I haven't found the evidence of serious involvement with A's arguments nor deviation from the litany. Can someone steer me to any of this?)
Clearly this is not going to arrive at a decision on rational grounds -- and, as noted -- such debates never have. So, as usual, various "rogue" provinces, dioceses and parishes have acted in a variety of ways: blessing homosexual commitments, either with informal liturgies fadged up for the occasion or samizdat forms that circulate; openly ordaining open homosexual clergy in various offices and using openly homosexual laity in publicly visible church roles; performing civil union or marriage ceremonies in church where such certifications are civilly available; openly preparing liturgies for such ceremonies and so on. These have been going on for at least forty years, but have become more common in the last decade (it's a new century and homophobia is so 20th century). The crisis seems to have come when some dioceses officially approved liturgies for blessing same sex commitments and when a province actually consecrated a homosexual openly in a committed relationship as a bishop (doing so a second time, nearly a decade later, is the immediate spark for the current kerfuffle).
And, at the moment, the disruption has not subsided, although its character has changed. There seem to be about an equal number of provinces on each side, with again about the same number not yet really heard from. So a declaration that the matter is trivial is not in view (but never was nor will be). On the other hand, the communion is not split yet, although there is a certain amount of being in the same communion but not taking the same communion wandering around. And there is a lot of rearranging going on: parishes are pulling out of dioceses and dioceses out of provinces to join with like-minded folks in distant lands, new organizations are coming into being or old ones receiving new powers in the interest of bringing some coherence to the discussion process as well as finding a way enforce the tradition upon the rogues. Since, in many ways the C of E is the most rogue of the provinces (though not doing many things officially), one group of these organizations is aimed to set up a communion (of the pure) which does not revolve around the ABC and the mother church. The other seems to be more occupied with centralizing more decisio0n making (declaring trivial) power in a the ABC and a collection of other beeps.
In a sense, Wright is right that the discussions have not gone on enough. This is because, as his version of the issue show, the issue has not yet been fully stated. What is needed is to get away from sex and back to marriage. No synod has yet taken up the following propositions, though many have circled around it:
A committed life-long relationship between two people of the same sex is the moral
equivalent of a heterosexual marriage and therefore:
1. being in such a relationship is no bar to any office in the church;
2. the church should urge civil authorities to recognize such relationships and give them all the rights and dutes given to heterosexual marriage;
3. the church should allow the formalization of the legal version of this commitment with the church when then the law allows -- and the blessing of it in any case;
4. the church should develop liturgies, similar to those for marriage (or identical if the civil law permits), for formalizing and blessing such commitments.
In one sense, this declaration would complicate matters, since it makes clear where the issue lies and thus can focus the negative reaction. On the other hand, it also restrict what one has to do to support the position. The need to discuss homosexual sex vanishes, for it is the commitment (and thus the mirroring of God's love for the church and the intra-church love of each for all) that is the distinctive feature to be defended, We do not, after all inquire into the sexual practices within heterosexual marriage, nor mention them in the wedding ceremony. Why bring them up in this parallel case? And most of the arguments now used against this proposal turn around and support it.
The noted New Testament scholar (i.e., person with the right sort of degrees from the right-sounding place who has written several books about NT and environs, some of which have sold almost as well pulp Christly bodice-rippers -- and to much the same folk), N.T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, has delivered his last address to the Synod of his diocese. As Americans expect in association with "Durham", it is largely bull. He touches (in a generous use of the term) on many topics, only a couple of which are of interest here, circling inevitably around homosexuality and the Anglican Communion.
I begin with his discussion of adiaphora (things that don't make a difference, not communion deal-breakers). He notes, correctly, that the question of ordaining women was discussed across the communion before it occurred and suggests that it was agreed that this was adiaphora (hereinafter "trivia") and then various provinces ordained or did not, as they chose. What happened, of course, is that, while the communion (meaning mainly the bishops) were still taking a generally negative position on the issue, some provinces (indeed, some dioceses within provinces) just went ahead and did it. After the dust settled -- a few congregations here and there leaving, a little rewriting of some rule books, a few provinces getting in a huff -- it was discovered that the communion still held together, that the issue was trivia. The discussion was good groundwork, but the decision that it was trivia was never made as such and came after the fact.
This leads to the consecration of a lesbian in a committed (20-some year -- match that, breeders!) relationship as a Bishop in Los Angeles. This has not been declared trivia, he correctly notes, and flies in the face of the clear NT prohibition against sex outside of marriage between man and woman, he claims. Where to start?
I suppose by noting how clever Tom Durham is here at avoiding all the interesting issues. As noted above, the issue of a declaration of triviality is irrelevant: they just don't happen until the battle is over, if at all. But notice what the issue that is not officially trivial is: sex outside of marriage -- not homosexual sex, objecting to which by name would open one to a charge of homophobia, which is bad pr, especially Durham, apparently. Duh! No one wants to do away with the prohibition against sex outside of marriage (officially -- practical applications are another matter and one needs it around to deal with public scandals and as reason of last resort firing irksome underlings). The issue has not even come up for discussion, which Tom sees as a necessary precursor for action. The same cannot be said, of course, about the real issue: the role of homosexual person in committed relationships in the orders of the church. No one has even suggested that homosexual sex outside of such a relationship should not be regarded as as serious a block to orders as promiscuous heterosexual sex (indeed, practically it is more effective and more used than the more common kind).
Notice, too, that the issue (which is again a real one in the situation) of the equivalency of committed homosexual relationships with marriage between a man and a woman is nicely finessed by building the assumption that marriage is necessarily heterosexual into statement of the issue (petitio principii), which is, again, taken to be whether sex outside marriage is an obstacle to participation in Christian practices. Further, the authoritative prohibition against sex outside of marriage is restricted to the NT, since bringing in the OT would introduce so many special cases as to make a clear prohibition unlikely (and even when we get a clear case, David has probably violated it and been rewarded by God again -- he didn't even get punished for a flagrant bit adultery, though he did lose a child for trying to cover it up by killing the husband. It's always the cover-up that gets the powerful. But the next child of that particular escapade was Solomon.)
And in the NT is is possible to get a number of passages that are against sex outside of marriage, Paul's "If you can't keep it in your chiton, then get married already" being the most obvious (strictly "It is better to marry than to burn" -- whether in Hell or with lust is unclear). But anyone who talks about a clear prohibition in the Bible is someone who has not read the Bible much or very carefully (hence the snarky remarks about "noted NT scholar" above). Consider (from the OT) how the 10 Commandments of the KJV have become much hazier on investigation ("kill" -> "murder", for example). Even such a clear statement as "A divorced man who remarries commits adultery" (from nearly historical Jesus, not from mythical Moses) is immediately suspect, since it implies that a wife has conjugal rights in a marriage, a concept that Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism would get around to introducing later, but was not available to Jesus in 30 CE. But even if it were ever so clear, such a command does not guarantee that the thing prohibited will not be "declared" trivial, as the case of divorce clearly shows. There was some talk about it, then some places started remarrying divorced people, then the rules got changed and lo, the communion remained (I remember a grilling I got for my second marriage, in 1975 -- and the priest who gave it got an even more thorough one from his bishop, and even in 1990, my intended was offered the choice of only spinster or widow -- not her actual, divorcee -- to describe her status. That one was resolved by the suggestion that the parish got to vote on which to apply).
So the jump from "It's in the Book" to "It cannot be changed" doesn't work in fact. So, even if our Tom's strong position, that sex outside of marriage is unequivocally prohibited in the NT and was therefore a block to some roles within the Christian church, were correct. It does not follow that it cannot be "declared" trivial. But, as noted, no one is suggesting that it should be.
A fortiori, the claim that the NT holds certain kinds of sex outside of marriage are a block to some positions in the church or ought not be sanctioned by the church does not mean that they may never become trivia. And it does not mean that these items cannot be discussed and positions acted upon to test the water -- not precluding the outcome that the water stays unperturbed and the issue "declared" trivial. And, of course, someone is suggesting that this should be: homosexual sex within a committed relationship.
To be fair, when the Bible talks about sex outside marriage, it does mean outside heterosexual marriage (although outside an institution very different in most respects from a marriage in the modern world). In Biblical times, there was no official conception of homosexuality and so none of homosexual marriage. Paul does move a bit in the direction the modern notion by talking about people whose erotic attention was turned to members of their own sex, but then he deals with it as an acquired characteristic of "normal" (heterosexual) people (and, moreover, as part of the punishment for -- or general chaotic result of -- sinful society). Classical culture had only two recognized forms of sexual interplay between members of the same sex: pederasty (or "ephebophilia", as participating chicken hawks like to correct us to say), which involved a heterosexual keeping a young person around for sex and maybe (at least officially) for educating, and homosexual prostitution, which involved a heterosexual person going out and buying the temporary sexual services of someone in that business. One cannot use the Bible's failure to speak on the issue of homosexual marriage (or committed relationship) and its relation to other similar phenomena (heterosexual marriage, homosexual promiscuity or "mentoring", heterosexual promiscuity) as evidence that the activity is forbidden (as the promiscuities and the mentoring clearly are). It should be noted that the love that dare not speak its name (indeed, could not, because it didn't have one) surely went in ancient time much as today, either under the mentoring guise or simply by keeping the whole thing well hidden away (we get occasional hints -- and even fairly clear stories -- in the records). Incidentally, Jesus' only recorded contact with this (or a case of regular mentoring) ends with him restoring the mignon without any further comment (you could claim there was no comment because this wasn't such a case, but that is hard to hold reading even the short passage with a sense of what went on back then).
So, the situation that Wright is talking around is this. There is a long tradition in the church that people who are known by the general public to engage in homosexual sex (or are presumed to because they live with someone of the same sex in an intimate way) not be appointed to public positions (ordained ministry and certain sorts of public lay positions) in the church. This is because such sex is outside the only kind of sex in fact (or, indeed, possibly) approved by Scripture. Notice, importantly, that this tradition does not prohibit appointing to such positions people who are homosexuals but not sexually active (that ship sailed before the church was a church and any beep worthy of his stick knows that he can't get by with without his homosexual priests and active parishioners -- gays really like church) . It also does not apply to sexually active homosexuals whose activities are not known outside the cadre, at least if these are in stable relationships (some even become saints!). A parallel tradition is that the church not officially recognize, bless or sanction committed homosexual relationships. This tradition also has an array of exceptions, these, however, being a matter of different times and places, rather than about public knowledge (since, of course, a church blessing or the like would be public in some sense). There is now some discussion about changing these traditions, but no decision has been reached by the communion as a whole. Right now, that is, going against these traditions is officially thought to be a communion buster. A few "rogue provinces" have taken steps that amount to going against these traditions and the dust is now flying.
I want to step back a bit and look again at the notion that discussions are now going on, since Wright seems to think this is important. (Wright is a self-proclaimed strong supporter of women in all orders of ministry, i.e., of women bishops in England now. He does feel, however, that the discussion has not yet reached the point where action can be taken, because it has not yet worked out how the issue can be genuinely trivial , i.e., available to all but forced on none. In practice, this means that no one has come up with a magic salve which will allow any diocese to have a woman bishop and yet allow any extremist (fundy or papist) parish in the diocese to avoid getting lady-cooties from such oversight. In short, he feels C of E should not go ahead until it has found a way for a woman to have the full authority of a bishop and yet not have authority over some parishes within her diocese. One assumes that he would have any discussion on the issue at hand here to continue without action until the parallel self-contradiction is resolved). The discussion so far over the last 40 years, give or take, has been of the form:
A proposes a theological ground that permits the contravention of the tradition and offers some testimony by and about homosexuals, as recommended by the Listening Process
B ignores this and recites a litany consisting of a handful of Bible verses and the claims that it will complicate our life with other churches and with the Muslims. B also claims that there are no such things as homosexuals, or, if there are, there are none in its country/church, or, if there are, they are either foreign or paid agents of some international conspiracy (rather like the leaders of those same churches).
A critically evaluates the passages cited and examines the relevance of other churches and Islam to out church and its mission, showing that these need not prevent the change proposed and adds new arguments for the change and new lgbt testimony.
B ignores this and repeats its litany and denials.
Repeat from step 2.
(I may be unfair to B here a bit, but I haven't found the evidence of serious involvement with A's arguments nor deviation from the litany. Can someone steer me to any of this?)
Clearly this is not going to arrive at a decision on rational grounds -- and, as noted -- such debates never have. So, as usual, various "rogue" provinces, dioceses and parishes have acted in a variety of ways: blessing homosexual commitments, either with informal liturgies fadged up for the occasion or samizdat forms that circulate; openly ordaining open homosexual clergy in various offices and using openly homosexual laity in publicly visible church roles; performing civil union or marriage ceremonies in church where such certifications are civilly available; openly preparing liturgies for such ceremonies and so on. These have been going on for at least forty years, but have become more common in the last decade (it's a new century and homophobia is so 20th century). The crisis seems to have come when some dioceses officially approved liturgies for blessing same sex commitments and when a province actually consecrated a homosexual openly in a committed relationship as a bishop (doing so a second time, nearly a decade later, is the immediate spark for the current kerfuffle).
And, at the moment, the disruption has not subsided, although its character has changed. There seem to be about an equal number of provinces on each side, with again about the same number not yet really heard from. So a declaration that the matter is trivial is not in view (but never was nor will be). On the other hand, the communion is not split yet, although there is a certain amount of being in the same communion but not taking the same communion wandering around. And there is a lot of rearranging going on: parishes are pulling out of dioceses and dioceses out of provinces to join with like-minded folks in distant lands, new organizations are coming into being or old ones receiving new powers in the interest of bringing some coherence to the discussion process as well as finding a way enforce the tradition upon the rogues. Since, in many ways the C of E is the most rogue of the provinces (though not doing many things officially), one group of these organizations is aimed to set up a communion (of the pure) which does not revolve around the ABC and the mother church. The other seems to be more occupied with centralizing more decisio0n making (declaring trivial) power in a the ABC and a collection of other beeps.
In a sense, Wright is right that the discussions have not gone on enough. This is because, as his version of the issue show, the issue has not yet been fully stated. What is needed is to get away from sex and back to marriage. No synod has yet taken up the following propositions, though many have circled around it:
A committed life-long relationship between two people of the same sex is the moral
equivalent of a heterosexual marriage and therefore:
1. being in such a relationship is no bar to any office in the church;
2. the church should urge civil authorities to recognize such relationships and give them all the rights and dutes given to heterosexual marriage;
3. the church should allow the formalization of the legal version of this commitment with the church when then the law allows -- and the blessing of it in any case;
4. the church should develop liturgies, similar to those for marriage (or identical if the civil law permits), for formalizing and blessing such commitments.
In one sense, this declaration would complicate matters, since it makes clear where the issue lies and thus can focus the negative reaction. On the other hand, it also restrict what one has to do to support the position. The need to discuss homosexual sex vanishes, for it is the commitment (and thus the mirroring of God's love for the church and the intra-church love of each for all) that is the distinctive feature to be defended, We do not, after all inquire into the sexual practices within heterosexual marriage, nor mention them in the wedding ceremony. Why bring them up in this parallel case? And most of the arguments now used against this proposal turn around and support it.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Eli Oxen Free
Since I haven't figured out how to talk about Avatar without sounding like a fundy who sees satanism in every mention of Harry Potter, I'd like to say a few words about The Book of Eli.
This is clearly a work designed for some sort of religious (or anti-religious) paranoid audience, but I can't figure out at which end (so it may be a work intended to appeal to both). At the end of the Great War (during which the ozone layer went away briefly and so most folk over thirty have fried retinas) , the conflict was blamed on the Bible (fantasy left) and all copies of it (at least the (N)KJV) were destroyed (right). But some know that the Bible holds the key to the new civilization (right), but think this is because its words have the power to control mankind in a totalitarian state(left).
In to the desolate world thirty years after the war -- a world whose desolation is revealed in the best use ever of a Sphinx cat, as bleak and barren and yet as hope for tomorrow('s lunch) -- come a lone figure walking on a thirty year trek ever westward from Atlanta to a haven and embryonic New World to which a voice directs him and his precious cargo. Although his progress of less than a hundred miles a year seems slow -- even accounting for time spent getting revenge meals for rats and learning the choreography of silhouette cinema knife fights with an Arkansas toothpick punched out to look like an African ceremonial dagger (which he carries Wesley Snipes fashion), he seems driven to complete his task as soon as possible. And he does get the last several years' worth of travel in in this movie (in a car yet).
He is not a White Messiah (that's Avatar); he is Denzel Washington and he is just carrying a message, or even the carrier of a message. He knows the message he carries and that it is the hope of the future, but he (with deep retrospective regrets) cannot complete his journey if he lives by that message: he must destroy all that stand in the way of his mission (I think this is right, but then I see a lot of it on the left, too) nor can he turn aside to help others beside the way (though, happily, the case of this we see gets "rectified" since the perpetrators of the outrage later get in his way as well -- no help to the raped and slaughtered, of course). He can barely turn aside for food and water, so certainly he will not fall to the blandishments of the power mad (left) or of pretty or lonely or even sympathetic women (right?). And when he achieves his goal (gasping his last in the process), it becomes a new book from the revived printing industry, to go along side the Encyclopedia Britanica (missing a few volumes). (just cynical -- so left?)
I'm sure we are meant to find a moral here, as an excuse for the (hardly gratuitous -- it is the point, after all) violence. Preserving the basic text of Christianity is more important that living Christianity? (right) Living Christianity is no longer possible in the dog eat dog world to come?(left) It is noble to be fixated on a task and carry on against all obstacles and temptations, however doing so contradicts one's original motivation? The movie is a flop as a fable or allegory or whatever extra-meaning vehicle you choose. It barely makes it as a slasher flick, except a for a little physical misogyny and the shadow-puppet fights.
And it wastes (in a variety of senses of the word) Michael Gambon and Frances de la Torre.
Aside from the likelihood of its putting most churches out of business, I would like to start a movement to prohibit the use of Christian themes and plots without actually carrying Christ's message. This movie is a good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)