According to an old logic joke, for any predicate, F, there is a least likely thing to have the property, a thing such that , if it should have the property than EVERYTHING has the property. The theorem that this vivid misreading is a simple conversion of Tautology, "if P then P", the most trivial of logical laws. One could build a whole logical system using a term for the the least likely F (and another for the most likely one -- what is an F if anything is-- with the same sort of history) and doing away with quantifiers (and their messy rules). Vut notation needed to compensate would be messy indeed.
"Least likely" makes me think of Jesus, the least likely Messiah. Everything about him is wrong: his parentage is open to question, and even if you accept his apparent parents they are the lowest of the low -- not landowner or even tenant farmers but landless laborers. Nor is he from the big city or a famous town, but from a shanty village thrown up house laborers for the overlords' rebuilding of a rebel city near by. And his triumph was a disaster, him dead and his followers scattered and dispirited. And yet, we can now say that this was the fullness of God on Earth.
We can take this "least likely" and rebuild theology upon it, for Christianity is all about the least likely and the fullness of the presence of God: the last are first, the oppressed are blessed and free, the fish food and bad wines are the Body and the Blood. And the conclusion is that, consequently, ALL are first, all are blessed and free, everything is the Body and the Blood. And whatsoever we do to the least is done to the Greatest.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Sunday, March 25, 2012
An Ancient Blister
The question of Communion without Baptism has reared its head again, thanks to Eastern Oregon proposing a motion for GC2012 to remove the rubric against it (well only specifying that those who have been properly baptized may receive). I am torn on this issue and, on another blog, suggested a middle path between openly allowing it and cracking down those who violate the rubric (recipients or priests? it's not clear): "if a hand is put forward, fill it; ditto for a mouth", noting that this seemed to be a case where DADT was a good policy.
Why? First and foremost, because the strict adherence to the rule is a practical impossibility. We can hardly go back (if TEC was ever there) to reserving a spot at the communion table or carrying our baptismal certificate to be shown at each communion, To do so is not only impractical but rude (inhospitable -- what we are loudly trying not to be), by excluding passers by who come in not knowing the rules. And I personally have trouble imagining an Episcopal priest refusing communion to even a notorious sinner right out in the meeting (too much commotion and murmuring).
The main (and oldest) argument against the Eastern Oregon proposal, and even this ad hoc work-around, is that Baptism is the entry in to Christ's Kingdom and seating at the banquet in that Kingdom is reward open only to citizens. That is, we have to be in before the blessing, comfort and sustaining that the feast brings is available to us. There is sense in this: the Eucharist is a sacramentalizing of a basic fact, reminding us again that Jesus is present in everything. It would seem that only a believer would know this fact to be reminded of it by the sacrament. Aside from the fact that it is possible to be baptized and never learn the omnipresence of God in a meaningful way, it is clearly possible for the opposite state to obtain. Further, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence that the very act of taking communion can trigger the realization of the truth therein sacralized.
The other (also ancient) objection is that an unbeliever taking communion does some serious harm. But it is hard to see where the harm lies. It is not to the sacrament itself -- the flaws of even the priest do not harm that, let alone those of the partakers. To be sure, there might be a p.r. problem: if a church had given communion to someone known to be notorious sinner and thus, in effect, admitted him into the community, the whole community might be branded with that notoriety. But such matters are to be borne and fade rather quickly, as a rule. The other possible harm might be to the taker, the unbaptized unbeliever. But he has just had a sip wine and a bit of a cracker or pita or whatever; the blasphemy, if it is such, only happens if he perceives that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which he is taking inappropriately, which, ex hypothesi, he does not. (I skip over the aptness of all this to the problems in the Anglican Communion.)
So, if the arguments against bwc are mainly emotional, what of the arguments for it. And there don't seem to be any, other than the appeal to our vaunted openness and inclusiveness, that no one should be cut off from being part of our community, even for only an hour. This, too, has an emotional impact in the political air of our time. It can be bolstered somewhat by pointing to Jesus' example: he laid no conditions on those who attended the archetype of the Eucharist (unless footwashing counts as Baptism) and freely gave both bread and wine to one he knew to be outside the community. Should we be more restrictive when we don't know or know but situationally ought not act (forbidding the sacrament to a lesbian at her mother's funeral, for example).
Why? First and foremost, because the strict adherence to the rule is a practical impossibility. We can hardly go back (if TEC was ever there) to reserving a spot at the communion table or carrying our baptismal certificate to be shown at each communion, To do so is not only impractical but rude (inhospitable -- what we are loudly trying not to be), by excluding passers by who come in not knowing the rules. And I personally have trouble imagining an Episcopal priest refusing communion to even a notorious sinner right out in the meeting (too much commotion and murmuring).
The main (and oldest) argument against the Eastern Oregon proposal, and even this ad hoc work-around, is that Baptism is the entry in to Christ's Kingdom and seating at the banquet in that Kingdom is reward open only to citizens. That is, we have to be in before the blessing, comfort and sustaining that the feast brings is available to us. There is sense in this: the Eucharist is a sacramentalizing of a basic fact, reminding us again that Jesus is present in everything. It would seem that only a believer would know this fact to be reminded of it by the sacrament. Aside from the fact that it is possible to be baptized and never learn the omnipresence of God in a meaningful way, it is clearly possible for the opposite state to obtain. Further, there is a significant amount of anecdotal evidence that the very act of taking communion can trigger the realization of the truth therein sacralized.
The other (also ancient) objection is that an unbeliever taking communion does some serious harm. But it is hard to see where the harm lies. It is not to the sacrament itself -- the flaws of even the priest do not harm that, let alone those of the partakers. To be sure, there might be a p.r. problem: if a church had given communion to someone known to be notorious sinner and thus, in effect, admitted him into the community, the whole community might be branded with that notoriety. But such matters are to be borne and fade rather quickly, as a rule. The other possible harm might be to the taker, the unbaptized unbeliever. But he has just had a sip wine and a bit of a cracker or pita or whatever; the blasphemy, if it is such, only happens if he perceives that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which he is taking inappropriately, which, ex hypothesi, he does not. (I skip over the aptness of all this to the problems in the Anglican Communion.)
So, if the arguments against bwc are mainly emotional, what of the arguments for it. And there don't seem to be any, other than the appeal to our vaunted openness and inclusiveness, that no one should be cut off from being part of our community, even for only an hour. This, too, has an emotional impact in the political air of our time. It can be bolstered somewhat by pointing to Jesus' example: he laid no conditions on those who attended the archetype of the Eucharist (unless footwashing counts as Baptism) and freely gave both bread and wine to one he knew to be outside the community. Should we be more restrictive when we don't know or know but situationally ought not act (forbidding the sacrament to a lesbian at her mother's funeral, for example).
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Serm 1 Pentecost A
Acts 2: 1 - 21
Ps 104:23-35,37
I Cor 12: 3b-13
John 20:19-23
The Gospel is another case of the standing joke, the ordinary made to appear extraordinary, so that we can see how extraordinary the ordinary is. The Disciples, like all of us, already have the Holy Spirit, as part of the natural world. But we -- and even they -- are not aware of this fact, nor taking advantage of this presence. So Jesus here focuses them on this reality and gives them a clue to what to do with it.
Notice, Jesus doesn't say "I give you the Holy Spirit," either factually nor performatively. but "receive". This sounds fairly polite and mild, like receiving an honored guest. But the Greek, while it can mean that, mainly means "snatch, grasp, hold on to, seize" It is what you do when you conquer a city, or take a captive. So the disciples are being told not just to acknowledge that they have the Holy Spirit but they are wrestle with it to get their advantage from it.
The first lesson is the more familiar, the eponymous, lesson for today. Here again we have a dramatic display to call attention to the indwelling spirit and an immediate application (? it is not clear whether the Pentecostals actually spoke in a dozen different languages -- more or less at once -- or whether they spoke their Aramaic or ghetto Greek and got a simultaneous translation for each listener into his own tongue), And, as promised, the first fruits of this were a new heart of flesh, not stone (the alternate first reading) and true community in all things. But as the single cell became many cells, complications arose, involving, among other things, a notion that some gifts of the spirit were better than others and so Paul has to come and make (yet again, in all likelihood) the point that all are necessary for the whole and that each person is unique and thus receives of the spirit the gifts s/he can uniquely contribute to the whole. Without any of them, the whole is incomplete (and so -- going beyond Paul -- the body is not fully functional until all are in it. And yet, since all are in it in the sense of being connected, perhaps unawares, to the spirit, the body can function in an automatic sort of way)
Clearly, our task is to recognize the spirit within us and to direct ourselves under its guidance to the fulfillment of the community, body. And chief among those tasks is arousing the recognition within others. And the way to do this is love.
[Don't forget ShekinNAH, the crazy gal. who goes against convention and gives us the strength to do so for what she says is right -- not caught by the Hymnal, not dovish, etc. "Every time I feel the Spirit" is better ...]
Ps 104:23-35,37
I Cor 12: 3b-13
John 20:19-23
The Gospel is another case of the standing joke, the ordinary made to appear extraordinary, so that we can see how extraordinary the ordinary is. The Disciples, like all of us, already have the Holy Spirit, as part of the natural world. But we -- and even they -- are not aware of this fact, nor taking advantage of this presence. So Jesus here focuses them on this reality and gives them a clue to what to do with it.
Notice, Jesus doesn't say "I give you the Holy Spirit," either factually nor performatively. but "receive". This sounds fairly polite and mild, like receiving an honored guest. But the Greek, while it can mean that, mainly means "snatch, grasp, hold on to, seize" It is what you do when you conquer a city, or take a captive. So the disciples are being told not just to acknowledge that they have the Holy Spirit but they are wrestle with it to get their advantage from it.
The first lesson is the more familiar, the eponymous, lesson for today. Here again we have a dramatic display to call attention to the indwelling spirit and an immediate application (? it is not clear whether the Pentecostals actually spoke in a dozen different languages -- more or less at once -- or whether they spoke their Aramaic or ghetto Greek and got a simultaneous translation for each listener into his own tongue), And, as promised, the first fruits of this were a new heart of flesh, not stone (the alternate first reading) and true community in all things. But as the single cell became many cells, complications arose, involving, among other things, a notion that some gifts of the spirit were better than others and so Paul has to come and make (yet again, in all likelihood) the point that all are necessary for the whole and that each person is unique and thus receives of the spirit the gifts s/he can uniquely contribute to the whole. Without any of them, the whole is incomplete (and so -- going beyond Paul -- the body is not fully functional until all are in it. And yet, since all are in it in the sense of being connected, perhaps unawares, to the spirit, the body can function in an automatic sort of way)
Clearly, our task is to recognize the spirit within us and to direct ourselves under its guidance to the fulfillment of the community, body. And chief among those tasks is arousing the recognition within others. And the way to do this is love.
[Don't forget ShekinNAH, the crazy gal. who goes against convention and gives us the strength to do so for what she says is right -- not caught by the Hymnal, not dovish, etc. "Every time I feel the Spirit" is better ...]
Monday, March 28, 2011
Exalting the ordinary
When we look for motifs in the Bible and in church from which to make inferences about God's nature, one that does not get much notice is the way that God -- and his people -- make a big deal out of ordinary things.
I noticed this first in the little apocalypse (Mark 13), which Evangelicals are constantly citing to prove that these are The End Times:
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. (NIV)
Well, that certainly sounds like today. But, of course, it sounds like every day since the beginning of human history. Jesus has taken the (perhaps little noted) everyday state of the world and raised to a special status -- the beginning of The End. The point is probably that no one knows when The End will come, so live every day as though you were about to stand before The Judgment. But perhaps also that everyday really is the Judgment Day for someone. By bringing it into The Story, Jesus sanctifies or sacramentalizes each day to make them special.
Another, rather extreme case, occurred to me when someone was complaining about all the impossibilities in the Birth Narratives and the Creed, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" as though some spook could provide a complete male DNA strand. But then, in the magick world of Christianity, every conception is by the power of the Holy Spirit -- as is everything else, for that matter. Here again, the quotidian, even universal, is made special in one instance and thus raised in our consciousness to a sacrament. If, as Nietzsche says, the Immaculate Conception maculates all conceptions, Jesus' conception, by emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies conception again and points to God at the beginning of life as well as at the end and throughout. And yet -- certainly for my skeptical friend -- it was an ordinary event.
Which, by some trick of mind, brings me to The Real Presence. In this case, an ordinary event -- setting out the wine and crackers for a party -- has already been sacramentalized and, indeed, dramatized. Mid clouds of smoke, ringing bells and flowing, glowing robes, someone breaks some bread and pours out some wine, once, at least, perfectly ordinary acts, now given added significance. Or not. The whole show has become the ordinary stuff of Sunday morning. So the church needs to resacramentalize it. And this they do by insisting that this bread and this wine really are The Body and The Blood of Christ, that Christ is really in there somehow. But of course he is. And without priestly hocus pocus, but simply because he is in everything in creation. The ordinary highlighted to seems special, but calling attention -- when properly done -- to the extraordinary nature of everything.
Last week's Gospel (Lent 4A) is yet another case. The man was born blind not because of sin but so that God might be glorified. But God is always and everywhere glorified, whether we notice or not. Jesus now calls our attention to this fact by a very visible act. an overt glorification. And on the Sabbath! A day set aside for glorifying God is seen to be not different from other days, but another time for actually showing God's glory.
And finally we get an explanation for ordained clergy. they too are just ordinary folks, without special powers to do something special. Except that their presence makes what goes on special, it exalts the ordinary acts of feeding and events of God's presence, in the hope that, seeing them so magnified, we will come to notice them in their ordinary guise as feeding and God's presence in everything.
I noticed this first in the little apocalypse (Mark 13), which Evangelicals are constantly citing to prove that these are The End Times:
7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. (NIV)
Well, that certainly sounds like today. But, of course, it sounds like every day since the beginning of human history. Jesus has taken the (perhaps little noted) everyday state of the world and raised to a special status -- the beginning of The End. The point is probably that no one knows when The End will come, so live every day as though you were about to stand before The Judgment. But perhaps also that everyday really is the Judgment Day for someone. By bringing it into The Story, Jesus sanctifies or sacramentalizes each day to make them special.
Another, rather extreme case, occurred to me when someone was complaining about all the impossibilities in the Birth Narratives and the Creed, "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" as though some spook could provide a complete male DNA strand. But then, in the magick world of Christianity, every conception is by the power of the Holy Spirit -- as is everything else, for that matter. Here again, the quotidian, even universal, is made special in one instance and thus raised in our consciousness to a sacrament. If, as Nietzsche says, the Immaculate Conception maculates all conceptions, Jesus' conception, by emphasizing the role of the Holy Spirit, sanctifies conception again and points to God at the beginning of life as well as at the end and throughout. And yet -- certainly for my skeptical friend -- it was an ordinary event.
Which, by some trick of mind, brings me to The Real Presence. In this case, an ordinary event -- setting out the wine and crackers for a party -- has already been sacramentalized and, indeed, dramatized. Mid clouds of smoke, ringing bells and flowing, glowing robes, someone breaks some bread and pours out some wine, once, at least, perfectly ordinary acts, now given added significance. Or not. The whole show has become the ordinary stuff of Sunday morning. So the church needs to resacramentalize it. And this they do by insisting that this bread and this wine really are The Body and The Blood of Christ, that Christ is really in there somehow. But of course he is. And without priestly hocus pocus, but simply because he is in everything in creation. The ordinary highlighted to seems special, but calling attention -- when properly done -- to the extraordinary nature of everything.
Last week's Gospel (Lent 4A) is yet another case. The man was born blind not because of sin but so that God might be glorified. But God is always and everywhere glorified, whether we notice or not. Jesus now calls our attention to this fact by a very visible act. an overt glorification. And on the Sabbath! A day set aside for glorifying God is seen to be not different from other days, but another time for actually showing God's glory.
And finally we get an explanation for ordained clergy. they too are just ordinary folks, without special powers to do something special. Except that their presence makes what goes on special, it exalts the ordinary acts of feeding and events of God's presence, in the hope that, seeing them so magnified, we will come to notice them in their ordinary guise as feeding and God's presence in everything.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Christian Cosmology
To a large extent, the magical cosmology of late Neo-Platonism persists in Christian thinking, though with a different mythology and different practical applications (perhaps). For the physical world, Christians are content to leave the details of its operations to the scientists (of their choice, of course). But they assume that, under the physical world, lies God -- and perhaps a more varied spiritual realm.
God relates to the physical world in a variety of ways. First, God is its creator, whether by vocal fiat from nothing or by upsetting the equilibrium in a force feel or by yet some other means. Secondly, God sustains the universe; it continues to exist and operate because of something God does or is. A part of this sustenance is a complete record of all that has occurred and is occurring. But God is also present. fragmented yet not separated, in each thing in the world, a spark of the divine. And from these facts (tenets), we derive what we believe to know about God.
About creation, which was before our time, we can say little with certainty, though we can tell a variety of stories, But we claim to derive from the nature of the created (as we perceive it) some knowledge of what God is like, insofar as we can make comparisons. The universe is immense (encompassing a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, spread over several billion light-years of space), so God must be more immense, say infinite. The universe is diverse, stars and galaxies of many sorts, constantly changing, with new forms emerging and old ones passing into something different. So God favors diversity and change (though being of a single nature and unchanging -- thanks to the Neo-Platonists again). There is life and intelligence in the universe, so God must like these features. To be sure, the evidence for this is one planet circling one of E18 stars, but (the reasoning go circularly) there must be others with life and intelligence as well (the problems with this are passed on to later folk, with real evidence to deal with), From these observations, then, it is possible to begin to see the sort of life God expects of his people, though not in crucial detail.
About the sustaining function of God, a bit more can be said, though not much with strong conviction beyond the fact of the sustenance. Some that claim to understand quantum physics a bit would hold God is the constant observer that brings all the mere probabilities to reality (usually without bows to Bishop Berkeley and the God "always about in the Quad"). Other, noting that quantum physics doesn't exactly say that, tend to even more metaphysical explanations: God's essence is existence, so only by God's participation can anything exist, for example. But few can resist the temptation to explain the continuing link among subatomic particle once in contact (any everything was once in contact) to the instantaneous connection within the single, undifferentiated God. But even without this (and chaos and complexity theory -- butterflies in Mexico causing floods in China), Christians are committed to the belief that everything is connected in some way, whether that be causally significant or not (more on this later).
The belief that God records all that occurs, sees and remembers it, turns up in various places. The primary source is the doctrine of resurrection. Christians have a variety of notions -- all Biblically based -- on what happens after death, but one that gets special prominence throughout is that, at the end of time, the dead shall come back to life in their bodies (usually upgraded from their best state) with all their personality (again somewhat cleaned up) and memories, etc. intact. Which means that these memories have to be stored somewhere and God seems the only candidate. That this recording goes beyond humans, their bodies and minds, is a leap, of course, but probably less so than the notion that the recordings started suddenly with the first being that was actually human (though presumably God could make this distinction though we cannot).
The bit about the sparks of the divine is also an extention from the human case, where it is a matter of introspective observation (conscience, say) and theology (the immortal soul, another part of the after-death complex). Here it has at least three stages: the divine spark is what makes the difference between a chemical reaction and life, which might otherwise be reduced to just those reaction. Later in the development of the world, it is the divine spark that makes the difference between brain states (or perhaps even less complex body states) and consciousness and, eventually, self-consciousness. And finally, in humans, it appears as moral consciousness, conscience and moral reasoning, shame and contrition.
Well, almost finally, for Christians believe that once (at least once, for the cautious or more open) there was an (apparent) human in whom and through whom the full fire (or as much as a human body could possibly stand) of God, blazed, not just a mere spark. And it is from this person that we derive the rest of what we believe about God. From Jesus, we learn first of all that, though God is unimaginably immense, God loves us each individually and is ever present with each of us, to share and help bear our experience in life. more specifically, we learn that not only does God favor diversity, but that God considers all varieties to be of equal value and deserving of equal treatment. Accordingly, God favors not just change, but specifically the sort of change that leads to those who have been treated unfairly getting their fair share -- and maybe a bit more in compensation. God favors intelligence, but primarily when it is put to use bringing about those changes.
With this set-up, it is inevitable to consider the magical consequences. And on this Christians are all over the map, from positivist to miraculist. On the far left hand (I suppose) is the view that God does not interfere with the workings of natural laws and those laws are pretty much as science has them now, with only physical forces mattering. On the far right is the view that everyone has direct access to God and the ability to get God to alter the course of real world events. This ability needs something special to use, but all are capable of it. Most fall somewhere between, of course: allowing that some real natural laws (which science hasn't and perhaps can't discover) allow for non-physical force to play a role in what appear to be merely physical events, on the one hand, or insisting that the manipulation of God is a skill limited to a few either by nature or by special intense training, on the other, with still more sliding scales, centering on an agnostic position.
God relates to the physical world in a variety of ways. First, God is its creator, whether by vocal fiat from nothing or by upsetting the equilibrium in a force feel or by yet some other means. Secondly, God sustains the universe; it continues to exist and operate because of something God does or is. A part of this sustenance is a complete record of all that has occurred and is occurring. But God is also present. fragmented yet not separated, in each thing in the world, a spark of the divine. And from these facts (tenets), we derive what we believe to know about God.
About creation, which was before our time, we can say little with certainty, though we can tell a variety of stories, But we claim to derive from the nature of the created (as we perceive it) some knowledge of what God is like, insofar as we can make comparisons. The universe is immense (encompassing a billion galaxies, each with a billion stars, spread over several billion light-years of space), so God must be more immense, say infinite. The universe is diverse, stars and galaxies of many sorts, constantly changing, with new forms emerging and old ones passing into something different. So God favors diversity and change (though being of a single nature and unchanging -- thanks to the Neo-Platonists again). There is life and intelligence in the universe, so God must like these features. To be sure, the evidence for this is one planet circling one of E18 stars, but (the reasoning go circularly) there must be others with life and intelligence as well (the problems with this are passed on to later folk, with real evidence to deal with), From these observations, then, it is possible to begin to see the sort of life God expects of his people, though not in crucial detail.
About the sustaining function of God, a bit more can be said, though not much with strong conviction beyond the fact of the sustenance. Some that claim to understand quantum physics a bit would hold God is the constant observer that brings all the mere probabilities to reality (usually without bows to Bishop Berkeley and the God "always about in the Quad"). Other, noting that quantum physics doesn't exactly say that, tend to even more metaphysical explanations: God's essence is existence, so only by God's participation can anything exist, for example. But few can resist the temptation to explain the continuing link among subatomic particle once in contact (any everything was once in contact) to the instantaneous connection within the single, undifferentiated God. But even without this (and chaos and complexity theory -- butterflies in Mexico causing floods in China), Christians are committed to the belief that everything is connected in some way, whether that be causally significant or not (more on this later).
The belief that God records all that occurs, sees and remembers it, turns up in various places. The primary source is the doctrine of resurrection. Christians have a variety of notions -- all Biblically based -- on what happens after death, but one that gets special prominence throughout is that, at the end of time, the dead shall come back to life in their bodies (usually upgraded from their best state) with all their personality (again somewhat cleaned up) and memories, etc. intact. Which means that these memories have to be stored somewhere and God seems the only candidate. That this recording goes beyond humans, their bodies and minds, is a leap, of course, but probably less so than the notion that the recordings started suddenly with the first being that was actually human (though presumably God could make this distinction though we cannot).
The bit about the sparks of the divine is also an extention from the human case, where it is a matter of introspective observation (conscience, say) and theology (the immortal soul, another part of the after-death complex). Here it has at least three stages: the divine spark is what makes the difference between a chemical reaction and life, which might otherwise be reduced to just those reaction. Later in the development of the world, it is the divine spark that makes the difference between brain states (or perhaps even less complex body states) and consciousness and, eventually, self-consciousness. And finally, in humans, it appears as moral consciousness, conscience and moral reasoning, shame and contrition.
Well, almost finally, for Christians believe that once (at least once, for the cautious or more open) there was an (apparent) human in whom and through whom the full fire (or as much as a human body could possibly stand) of God, blazed, not just a mere spark. And it is from this person that we derive the rest of what we believe about God. From Jesus, we learn first of all that, though God is unimaginably immense, God loves us each individually and is ever present with each of us, to share and help bear our experience in life. more specifically, we learn that not only does God favor diversity, but that God considers all varieties to be of equal value and deserving of equal treatment. Accordingly, God favors not just change, but specifically the sort of change that leads to those who have been treated unfairly getting their fair share -- and maybe a bit more in compensation. God favors intelligence, but primarily when it is put to use bringing about those changes.
With this set-up, it is inevitable to consider the magical consequences. And on this Christians are all over the map, from positivist to miraculist. On the far left hand (I suppose) is the view that God does not interfere with the workings of natural laws and those laws are pretty much as science has them now, with only physical forces mattering. On the far right is the view that everyone has direct access to God and the ability to get God to alter the course of real world events. This ability needs something special to use, but all are capable of it. Most fall somewhere between, of course: allowing that some real natural laws (which science hasn't and perhaps can't discover) allow for non-physical force to play a role in what appear to be merely physical events, on the one hand, or insisting that the manipulation of God is a skill limited to a few either by nature or by special intense training, on the other, with still more sliding scales, centering on an agnostic position.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Love is the Answer
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
The What of What says What?
A quick skim suggests that several members of the "Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion" have declared -- or have been declared for -- that they are not in communion with some members of the Anglican Communion, as commonly or even legally understood. Now, by the logic of "communion," someone not in communion with someone in a communion is not in the communion. That is, there are members of the Committee who are not members of the Anglican Communion. By the logic of "committee of," this committee cannot, therefore, be a committee of the Anglican Communion. A quick glance around shows that the other"Instruments of Union" or whatever suffer from the same problem, except, perhaps, that role presently played by Taffy Bushybrows, whose position on this -- as everything else -- is so nuanced as to be undecipherable.
Consequently, all this kerfuffle is irrelevant. The fact that some groups says it is representing the Anglican Communion in no wise means that it is, especially if it demonstrably is not (see above). So, the appropriate response to all these decrees or whatever is to ignore them, along with the proclamations of the Holy Rollers of Derby et al. To consider giving them a vote of approval or rejection is to give them a legitimacy they do not have.
Let the purple suits (since aniline dyes, so unimpressive) worry about things calling themselves the whatsis of the Anglican Communion. Let us in the communion get on with our thing, cooperating in the work of God's Commonwealth with those whose orders and sacraments are mutually reognized with ours.
Consequently, all this kerfuffle is irrelevant. The fact that some groups says it is representing the Anglican Communion in no wise means that it is, especially if it demonstrably is not (see above). So, the appropriate response to all these decrees or whatever is to ignore them, along with the proclamations of the Holy Rollers of Derby et al. To consider giving them a vote of approval or rejection is to give them a legitimacy they do not have.
Let the purple suits (since aniline dyes, so unimpressive) worry about things calling themselves the whatsis of the Anglican Communion. Let us in the communion get on with our thing, cooperating in the work of God's Commonwealth with those whose orders and sacraments are mutually reognized with ours.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Do you believe in miracles?
Being a retired philosophy professor, I have to say "What do you mean by 'miracle'?" If you mean an occasion where God sets aside the laws of nature to bring about an outcome impossible or improbable under those laws at the bidding of some person in deep concern about this outcome, then, no, I don't believe in that. If you mean only that a person praying for an outcome that is improbable or impossible under the known laws of nature brings about that outcome, then I have to go at least to litotes: I don't disbelieve.
The known laws of nature are known to be wrong in at least some of their details, though just where and how has been a matter of dispute for the last century, after a very hopeful beginning in the early 1900s. With a significant part of the universe missing and while chasing a particle that some have said (at least partly seriously) is trying to prevent its own discovery, scientists are coming to a point where they must look for new paradigms for investigation. And many have been offered. I find not incredible one that has not been suggested in scientific circles: that psychic energy (for want of a better term) exists undetected and has effects in the physical world.
I am well aware of the debunking of such a notion: the erroneous reports, incorrect interpretations, conscious and unconscious misdirections, coincidences and what not. But there still seems to be a core of cases that resist explanation from current science and have not been dealt with otherwise because we don't know what else to do. Nor do I have any suggestions what else to do except observe and record carefully and keep an open mind.
So I can imagine a force, springing perhaps from human though, which humans could learn to manipulate to cause effects in the physical world. And one that humans have occasionally actually manipulated, either by accident or by esoteric techniques. The trick in research would be to isolate cases of this sort from those that fall under one or more of the debunking rubrics. Attempts to this so far have been fairly unsuccessful: the best case presented have often been found to be flawed in areas where the researcher had a particular blind spot. But the effort ought to continue.
One hope for improvement is that I do not take this quest as a spiritual one, as a move toward liberation or ascension to a higher plane or absorption into the All, or whatever. Yet it does have a religious base of a sort. If you believe there is a God who laid down natural laws which He will not violate (slipping back into a common mode here) and you allow the possibility of miracles, then you are led to the possibility of (undiscovered) natural laws that explain what appears miraculous given the currently know natural laws.
To clarify one thing, no one (or almost no one and no one we know of) knows how to manipulate this force. If someone happens to hit upon it at one time, lucky for them. If another, in as deep anguish and with as much faith, does not happen to hit on it, bad luck. Not lack of faith or inadequate trying, just not hitting on the right moves, whatever they are (and the successful one appears to be no clearer about that than anyone else -- possibly because they have been pointed in the wrong direction). Something more is required than faith the size of a mustard seed (which, come to look at it, is not all that small a seed after all) and apparently than some rituals, with or without faith. What that more is has yet to be found (or demonstrated not to exist) and we apparently do not know where to look.
This seems very flimsy ground for even just not disbelieving in miracles, but it is a reason which satisfies some sort of rational base, given the postulates of faith.
The known laws of nature are known to be wrong in at least some of their details, though just where and how has been a matter of dispute for the last century, after a very hopeful beginning in the early 1900s. With a significant part of the universe missing and while chasing a particle that some have said (at least partly seriously) is trying to prevent its own discovery, scientists are coming to a point where they must look for new paradigms for investigation. And many have been offered. I find not incredible one that has not been suggested in scientific circles: that psychic energy (for want of a better term) exists undetected and has effects in the physical world.
I am well aware of the debunking of such a notion: the erroneous reports, incorrect interpretations, conscious and unconscious misdirections, coincidences and what not. But there still seems to be a core of cases that resist explanation from current science and have not been dealt with otherwise because we don't know what else to do. Nor do I have any suggestions what else to do except observe and record carefully and keep an open mind.
So I can imagine a force, springing perhaps from human though, which humans could learn to manipulate to cause effects in the physical world. And one that humans have occasionally actually manipulated, either by accident or by esoteric techniques. The trick in research would be to isolate cases of this sort from those that fall under one or more of the debunking rubrics. Attempts to this so far have been fairly unsuccessful: the best case presented have often been found to be flawed in areas where the researcher had a particular blind spot. But the effort ought to continue.
One hope for improvement is that I do not take this quest as a spiritual one, as a move toward liberation or ascension to a higher plane or absorption into the All, or whatever. Yet it does have a religious base of a sort. If you believe there is a God who laid down natural laws which He will not violate (slipping back into a common mode here) and you allow the possibility of miracles, then you are led to the possibility of (undiscovered) natural laws that explain what appears miraculous given the currently know natural laws.
To clarify one thing, no one (or almost no one and no one we know of) knows how to manipulate this force. If someone happens to hit upon it at one time, lucky for them. If another, in as deep anguish and with as much faith, does not happen to hit on it, bad luck. Not lack of faith or inadequate trying, just not hitting on the right moves, whatever they are (and the successful one appears to be no clearer about that than anyone else -- possibly because they have been pointed in the wrong direction). Something more is required than faith the size of a mustard seed (which, come to look at it, is not all that small a seed after all) and apparently than some rituals, with or without faith. What that more is has yet to be found (or demonstrated not to exist) and we apparently do not know where to look.
This seems very flimsy ground for even just not disbelieving in miracles, but it is a reason which satisfies some sort of rational base, given the postulates of faith.
A Liberal says the Creed
"How can you recite the Creed every week, when you don't believe a word of it?"
Most liberals have been asked that question. And most have replied (if at all) by explaining that they take the words to be understood in some non-literal sense and that they believe the underlying claims. And they do believe some of the words, too.
A stronger response would be to ask how the questioner manages. The question suggests the the asker takes the words of the Creed literally and bearing all the baggage of traditional Christianity, but, in the modern world, even the most profoundly ignorant must have heard enough to have occasional doubts.
"We believe in God the Father Almighty" Big guy, with a white beard and a penis, or stern but loving Being who is always there to help you? The first is blasphemous, the second unlike most fathers we know and demonstrably not true. What is God really like?
"Creator of Heaven and Earth" In six days plus a break, but this specimen, this rock, this.... the more particular reasons to doubt are calmed by inventing special acts of nature, the more doubts arise.
A lot of stuff I don't understand but which must be right since its in the Creed. But what am I really committed to by this? "begotten not made" "of one Being with the Father" "True God from True God"?
"Through him all things were made" But didn't the Father make everything. To be sure, He does say "We" and "Us" a lot while He is doing it, so maybe Jesus was there too. But how "through," For the most part, we don't get a notion of what tools God used, if any; a couple of times He speaks things into existence and one time He seems use His hands to mold a body, but not other person seems to be involved.
"For us and our salvation" Substitutionary redemption makes God a pretty horrible Person, setting things up so that his only Son has to die and excruciating (literally, no less) death to fix a mess that an all-knowing God should have foreseen (come to that, setting things up so that such a minor act of disobedience should have such eternal consequences).
"He came down from Heaven" Does everybody pre-exist in Heaven or is Jesus a special case? And if Jesus is a special case, being God, how can God all fit in one tiny body and who is minding the universal store while Jesus is on Earth (Ahhah! that's why there has to be at least two Persons)? And where is Heaven in a universe without up and down?
"Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" Wait, a male child born without a male gene getting in there somehow -- the Holy Spirit can do that: create a male gamete without a male? And Virgin Mary -- my daughter better not try that one on me. Not even if she claims to have seen the Angel Gabriel.
"He rose again on the third day, according to Scripture" Now, I really have trouble with a three- day-dead body getting up and walking around, even without the walking through walls bit and the disappearing and reappearing. (I have trouble with "buried" too -- who would ask for the body of a convicted insurrectionist? And who would give it up to be made a center for further insurrection?)
"He ascended into Heaven" Even if He traveled at the speed of light, He is still in this galaxy, wherever Heaven is.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit" and another load of stuff I don't understand, but that people seem to argue about. But the whole Trinity thing is not terribly clear to begin with.
"the resurrection of the dead" I don't know about that.
Even if the asker does not meet with all some of these questions (and there are others, of course) every time he says the Creed (and listens to what he is saying -- which may be rarely), he surely does some times. But a person who believes what the Creed says, ratherthan the words it uses to say it, can get through the whole thing without a qualm.
Most liberals have been asked that question. And most have replied (if at all) by explaining that they take the words to be understood in some non-literal sense and that they believe the underlying claims. And they do believe some of the words, too.
A stronger response would be to ask how the questioner manages. The question suggests the the asker takes the words of the Creed literally and bearing all the baggage of traditional Christianity, but, in the modern world, even the most profoundly ignorant must have heard enough to have occasional doubts.
"We believe in God the Father Almighty" Big guy, with a white beard and a penis, or stern but loving Being who is always there to help you? The first is blasphemous, the second unlike most fathers we know and demonstrably not true. What is God really like?
"Creator of Heaven and Earth" In six days plus a break, but this specimen, this rock, this.... the more particular reasons to doubt are calmed by inventing special acts of nature, the more doubts arise.
A lot of stuff I don't understand but which must be right since its in the Creed. But what am I really committed to by this? "begotten not made" "of one Being with the Father" "True God from True God"?
"Through him all things were made" But didn't the Father make everything. To be sure, He does say "We" and "Us" a lot while He is doing it, so maybe Jesus was there too. But how "through," For the most part, we don't get a notion of what tools God used, if any; a couple of times He speaks things into existence and one time He seems use His hands to mold a body, but not other person seems to be involved.
"For us and our salvation" Substitutionary redemption makes God a pretty horrible Person, setting things up so that his only Son has to die and excruciating (literally, no less) death to fix a mess that an all-knowing God should have foreseen (come to that, setting things up so that such a minor act of disobedience should have such eternal consequences).
"He came down from Heaven" Does everybody pre-exist in Heaven or is Jesus a special case? And if Jesus is a special case, being God, how can God all fit in one tiny body and who is minding the universal store while Jesus is on Earth (Ahhah! that's why there has to be at least two Persons)? And where is Heaven in a universe without up and down?
"Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary" Wait, a male child born without a male gene getting in there somehow -- the Holy Spirit can do that: create a male gamete without a male? And Virgin Mary -- my daughter better not try that one on me. Not even if she claims to have seen the Angel Gabriel.
"He rose again on the third day, according to Scripture" Now, I really have trouble with a three- day-dead body getting up and walking around, even without the walking through walls bit and the disappearing and reappearing. (I have trouble with "buried" too -- who would ask for the body of a convicted insurrectionist? And who would give it up to be made a center for further insurrection?)
"He ascended into Heaven" Even if He traveled at the speed of light, He is still in this galaxy, wherever Heaven is.
"I believe in the Holy Spirit" and another load of stuff I don't understand, but that people seem to argue about. But the whole Trinity thing is not terribly clear to begin with.
"the resurrection of the dead" I don't know about that.
Even if the asker does not meet with all some of these questions (and there are others, of course) every time he says the Creed (and listens to what he is saying -- which may be rarely), he surely does some times. But a person who believes what the Creed says, ratherthan the words it uses to say it, can get through the whole thing without a qualm.
Apology
This blog got off on a limited theme, about homosexuality in the Bible (or absence thereof) and marriage equality. I still don't have my mind completely around some of the matters in this area, but the urgency in getting straight (oops!) on these has dissipated in the rush of events. I want to get back (on?) to the central questions here, trying to work out my theology in a satisfying (to me, maybe to someone else) way. So I am scrapping a pile of drafts that went over old material of sex and the Bible and beeps and hypocrisy and the foolishness of GAFCON and the like, to return to issues in my own faith. I welcome, indeed, seek, comments of any sort on these musings. I apologize for presenting them often as finished ideas when they are very tentative and shaky.
Friday, October 30, 2009
The next ABC (come quickly)
Perhaps the next Pope o' Rome will have more trouble than the next ABC repairing his church from the actions of his predecessor, but it'll be a near thing. If, as his recent hagiography implies, Rowan was groomed for the See of Canterbury almost from grammar school, then the groomers must be mightily disappointed or even shamed. If his earlier actions and writings were taken as indications of what he was to do when he reached his fulfillment, then the watchers and readers were sadly disillusioned. If he was thought to be the one to repair the damage done by Peggy Thatcher's dithering revenge on the C of E for its weak support (at best) of Tory bellicosity and mammonolatry, the thinkers got it wrong.
Everything known suggest that Rowan was picked to do a number of fairly specific jobs to drag the C of E into at least the 1990s, if not the 21st century. These tasks included
Getting the chancel prancing Papist and the noisome and noisy Roundheads back into the Elizabethan settlement "Freedom of conscience within uniformity of worship*."
Getting women first and, almost immediately, unclosetted sexual minorities** into full participation in the church: as priests and bishops without restrictions and in all other roles as well.
Restoring the C of E's reputation as a leader in support of human right and the MDG.
Encouraging the North American Anglican communion churches to proceed on their trajectory of inclusion but to do so in a way that would help the C of E to catch up and stimulate some other churches to at least get started on this road.
On these tasks, at least, his score is a perfect zero.
The Papists are either looking to flee cross the Tiber or to build a church within the church, free from some off the usual rules (like subservience to your bishop). The Roundheads want to take over the church and force their uniformity on conscience as well as worship and form an alliance with the Papists (that is some progress, I suppose) to thwart the rest of the reform program. The great middle is largely ignored -- except briefly in General Synod, when it tries to enact the program as much as it can (to be subverted at the next step, with the ABC's covert support).
This last is, of course, about the matter, most openly, of women bishops, where the General synod passed -- over the ABC's pleas to the contrary -- a motion to make women bishops with full rights and duties, objectors to be handled more informally rather than by statute. In perfecting the legislation called for, the committee changed that to giving statutory restrictions on women bishops and statutory extraordinary rights to those who objected. General Synod may well reject this change, but that is, obviously, no guarantee that it will not end up being the final legislation. And the whole process has now been slowed down by at least another year.
At Lambeth, the Communion put on a big display for MDG, led by the C of E and Rowan his own self. Very little of this seems to have been cashed out by C of E, though other provinces, including some much poorer ones, have done quite a bit. Organizations around the C of E, but not part of it in any official way, have also done quite a bit.
The case for human rights is even more bleak. Groups around the church have done what they could; the church -- and Rowan in particular -- has mouthed general platitudes and refused to speak out about particular situations, even when -- maybe even especially when -- they involved churches in the Communion and the actions of their heads. This is back to the matter of sexual minorities, of course, since the most egregious of these non-pronouncements has been about the new, stricter --even lethal -- laws against homosexuality introduced in several African countries with the loud support of the heads of their Anglican churches. Of course, this path was already apparent in the home church with the debishoping of Jeffrey John early in Rowan's tenure and a variety of (generally unsuccessful) moves to prevent the blessing secular same-sex unions or even full wedding style ceremonies. And, in addition, the C of E repeatedly appealed for exemptions from non-discrimination laws for even positions most remote from religious purpose, matching or even beating the RCs. Theological musing and practices as a bishop of lesser standing would not bind the embodiment of the Anglican Communion.
And, since the C of E was not moving forward (or was even going backward a bit) and nothing was happening to jump-start the African churches, the appeal to North American to not get too far ahead had little force. The appeal was made, at least, but it was framed less in terms of not getting too far ahead and more in terms of not doing something totally wrong (maybe sinful, certainly discomforting to some and possibly a liability in some mission fields). Further, the framework of the appeal quickly came to be the framework for a structure new to the Communion (which isn't that old to begin with) which would change the appeal into a command -- never a good approach to the USA and Canada and something foreign to (indeed, against a foundational document of) Anglicanism.
In all of these failures, Rowan has had the opportunity to do the right thing, the thing he was trained up to do and promised to do, by word and deed, in his earlier career (though, to be fair, he did show signs of the power center idea of the ABC from early on). He took none of these opportunities and -- perhaps worse -- undercut those who tried to make what he did look like doing the right thing (++Katherine's appeal for B033 at GC2006 comes to mind).
May the next ABC come soon, while there is still a C of E or an Anglican Communion to serve.
*"uniformity of worship" is a sort of Anglican joke, since, at least in the older churches of the Communion, the official BCP and Hymnal are supplemented by a variety of more or less official improvements, trial usages, local usages, borrowed BCPs from elsewhere (and from elsewhen as well) so that quite possibly no two Anglican services are ever the same. And this doesn't even consider the pomp and circumstance bits that range from Byzantine elaboration to po' chapel minimalism (three hours to 25 minutes, say).
** Well, except for necrophiliacs, bestialists, pederasts and ephebophiles, the promiscuous, sadists, masochists, fetishists and so on. It basically means LGBT and even then probably with some exceptions, varying from place to place. In fairness, when this commitment is working, all are welcome and treated much the same outside considerations for ordination or certain occupations, like Sunday School teachers and choir directors.
Everything known suggest that Rowan was picked to do a number of fairly specific jobs to drag the C of E into at least the 1990s, if not the 21st century. These tasks included
Getting the chancel prancing Papist and the noisome and noisy Roundheads back into the Elizabethan settlement "Freedom of conscience within uniformity of worship*."
Getting women first and, almost immediately, unclosetted sexual minorities** into full participation in the church: as priests and bishops without restrictions and in all other roles as well.
Restoring the C of E's reputation as a leader in support of human right and the MDG.
Encouraging the North American Anglican communion churches to proceed on their trajectory of inclusion but to do so in a way that would help the C of E to catch up and stimulate some other churches to at least get started on this road.
On these tasks, at least, his score is a perfect zero.
The Papists are either looking to flee cross the Tiber or to build a church within the church, free from some off the usual rules (like subservience to your bishop). The Roundheads want to take over the church and force their uniformity on conscience as well as worship and form an alliance with the Papists (that is some progress, I suppose) to thwart the rest of the reform program. The great middle is largely ignored -- except briefly in General Synod, when it tries to enact the program as much as it can (to be subverted at the next step, with the ABC's covert support).
This last is, of course, about the matter, most openly, of women bishops, where the General synod passed -- over the ABC's pleas to the contrary -- a motion to make women bishops with full rights and duties, objectors to be handled more informally rather than by statute. In perfecting the legislation called for, the committee changed that to giving statutory restrictions on women bishops and statutory extraordinary rights to those who objected. General Synod may well reject this change, but that is, obviously, no guarantee that it will not end up being the final legislation. And the whole process has now been slowed down by at least another year.
At Lambeth, the Communion put on a big display for MDG, led by the C of E and Rowan his own self. Very little of this seems to have been cashed out by C of E, though other provinces, including some much poorer ones, have done quite a bit. Organizations around the C of E, but not part of it in any official way, have also done quite a bit.
The case for human rights is even more bleak. Groups around the church have done what they could; the church -- and Rowan in particular -- has mouthed general platitudes and refused to speak out about particular situations, even when -- maybe even especially when -- they involved churches in the Communion and the actions of their heads. This is back to the matter of sexual minorities, of course, since the most egregious of these non-pronouncements has been about the new, stricter --even lethal -- laws against homosexuality introduced in several African countries with the loud support of the heads of their Anglican churches. Of course, this path was already apparent in the home church with the debishoping of Jeffrey John early in Rowan's tenure and a variety of (generally unsuccessful) moves to prevent the blessing secular same-sex unions or even full wedding style ceremonies. And, in addition, the C of E repeatedly appealed for exemptions from non-discrimination laws for even positions most remote from religious purpose, matching or even beating the RCs. Theological musing and practices as a bishop of lesser standing would not bind the embodiment of the Anglican Communion.
And, since the C of E was not moving forward (or was even going backward a bit) and nothing was happening to jump-start the African churches, the appeal to North American to not get too far ahead had little force. The appeal was made, at least, but it was framed less in terms of not getting too far ahead and more in terms of not doing something totally wrong (maybe sinful, certainly discomforting to some and possibly a liability in some mission fields). Further, the framework of the appeal quickly came to be the framework for a structure new to the Communion (which isn't that old to begin with) which would change the appeal into a command -- never a good approach to the USA and Canada and something foreign to (indeed, against a foundational document of) Anglicanism.
In all of these failures, Rowan has had the opportunity to do the right thing, the thing he was trained up to do and promised to do, by word and deed, in his earlier career (though, to be fair, he did show signs of the power center idea of the ABC from early on). He took none of these opportunities and -- perhaps worse -- undercut those who tried to make what he did look like doing the right thing (++Katherine's appeal for B033 at GC2006 comes to mind).
May the next ABC come soon, while there is still a C of E or an Anglican Communion to serve.
*"uniformity of worship" is a sort of Anglican joke, since, at least in the older churches of the Communion, the official BCP and Hymnal are supplemented by a variety of more or less official improvements, trial usages, local usages, borrowed BCPs from elsewhere (and from elsewhen as well) so that quite possibly no two Anglican services are ever the same. And this doesn't even consider the pomp and circumstance bits that range from Byzantine elaboration to po' chapel minimalism (three hours to 25 minutes, say).
** Well, except for necrophiliacs, bestialists, pederasts and ephebophiles, the promiscuous, sadists, masochists, fetishists and so on. It basically means LGBT and even then probably with some exceptions, varying from place to place. In fairness, when this commitment is working, all are welcome and treated much the same outside considerations for ordination or certain occupations, like Sunday School teachers and choir directors.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Episcopocracy
I'm kinda slow. This didn't occur to me until I read some remarks by +Mark SC and Mimi's report of +ND's remarks.
Bishops in TEC don't have a lot of power in the church nor influence outside it. Almost all their actions have to be filtered through committees of priests and (brrr!) laity (even though they get to pick many of them). I don't know about Canada, though it sounds similar, but England is frustratingly different: their are still committees with some laity and the whole national government (virtually all lay, most not even in the church, some several not even Christian), but some of them do get a role in the actual national government (though a rather minor one) and all or more or less lords. And their opinions are sought outby the papers. And in Africa and other third (and lower) worlds, they are among the elite: cars when most have only bicycles, if that, mansions (not to say palaces), and other conspicuous signs of wealth. And their opinions -- even their support -- are sought out by the governments. No messy lay committee with any power, few messy priestly committees with any power.
It is not merely personal glorification that the Others want (to be a bishop, to be an Archbishop), it is power. The ACNA has so far only a College of Bishops and does not appear to be making much progress toward even a grammar school of laity or priests. The bishops who stole away from TEC had displayed an autocratic form within their dioceses and mean to continue and expand it. Before they had only the power of licensing and committee appointments to sway the events in their church, now they will be absolute.
Of course, this is all very unChristian (citation of contrasts between rulers of this world and rulers among Christians), as is attributing these motives to others, even if I had clear evidence, but it does help me see how little this all has to do with homosexuality or Biblical interpretation or creedal fidelity or any of the other things being tossed about. It's just like politics (than which it is hard to say a natier thing).
Bishops in TEC don't have a lot of power in the church nor influence outside it. Almost all their actions have to be filtered through committees of priests and (brrr!) laity (even though they get to pick many of them). I don't know about Canada, though it sounds similar, but England is frustratingly different: their are still committees with some laity and the whole national government (virtually all lay, most not even in the church, some several not even Christian), but some of them do get a role in the actual national government (though a rather minor one) and all or more or less lords. And their opinions are sought outby the papers. And in Africa and other third (and lower) worlds, they are among the elite: cars when most have only bicycles, if that, mansions (not to say palaces), and other conspicuous signs of wealth. And their opinions -- even their support -- are sought out by the governments. No messy lay committee with any power, few messy priestly committees with any power.
It is not merely personal glorification that the Others want (to be a bishop, to be an Archbishop), it is power. The ACNA has so far only a College of Bishops and does not appear to be making much progress toward even a grammar school of laity or priests. The bishops who stole away from TEC had displayed an autocratic form within their dioceses and mean to continue and expand it. Before they had only the power of licensing and committee appointments to sway the events in their church, now they will be absolute.
Of course, this is all very unChristian (citation of contrasts between rulers of this world and rulers among Christians), as is attributing these motives to others, even if I had clear evidence, but it does help me see how little this all has to do with homosexuality or Biblical interpretation or creedal fidelity or any of the other things being tossed about. It's just like politics (than which it is hard to say a natier thing).
Monday, August 24, 2009
I know, I know
I should stop writing about same-sex marriage and talk about health care. But it is clear that the people who are screaming about the actual proposals in health care, are not going to listen to facts or the actual text of the bills (unless they misread it like McCaughey), so it seems pointless to add another unheard voice to the many clearly heard ones. Of course, one could the same about same-sex marriage and homosexual inclusion. My only defense is that, until recently, no one seemed to me to being agood job in sorting out the various sense of marriage and what was peculiar to each. I don't suppose that the antis ever will, but hopefully (and, indeed, apparently) some of the pros are getting better at it.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Trans
The problems of a very good runner in a women's race the other day brings to the fore the problems I am having understanding transgender (etc.) within the lgbt spectrum. Her problem seems to be (if she really has a problem other than being too good a runner) with the apparently simple question of sex: plugs and sockets, right? But then chromosomes don't always match up, folks with a y chromosome, may be sockets because they can't process testosterone (another athlete's case). I suppose in some possible realm a double x is a plug because s/he is overly sensitive to testosterone or overproduces it or radically misuses estrogen or the details of organ development just got screwed up in the womb. This latter event accounts for a certain number of babies every year being born intersex, with plumbing not clearly one way or the other. Chromosome checks and hormone checks can give some sense of what was intended and surgery can recreate that result, but not always completely, giving a fully functional person of the apparent sex. And some people who pass initial inspection still turn out to be intersex in later life, with some characteristic of each sex -- stereotypically penis and breasts as a hermaphrodite, but other combinations occur. On the other side, we find men who have two y chromosomes (and one x) and women with three xs, who tend to give exaggerated versions of their sex's (stereo)typical behavior (which raises the question of what a double x + y would be like). And, in the end, some one has to decide -- separately for each situation, probably -- how much of what is enough to assign a person to a particular sex. If matters are so confusing for prima facie objective questions of sex, what chance have more subjective questions to be simple or straightforward?
Gender roles are social constructions; society determines how a person of a given sex is supposed to behave and dress and talk in various circumstances. In some societies these are very restrictive, basically one pattern allowed, at least in public. Other societies offer a number of options, though usually with a core of common measures (even executive women in custom suits don't wear boxers, say). People who violate these patterns are thought odd (though possibly in a good way, but usually not -- at least patronizing), people who behave more in the pattern of the other sex are thought queer (definitely in a pejorative sense, sometimes a criminal one). But again much depends on context: Eddie Izzard or Dame Edna or Chantilly on stage is at most slightly discomforting, one of them in the same get-up (well, down a bit for Chantilly) in the checkout line at Wal-mart is something else again. Age, status, occupation and a whole range of socially defined differentia play a role in setting the limits. And. as there is intersex in sex, so there is androgyny is roles -- people who do not conform to either set of patterns but pick some from each.
The corresponding intermediate position in gender identity is gender queer or gender nonconforming. Gender identity is what the person thinks themself to be: male, female, neutral or both, regardless of their body and the roles they play in society. In many respects this seems to be the most important factor for transgendered people. They have this sense of gender identity that is at variance with their bodies often long before they can act out the other roles and may keep it in their core self-identification even it they do not act out the corresponding roles. But when possible, maybe only occasionally and briefly, maybe as a new life, they will live as their identity, obeying the patterns of their self-identified gender ( and perhaps eventually reshaping their bodies to conform). This, a real chosen life-style, still -- in a society where it is possible at all -- carries a load of burdens, even if fairly "successful:" official identification papers (though these are getting easier to change), rest room choices, the constant threat of original socialization popping up in a wrong move, and so on. Notice that, while coming to live with a gender identity not of your body is a choice, the gender identity itself does not seem to be, although its sources are less well understood or even explored than even sexual orientation, which is another, separate factor and the one that gets the most press (perhaps confusedly).
Sexual orientation has to do with what sort of person you can/do become romantically and sexually involved with. The choices are men, women, both, either (and whatever else there might be) or none. But, given what has gone before, this is not as clear cut a choice as it might seem: is the desire for a body structure or a way of living or some combination. Biologically speaking, the answer has to be that the quest is for body structure, with roles coming in only as a clue to that. But that still leaves many combinations to be sorted out: neither man oblivious to the successful transrole of his partner nor the partner, fully self-identified as female, thinks of themself as being a homosexual, even when the situation is revealed. Contrarywise, a body male who self identifies as female though takes on none of the female roles may have sex with a body-and-self-identified female and think of its as a homosexual encounter, regardless of what the partner or the rest of the world would think.
So now I am getting closer to my question, which might now be put as something like "How much of physical homosexuality is covert identity heterosexuality (and tother way round, of course)? One of the gender roles is clearly attraction to the opposite gender, but this is separate from the other roles, so it may be the only cross role one plays. Or the other parts of the cross role one uses may be minor or occasional. The gay and lesbian people I have talked to seem to be quite comfortable in their bodies, but they may not be totally frank or they may not be representative of a significant group. None of this has anything to do with the right of every person to be who they want to be and to be united with the one they love, with at least the state's blessing and without hassles, but it raises a lot of questions about research and scientific understanding of human sexuality.
Gender roles are social constructions; society determines how a person of a given sex is supposed to behave and dress and talk in various circumstances. In some societies these are very restrictive, basically one pattern allowed, at least in public. Other societies offer a number of options, though usually with a core of common measures (even executive women in custom suits don't wear boxers, say). People who violate these patterns are thought odd (though possibly in a good way, but usually not -- at least patronizing), people who behave more in the pattern of the other sex are thought queer (definitely in a pejorative sense, sometimes a criminal one). But again much depends on context: Eddie Izzard or Dame Edna or Chantilly on stage is at most slightly discomforting, one of them in the same get-up (well, down a bit for Chantilly) in the checkout line at Wal-mart is something else again. Age, status, occupation and a whole range of socially defined differentia play a role in setting the limits. And. as there is intersex in sex, so there is androgyny is roles -- people who do not conform to either set of patterns but pick some from each.
The corresponding intermediate position in gender identity is gender queer or gender nonconforming. Gender identity is what the person thinks themself to be: male, female, neutral or both, regardless of their body and the roles they play in society. In many respects this seems to be the most important factor for transgendered people. They have this sense of gender identity that is at variance with their bodies often long before they can act out the other roles and may keep it in their core self-identification even it they do not act out the corresponding roles. But when possible, maybe only occasionally and briefly, maybe as a new life, they will live as their identity, obeying the patterns of their self-identified gender ( and perhaps eventually reshaping their bodies to conform). This, a real chosen life-style, still -- in a society where it is possible at all -- carries a load of burdens, even if fairly "successful:" official identification papers (though these are getting easier to change), rest room choices, the constant threat of original socialization popping up in a wrong move, and so on. Notice that, while coming to live with a gender identity not of your body is a choice, the gender identity itself does not seem to be, although its sources are less well understood or even explored than even sexual orientation, which is another, separate factor and the one that gets the most press (perhaps confusedly).
Sexual orientation has to do with what sort of person you can/do become romantically and sexually involved with. The choices are men, women, both, either (and whatever else there might be) or none. But, given what has gone before, this is not as clear cut a choice as it might seem: is the desire for a body structure or a way of living or some combination. Biologically speaking, the answer has to be that the quest is for body structure, with roles coming in only as a clue to that. But that still leaves many combinations to be sorted out: neither man oblivious to the successful transrole of his partner nor the partner, fully self-identified as female, thinks of themself as being a homosexual, even when the situation is revealed. Contrarywise, a body male who self identifies as female though takes on none of the female roles may have sex with a body-and-self-identified female and think of its as a homosexual encounter, regardless of what the partner or the rest of the world would think.
So now I am getting closer to my question, which might now be put as something like "How much of physical homosexuality is covert identity heterosexuality (and tother way round, of course)? One of the gender roles is clearly attraction to the opposite gender, but this is separate from the other roles, so it may be the only cross role one plays. Or the other parts of the cross role one uses may be minor or occasional. The gay and lesbian people I have talked to seem to be quite comfortable in their bodies, but they may not be totally frank or they may not be representative of a significant group. None of this has anything to do with the right of every person to be who they want to be and to be united with the one they love, with at least the state's blessing and without hassles, but it raises a lot of questions about research and scientific understanding of human sexuality.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
It's empty because there is nothing in it
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?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Well, gag me with a feather
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.'
And a better than 2 to 1 margin: no bad surprises, a few good ones, and the dunnos vastly went for 'Yes.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)