Lennart : I can see why you think highly of David Fitch's essay. I also thought mostly highly of it until I got to the following statement : The wisdom in Scripture towards gay relations, pre-marital sex etc. should not be easily discarded because of science or other presumed modernist authorities. This sums it up very well. The Evangelical community assumes that science has come down on the side of the homosexual position. This is pure 100% bull poop. Completely false. What this statement shows is that Evangelicals don't want to do the necessary research, actually studying psychoanalytic literature, actually reading the Journal of Homosexuality critically ( it is pro-homosexual but filled with information that if you know what you are doing can easily be turned to the researcher's advantage ), actually reading books like Charles Socarides "Homosexuality A Freedom Too Far," actually reading the shelf of books now available in criticism of the APA, and so much else. What this statement shows is defeatism based on ignorance of actual science. Yes, the author's intentions are all for the good. But since he has already conceded defeat what else can anyone expect except a search for ways to surrender the field of battle while making it look more-or-less good to one's supporters by means of deflecting the outcome, viz, bringing up other sexual issues, making much out of the church's mission, talking about how difficult it all is and pointing out that you can lose in one area while winning in another, etc. Then there is this doozy, also late in the essay : There are large parts of wisdom here which have little to do with whether Scripture actually prohibits pre-marital sex, gay sex. Let's muddy the waters, shall we ? Let's deflect attention from the issue before us, homosexuality, and bring up pre-marital sex. But what absolutely infuriates me is how this is all, in the end, accomodationist. Gosh, does the Bible really criticize homosexuality ? Answer, damned right it does. Unequivocally, and in many passages. But how would Fitch know ? He seems to read the Bible to find ways to agree with those whom the Bible condemns. As if, since he knows he is wrong about basic science, let's find some face-saving way to compromise with homosexuals. But if you --anyone, like Fitch-- take the view, because you are too befuddled or incompetent to do the necessary empirical research, that science "proves" the homosexual viewpoint, then, of course, you will seek ways to "dialogue" with the establishment, with people who, years ago, decided that they did not even want to do any research and were happy to make their decisions based purely on status considerations . And why not, since Christian faith doesn't matter any more, anyway ? As for this comment, I am incredulous : To put a sign up, or announce our position against GLBTQ relations, or to somehow protest all GLBTQ issues in front of City Hall, in essence puts us in a judging position towards those we do not even know If we are even remotely honest we necessarily judge others. The Bible is absolutely filled with such judgements. We should do our best, not worst, be honest, not disingenuous, and show compassion when it is called for, but judge we must or we have no conscience or backbone. So what if we don't know someone we judge ? Did that stop people of the time from condemning the Nazis ? Did it stop the early Christian community from condemning sinners outside the Church ? True, the idea is to seek to win sinners over, but at no time are we told to compromise with them, or accommodate them, just as people not long ago did not compromise with the Nazis and fought against them for all of WWII. I believe evangelicalism’s tendency to publicly judge and condemn on these issues forecloses the possibility for discerning alongside not only GLBTQ peoples, but the many who are struggling with sexual brokenness even inside our church communities. Alongside the perverted ? WTH ? Hey, let's open the Church to neo-Nazis, let's show neo-Nazis compassion and love and all will be well if we seek to understand them. Let's walk alongside the neo-Nazis and admit our own political brokenness and not foreclose the possibility of acceptance of Hitler worshippers. This is pure nonsense when it is boiled down. Absolute crap, if you want a totally honest opinion. As is this : ... there is a delicate sense in which no judgment can be made against GLBTQ or any other sexual issues, until we have a redemptive sexual community that can humbly invite and listen and ask the GLBT to join us in repentance and renewal of all sexual desire. Balderdash. False. Ridiculous. In a sense a church is a hospital. Christians are the doctors and nurses and administrators and medical technicians and so forth. Doesn't mean that the medical staff can't also get sick, but there is a helluva lot of difference between them and their patients. A doctor does not humbly listen to a sick person, he seeks to find our the details of his illness and diagnose the remedy --whether or not the patient likes it-- because strong medicine may be what is needed for a cure. And what is blazes is this gobbledygook ? One of evangelicalism’s biggest problems is we have no compelling sexual vision which makes sense of celibacy as a fulfilling calling. We have little or no sexual ethic except the glorified desire of Hollywood lopped onto heterosexual monogamous marriage. We have no theology of desire formation. It is “lust,” and enjoy it, only while married to one person. We have no concept of the “ordering of desire.” Celibacy as a fulfilling calling ? For whom ? On this matter I totally reject Paul's view except when there is no choice and you must make the best of a bad situation. His view is 180 degrees in opposition to Song of Songs and is therefore 100 % wrong as far as I am concerned. And just what does "ordering of desire" actually mean ? All that such a phrase does is to open the door to still another range of compromises with the "moral vision" of the NY Times and Hollywood. If there is some reluctance about this, read Michael Medved;s criticisms of the movie business some time for actual moral clarity. For actual morals expressed by an actual Jewish believer --who is also smart and who actually does all the research necessary to be well informed. OK, all of this now off my chest, how does a Christian relate to society ? Answer : There is no one answer. For some cases strong opposition is called for, in other cases strong compassion, in still others dispassionate observation and simply trying to learn. And so forth. In all cases we are discussing judgement calls. We are, indeed, called upon to make judgements. Our task is to become really good at judging. The task, at least as I see it, is not to love everyone and everything indiscriminately, like the Jains or followers of Tolstoy or orthodox Quakers and still other well-meaning folks who also happen to be simpletons, the task is to judge well. Billy
-- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
