from Midwest Conservative Journal by The Editor
Washington, DC
Episcopal Bishop and all-around pompous gasbag John Chane engages in one of his favorite pastimes. Thanking God that he is not as other men are:
"Most media coverage of the D.C. Council’s steps toward civil marriage equality for same-sex couples has followed a worn-out script that gives the role of speaking for God to clergy who are opposed to equality. As the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, I would say respectfully to my fellow Christians that people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty."
Two things, John. That “fellow Christians” line of yours is a bit problematic since most of us decided a long time ago that the Episcopalians are nothing more than universalists who like to play dress-up but haven’t gotten around to deep-sixing the professional jargon yet. That’s why I finally bailed anyway.
And “people who deny others the blessings they claim for themselves should not assume they speak for the Almighty,” assumes that you think that you do. Considering how often your deity seems to change his mind, most of us have a serious problem with that one.
"Christians have always argued about marriage. Jesus criticized the Mosaic law on divorce, saying “What God has joined together let no man separate.”"
And you abandoned that one when you gave twice-divorced and thrice-married Barry “Third Time’s the Charm” Beisner a pointy hat so why should any Christian listen to what you have to say about marriage again?
"But we don’t see clergy demanding that the city council make divorce illegal."
Welcome to the John Chane Non Sequitur Theater. We also don’t see the Roman Catholic clergy of Washington demanding that the Eucharist be banned in Episcopal outlets since the Piskies don’t believe in the Real Presence. John? When you get a chance, take Matthew 19:3-8 out for a spin some time.
"Some conservative Christian leaders claim that their understanding of marriage is central to Christian teaching. How do they square that claim with the Apostle Paul’s teaching that marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication?"
Actually, they don’t. Ass. What they assert is that it’s not a good idea to rewrite the Word of the living God unless there’s a pillar of fire, a pillar of cloud and a really scary voice somewhere nearby. Just seems safer, that’s all.
If “marriage is an inferior state, one reserved for people who are not able to stay singly celibate and resist the temptation to fornication,” then why are you arguing for the rights of homosexuals to marry? Since, you know, what they do is, well…you know…fornication?
"As historian Stephanie Coontz points out, the church did not bless marriages until the third century, or define marriage as a sacrament until 1215."
So what? It was irrelevant until it had a liturgy? Every history of the first century I’ve ever read indicates that marriages were treated as something way more important than me deciding that I’m going to boink you on a regular basis.
Besides, God Incarnate blessed a wedding by His presence and by turning water into…oh, never mind. Pearls before swine and all that.
"The church embraced many of the assumptions of the patriarchal culture, in which women and marriageable children were assets to be controlled and exploited to the advantage of the man who headed their household. The theology of marriage was heavily influenced by economic and legal considerations; it emphasized procreation, and spoke only secondarily of the “mutual consolation of the spouses.”"
John? Let me know when you get to an actual theological argument.
"In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, the relationship of the spouses assumed new importance, as the church came to understand that marriage was a profoundly spiritual relationship in which partners experienced, through mutual affection and self-sacrifice, the unconditional love of God."
Not going there, are you, John? I get that.
"The Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer puts it this way: “We believe that the union of husband and wife, in heart, body and mind, is intended by God for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is God’s will, for the procreation of children and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the Lord.”"
You don’t have a scriptural leg to stand on and you know it.
"Our evolving understanding of what marriage is leads, of necessity, to a re-examination of who it is for. Most Christian denominations no longer teach that all sex acts must be open to the possibility of procreation, and therefore contraception is permitted. Nor do they hold that infertility precludes marriage. The church has deepened its understanding of the way in which faithful couples experience and embody the love of the creator for creation. In so doing, it has put itself in a position to consider whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry."
Slow WAY down, big man. The Episcopal Organization is not “the Church.” You’ve come to that conclusion; most of the Christian world has come to exactly the opposite one.
Once again. If you give a pointy hat and a hooked stick to old Third Time’s the Charm, you’re not serious about marriage. Period.
"Theologically, therefore, Christian support for same-sex marriage is not a dramatic break with tradition"
To anybody who can read, it is so.
"but a recognition that the church’s understanding of marriage has changed dramatically over 2,000 years."
Translation: homosexuals give us a lot of money, that’s why.
"I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage, because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position."
No it hasn’t since you haven’t quoted any actual theology to back up your position. John? Give us some Christian theology or shut up.
"I have been addressing the sound theological foundation for a new religious understanding of marriage,"
“The sound theological foundation?” You had me fooled, John.
"because it disturbs me greatly to see opposition to marriage for same-sex couples portrayed as the only genuinely religious or Christian position."
Since the conservatives are relying on the Word of God and you’re not, I don’t get what you’re disturbed about, John.
"D.C.’s proposed marriage equality law explicitly protects the religious liberty of those who believe that God’s love can be reflected in the loving commitment between two people of the same sex and of those who do not find God there. This is as it should be in a society so deeply rooted in the principles of religious freedom and equality under the law."
That’s not how the Archdiocese sees it, John.
The complete Kierkegaard quote from which the above was taken is here:
"The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand, we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in the world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament."
Amen.
Seriously. I’m going to have to start buying and reading lots and lots of Kierkegaard. The Great Dane gets me.
No comments:
Post a Comment