I really intend to take a hiatus from posting about the UM Homosexuality controversy.

And I will. Really. Sure. Any day now.

I got back from our West Michigan Conference Youth Council meeting on Saturday. It was an overnight meeting, so when I got home I was tired. Sunday, of course, was another busy day. I've been catching up just a bit on the recent activity in the MethoBlogosphere, and discovered an interesting discussion over at John Meunier's former blog Come to the Waters about his frustrations over the current UM homosexuality debate. John abandoned that blog, and I no longer have access to the original post & the interesting comment thread that followed. While I am coming at this from a different "side," and with a different set of inclinations, I found that I shared many of John's same frustrations with the debate (as previously noted). So, anyway, these reflections were prompted by the discussion over at Come to the Waters.

(1.) It's interesting how language is so often used in this controversy as a way of gaining some sort of rhetorical advantage. I think this rarely works. But, whether it works or not, it frustrates communication.

So, John characterizes his position (or the position he would like to take) as "pro-inclusion." Thus, he can say that people on the other side are "anti-inclusion." Yet his enemies undoubtedly see themselves as pro-traditional-Christian morality. And, they might simply characterize him as a moral revisionist. No doubt, both sides would affirm that God's grace is available to all. They would differ on what sexual behaviors are affirmed by the Christian tradition. So, aside from trading insults back and forth what real advantage is gained here?

Anglican theologian Oliver O'Donovan remarks in a often-reprinted essay entitled "Homosexuality in the Church: Can there be a Fruitful Theological Debate?":

1. 

   "A debate occurs when people take up the arguments that others have raised against them, and try to give serious answers. To do that they must think their opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious. They must suppose that some misconception, or some partial truth not fully integrated into other truths, has limited their vision. they must accept the burden of showing how the partial truth fits with other truths, or identifying and resolving the misconception. This cannot happen while there is still a struggle for rhetorical dominance; that is to say, while each side hope to win a monopoly for the categories in which they themselves frame the question."
   

But, if I frame my opponent's position in my own categories, I can more easily make my opponent look ridiculous or malicious or dangerous.

The tone of the debate would surely change if we assumed (as O'Donovan says) our  "opponents mistaken, certainly, but not wholly foolish or malicious."

(And, that's why I try to adopt terminology which has been designed to be neutral.)

(2.) What's "inerrancy" got to do with anything? Not all SideB Christians advocate "inerrancy" and the argument does not turn on that concept anyway. I once wrote out (just as a thought-experiment) a SideA argument which deliberately uses the assumptions of inerrancy to it's own advantage. I don't think it's especially convincing, but it's no worse than some less-sophisticated SideA arguments I've encountered over the years.

I think the notion that there is a heterosexual monogamous standard for sexual relations is crucial here. This thesis is central to a SideB perspective. But, whether this thesis stands or falls, it clearly does not turn on the notion of Biblical inerrancy at all.

This is a red herring.

(3.) Yes, the relationship of the issues of homosexuality and divorce is interesting — and raises troubling issues and (at the very least) apparent inconsistencies for those of us on SideB. If the church prohibits same-gender sex — even between committed partners — why are Christians so permissive about divorce and re-marriage?

Really. I can't help but think that we are (often) too casual about divorce. But, even so, this is not because there is some large contingent within the church that is arguing that divorce is a positive good. Generally speaking divorce is accepted (so to speak) among conservative Christians as a necessary evil. It is a better than, for example, an abusive, violent marriage relationship, but still violates the promise of faithfulness that was given in the marriage vows.

The couples I speak to who are coming to be married (and just to give you some reference here, I've done a lot! of weddings over the years), are desiring a relationship that is forever. They are not looking to divorce as a loophole to get them out. They want to be married one time & only one time. But, not all of these relationships have survived. And, given human "hardness of heart" and the circumstances of violent abuse, unfaithfulness and alcoholism, etc. I can see why — for the physical and emotional health of both partners — these marriages must sometimes end.

But, in these instances, divorce is "accepted" (so to speak) not as a positive good, but on the basis of an Exception Argument. Yes, marriage should be forever. But, there are circumstances where divorce is preferable to the alternative. As they say, it's "the lesser of two evils."

From this grows the commonly-permissive attitude toward remarriage, as well.

But, when we get to same-gender relationships, conservatively-inclined Christians run into a wall. Here deploying an Exception Argument would justify the very thing that is prohibited: same-gender sex!

Thus, the strange inconsistency.

But, SideA arguments which seek to establish same-gender sex as a positive good, are not at all the same as the arguments & considerations that lead people to allow for divorce and remarriage.

(4.) One of John's commentators remarks that monogamy is good, and that there are many moral & ethical reasons why this is so. Ergo, it ought to be good for same-gender attracted people as well. This makes the case that monogamy is a common-sense good.

This view is as far away from my own view of these things as you can get. To me the teaching of Jesus is a radical call to repentance and commitment and faithfulness. The making and keeping of commitments is a part of our spiritual formation. Accepting ourselves as beings created in the image of God entails a desire to seek God's will and purpose in all things — including the expressions of my sexuality.

This is not so much a Natural Law / common-sense good as a call to commitment and obedience and discipleship. We are called to seek God's will in all things.

If Jesus teaching is not the standard, the case for monogamy is more-than-shaky.

Just to repeat myself (and why not?):

1. "I think Jesus is radical in his use of the OT Genesis material. I think Jesus' teaching on marriage was quite radical for its time and still is. Christian teaching in the area of sexual ethics has sought to be faithful to Jesus' teaching. Making and keeping commitments is an important aspect of our discipleship and spiritual formation.
   

2. 
   

3. 
   

4. "The Christian tradition has taken a remarkably rigorous approach to sexual issues (in fact, often too rigorous!). It has sought to be faithful to the moral instruction that is characteristic of its own sources. The traditional view has been what we might call the one-man-one-woman-forever-Creation view associated with the teaching of Jesus. If this is not the standard, then can we really say that there is a distinctively Christian sexual ethic? If this is not the standard, shouldn't the traditional arguments for marriage also be rejected? And: shouldn't a much wider range of sexual behaviors be reconsidered?”
   

— Craig L. Adams

This discussion continues over at Peter Kirk’s excellent Gentle Wisdom blog here: Is there a moral difference between homosexual practice and remarriage after divorce?