Ask Nathan

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Epistemology and truth as a concept are for me no other than foundations that I use to see the world in a relatively fixed way because of how much else in my life is liable to frequent and often negative change with which I don't deal well. I've undergone and in some cases still undergo a lot more psychological trauma than I ever more than indirectly touch on in conversations on an online politics forum. It's not so much as a question of comfort as it is one of survival.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

Did you read the rest of that post?

(There's a real answer to this question but I'd rather not give it to a troll. I wish TJ or DC Al Fine or somebody had been the one to ask this.)

[DC Al Fine]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

Did you read the rest of that post?

(There's a real answer to this question but I'd rather not give it to a troll. I wish TJ or DC Al Fine or somebody had been the one to ask this.)

I'll bite.

In preparation for this post, I watched a few video on homosexuality and Christianity with those annoying Upworthy headlines*.

The arguments for Scripture accepting homosexual sex can be summarized as:

1) The OT passages against homosexuality were part of the judicial law which expired at Christ's resurrection.
2) Paul is condemning lust in Romans 1, so loving, committed homosexual relationships are acceptable.
3) Paul's references to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are mistranslated.
4) The references to homosexuality in the Bible, especially in the NT are not canonical.

I accept #1, since it is quite compatible with orthodoxy. Since the judicial law has expired, the issue of homosexual acts is narrowed down to a question of whether it violates the seventh commandment.

This is where diverge from the pro-homosexual position. From what I've seen so far, arguments 2 and 3 tend to be a big exercise in hand waving, and declaring large swaths of Paul's letters non-canonical is heresy (and usually contains more hand waving)

With that in mind, how do you reconcile your position on homosexuality with orthodoxy? Do you have another argument, or do you use some of the one's I've listed. If it's the latter could you elaborate on the argument, since I'm sure you can make a better case than Upworthy

*Yes I know Upworthy is a terrible terrible place to gather arguments, but they're easy to digest and quick sources of info.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

How does being queer affect your religious outlook? Have you ever felt the need to question or subdue that part of yourself because of orthodoxy?

I'm fully willing to admit that this is one of the areas in which my views are generally more revisionist then they are otherwise, frankly more for the sake of my close friends, an entirely disproportionate number of whom are lesbians, than for myself.

Given that you, as a semi-orthodox Christian, presumably acknowledge God as an omniscient and the only source of objective morality, how do you justify positioning the emotional comfort of yourself and your lesbian friends ahead of the clear and consistent condemnations of homosexuality in Christian scripture?

Did you read the rest of that post?

(There's a real answer to this question but I'd rather not give it to a troll. I wish TJ or DC Al Fine or somebody had been the one to ask this.)

I'll bite.

In preparation for this post, I watched a few video on homosexuality and Christianity with those annoying Upworthy headlines*.

The arguments for Scripture accepting homosexual sex can be summarized as:

1) The OT passages against homosexuality were part of the judicial law which expired at Christ's resurrection.
2) Paul is condemning lust in Romans 1, so loving, committed homosexual relationships are acceptable.
3) Paul's references to homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy are mistranslated.
4) The references to homosexuality in the Bible, especially in the NT are not canonical.

I accept #1, since it is quite compatible with orthodoxy. Since the judicial law has expired, the issue of homosexual acts is narrowed down to a question of whether it violates the seventh commandment.

This is where diverge from the pro-homosexual position. From what I've seen so far, arguments 2 and 3 tend to be a big exercise in hand waving, and declaring large swaths of Paul's letters non-canonical is heresy (and usually contains more hand waving)

With that in mind, how do you reconcile your position on homosexuality with orthodoxy? Do you have another argument, or do you use some of the one's I've listed. If it's the latter could you elaborate on the argument, since I'm sure you can make a better case than Upworthy

*Yes I know Upworthy is a terrible terrible place to gather arguments, but they're easy to digest and quick sources of info.

From a point of view in which certain parts of the Bible may be canonical but nevertheless incorrect (just not in a way that damages the hope for salvation of people who believe them), or a point of view of 'continuing revelation' or a Tradition of which Scripture is only a part, it's a lot easier to ignore, reread, or change these positions (which is I think part of why, adjusting for orthodoxy on other issues, Anglicans and even Catholics are a lot more willing to entertain these arguments than Presbyterians or Baptists), but that isn't a very Protestant understanding of the Bible and it's certainly not a very Reformed one, so I won't go into that for the time being.

I find the general sorts of arguments that you're summarizing in 2) and 3) mostly convincing, but I understand why they may not pass the smell test or may seem like handwaves. Honestly, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument the idea that Paul is in fact condemning homosexuality as such in Romans 1, but even if that is the case I find it most sensible to understand him to have been condemning it for reasons that no longer obtain, namely the sociological construction of same-sex relationships, especially between men, in the ancient Mediterranean world. For more on this idea and on how it might differ from just a special case of the 'Paul is just condemning lustiness' explanation/handwave, I'd recommend James V. Brownson's book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, which argues this far better than I can and astronomically better than Upworthy can. It's written as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but it dissects the objections to the more common arguments in favor of that in what I thought was a pretty fair and sincere manner. It's also written from a Reformed perspective so you may actually get more out of its style of argumentation and the points that it considers worth addressing than I did, even though you'll probably come away still disagreeing with it. It advances, essentially, a modified form of 2) contending not that Paul may have intended to distinguish between different types of same-sex acts but that he may not have thought or understood that same-sex relationships that didn't take the form of abusive power displays were possible.

As for the role of my own psychology in all this, even recognizing that the chance that this is one of the doctrinal points I'm wrong on (surely there are at least a couple!) exists, I first of all never claimed to be a perfect person, and second of all believe in pastoral economium. I'm aware that this isn't enough to support recognition of such relationships, only tolerance--for recognition I'd submit that in a proper Christian sexual ethic recognition and tolerance have to be coinherent, and that accepting a certain kind of romantic or sexual relationship as tolerable implies that one needs to think of how it might be possible to recognize, since sex acts outside a marital context can't be viewed as appropriate. The unrecognizable has to be unacceptable, but the acceptable has to be recognizable--'one man's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.'

[TJ in Oregon]

Nathan, do you believe public revelation is still happening or do you believe public revelation ended shortly after the Resurrection/Ascension/Pentecost?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Nathan, do you believe public revelation is still happening or do you believe public revelation ended shortly after the Resurrection/Ascension/Pentecost?

I'm not sure but my tendency is generally towards cessationism, which is why I put 'continuing revelation' in scare quotes. A lot of Episcopalians would probably disagree with me on this, assuming they knew what 'public revelation' as opposed to 'private revelation' meant, which is why I brought it up in that context.

I of course think that private revelations still occur with some regularity and can in certain cases be disseminated publicly.

[afleitch]

Honestly, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument the idea that Paul is in fact condemning homosexuality as such in Romans 1, but even if that is the case I find it most sensible to understand him to have been condemning it for reasons that no longer obtain, namely the sociological construction of same-sex relationships, especially between men, in the ancient Mediterranean world. For more on this idea and on how it might differ from just a special case of the 'Paul is just condemning lustiness' explanation/handwave, I'd recommend James V. Brownson's book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, which argues this far better than I can and astronomically better than Upworthy can. It's written as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but it dissects the objections to the more common arguments in favor of that in what I thought was a pretty fair and sincere manner. It's also written from a Reformed perspective so you may actually get more out of its style of argumentation and the points that it considers worth addressing than I did, even though you'll probably come away still disagreeing with it. It advances, essentially, a modified form of 2) contending not that Paul may have intended to distinguish between different types of same-sex acts but that he may not have thought or understood that same-sex relationships that didn't take the form of abusive power displays were possible.

The context of the 'condemnation' from 1:18 onwards is entirely bombastic. And that is why it is a problem. Being very much in the tradition of the 'and then and then and then' style of rhetoric often founf in Greek narratives, the sexual acts are very much the 'and then' attributed to people who wilfully don't believe in god even though they know it to be true (1:20 suggests that reason alone should be enough to know that god is true which is almost sweet in it's disconnect) To me he’s clearly condemning a certain type of sexual practice (not that any translation actually knows what, though since religion has decided to fight a culture war on same sex relationships since the 1960’s, it seems to be de rigeur to make it about us)

But even if we make that a universal condemnation of all same sex acts after his ‘condemnation’ he really goes for it; the 'and then' continues. Those who do such things are wicked, evil, greedy, depraved, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice etc. That is an extraordinary statement to make and absolutely disconnected from reality. If what he says about same sex acts is a 'truth' then so too are these attributes. No person, acting with reason and rationale and not caught up in his own words, could ever reach that conclusion.

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

Honestly, I'm willing to accept for the sake of argument the idea that Paul is in fact condemning homosexuality as such in Romans 1, but even if that is the case I find it most sensible to understand him to have been condemning it for reasons that no longer obtain, namely the sociological construction of same-sex relationships, especially between men, in the ancient Mediterranean world. For more on this idea and on how it might differ from just a special case of the 'Paul is just condemning lustiness' explanation/handwave, I'd recommend James V. Brownson's book Bible, Gender, Sexuality, which argues this far better than I can and astronomically better than Upworthy can. It's written as an argument in favor of same-sex marriage, but it dissects the objections to the more common arguments in favor of that in what I thought was a pretty fair and sincere manner. It's also written from a Reformed perspective so you may actually get more out of its style of argumentation and the points that it considers worth addressing than I did, even though you'll probably come away still disagreeing with it. It advances, essentially, a modified form of 2) contending not that Paul may have intended to distinguish between different types of same-sex acts but that he may not have thought or understood that same-sex relationships that didn't take the form of abusive power displays were possible.

The context of the 'condemnation' from 1:18 onwards is entirely bombastic. And that is why it is a problem. Being very much in the tradition of the 'and then and then and then' style of rhetoric often founf in Greek narratives, the sexual acts are very much the 'and then' attributed to people who wilfully don't believe in god even though they know it to be true (1:20 suggests that reason alone should be enough to know that god is true which is almost sweet in it's disconnect) To me he’s clearly condemning a certain type of sexual practice (not that any translation actually knows what, though since religion has decided to fight a culture war on same sex relationships since the 1960’s, it seems to be de rigeur to make it about us)

But even if we make that a universal condemnation of all same sex acts after his ‘condemnation’ he really goes for it; the 'and then' continues. Those who do such things are wicked, evil, greedy, depraved, full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice etc. That is an extraordinary statement to make and absolutely disconnected from reality. If what he says about same sex acts is a 'truth' then so too are these attributes. No person, acting with reason and rationale and not caught up in his own words, could ever reach that conclusion.

Plus then he abruptly (the chapter division disguises this but it's in the original pretty abrupt) stops and says 'Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things', which to be honest I've never been quite sure how to interpret in this context, but which could mean that even if he's not minimizing his disapprobation of whatever it is that he's talking about he also doesn't intend it to be as demonizing and othering as those verses taken by themselves would indicate (because he doesn't actually view anyone as innocent of this).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How do you Identify?

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

How do you Identify?

As little as possible. My username is something memphis called me once.