Simon Sarmiento's journal

If ‘The Times’ is right to report that the upshot of the report will be the expulsion of ECUSA, then that is only the logical step, and it would have been better to just go ahead with that in the first place rather than spend time & money on consultations etc..

However, there’s a possibility of a worrying side-effect: once expelled, America is highly unlikely to submit to a non-American-led institution again, and some elements of ECUSA accordingly will continue to follow every wind of worldly fashion.

If America is tempted to think and act unilaterally & solipsistically when part of an international organisation (whether the UN or the Anglican Church), how much more will they do so when independent from such an organisation?

ECUSA accordingly will continue to follow every wind of worldly fashion…

Then again, we might just decide to follow Christ in as faithful a way as we know how (you know, this continued “not agreeing with me = not a faithful Christian” stuff is really getting old, and insulting).

I suspect for the majority of the ECUSA (and certainly for me), being kicked out of the club might provoke a moment of sadness, but we’ll get on with our lives anyway.

America is highly unlikely to submit to a non-American-led institution again…

Yes, the U.S. has historically cast a jaundiced eye towards being bullied or pushed around by our “betters” ever since that little Revolution of ours 200+ years ago. I’m sure most of us will feel just fine throwing our lot in with the mainline ECUSA.

No one knows what the Lambeth Commission will do until the final report is made public.

David Huff, the Anglican Communion is not a club; it claims to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

Clubs and churches are very different things.

‘Not agreeing with me = not a faithful Christian’? On the contrary, not agreeing with the Jesus attested to by the primary documents, and replacing him with a Jesus that fits in with our own ideology = by definition, not a faithful Christian.

The presupposition is that all views are equally entitled to be held, and everything is just a matter of opinion. This is more to do with American culture (freedom of speech) than with either Christianity or common sense.

We are not talking about America being bullied, just about every country submitting to the discipline of equality and of listening to one another, since we all know from our natural human tendencies that sin and self-centredness are closely related.

…not agreeing with the Jesus attested to by the primary documents, and replacing him with a Jesus that fits in with our own ideology = by definition, not a faithful Christian.

And the test for whether we are “agreeing with the Jesus attested to by the primary documents” always seems to = holding the same interpretation as Dr. Shell, eh ? I suppose I should be envious. Must be nice having a direct line to the Mind of God like that…

The idea that a suspension of ECUSA from Lambeth will resolve the issue is astonishingly optimistic, and totally fails to recognize the depth of feeling among the “Anglican” “breakaway” groups. It is almost impossible to see how schism can be averted within the Episcopal community, since it is in fact already under way.

Both sides are convinced that they are right; the real difficulty is that both sides have good cases to make. However, it should be noted (for those who see Scripture as the prime or only valid source of authority) that the scriptural passages which do evidently support a condemnation of homosexual acts are all either from the Old Testament (whose authority is surely overridden, for Christians, by the New Testament) or the Epistles. I am not aware of any Evangelical, ie Gospel, passage which addresses the question. It is Paul’s authority, rather than Jesus’, which condemns gay sexuality as sinful, if we go by the extant written word. But I do also wish there was more honest and explicit recognition by those supporting recognition of gays that this is a radical departure from the traditional teaching of the Church. The liberal argumentation which I have seen has been more based on civil rights than on theology.

For my own part, I see the Churches’ opening up to gay people as a movement of the Spirit, comparable to that movement which led Christians to reject slavery, and to rethink their attitudes to women, and to persons of colour & indigenous peoples; and yes, it is a movement parallel to the civil/human rights question, but for us as Christians it has (or should have) a theological dimension and depth which the human rights debate does not and cannot achieve. The Spirit blows where it pleases (cf John 3:7), and we must be ready to respond in ways we had not previously thought of. Yet as Christians we must also recognize and respect the conviction of those who cannot suddenly (yes, it is relatively sudden) redraw the defining lines of sinful behaviour. – The hate attacks on Dean Jeffrey John are totally out of place; but so are the cheerleaders for Bishop Gene Robinson.

Where did the idea/dogma come from that every passage in the Bible is obscure and admits of contrary interpretations? This is not the road taken by actual biblical scholars who write commentaries only because they believe that a correct interpretation is an attainable goal.

On the contrary, biblical passages (like passages in any other book) range from the very plain to the very obscure. A standard deviation curve.

On this curve, the biblical witness on homosexuality is towards the plain end, since the biblical witness is united. It is cited as a controversial topic not because it is biblically controversial (since it’s not) but because it is politically controversial, and we would all like the Bible to say what we ourselves want it to say. But the Bible won’t always agree with us, nor can we make it do so. Sometimes it stands over us in judgment, or forces us to revise our thinking.

Even if the only biblical passages on the topic are in OT and epistles, why is this a reason to because we have already decided, even before reading them, that we want to. But the Bible (unlike modern American and British society) is not driven by our wants.

The gospel witness is that Jesus spoke on related topics. On fornication, he was hardline (Mk 7). On divorce, he was more hardline than his predecessors (Mk 10). On adultery, he upheld the law and called adultery sin, while showing more compassion than his predecessors (Jn 8, cf. Lk 7). So the combination of holiness and compassion has always been the authentic Christian combination.

But there is a possibility that the Bible is wrong. A stance is never right simply because ‘the Bible says’, but because it corresponds to reality - which is why the Bible says it in the first place. In the real world, homosexual life expectancy and promiscuity rates are significantly worse than heterosexual; and given that homosexual actions are in any case unarguably less obviously natural than heterosexual, the witness of centuries must have something to be said for it. Are we to say that all the holy Christians through two millennia who have never seen the biblical stance as strange are somehow lacking, or ‘fundamentalist’?

Oops! - Para 4 please read: ‘why is this a reason to reject them? Because…’

Ah, yes: the Bible is so clear on homosexuality. All one has to do, is insert “homosexuality” into the texts!

Dr. Shell, why do you—-and some of your conservative compatriots—-continue to insult our intelligence with the incomprehensible theory, that 1800+ year-old texts have the modern concept of “homosexuality” commented on (positively OR negatively) within them?

Yes, the Bible has some negative things to say about some same-sex sexual acts . . . in the same way that it has some negative things to say about some opposite-sex sexual acts (e.g. adulterous ones)! But a blanket condemnation on all physical intimacy between all persons of the same sex (NEVERMIND Scripture’s complete incomprehension of sexual orientation)? Not Even Close!

And yet, for asserting what is very simple logic (that anachronism is not the “Word of God”), I’m sure that I will be accused of “relativism,” “ignoring the Plain Sense of Scripture,” and heterodoxy (maybe even “Unitarianism” or “Sufism”: I’ve heard those accusations bandied about also).

Feh! I’m going to continue on in “the breaking of bread, and the prayers.” I believe that ECUSA—-whether its hand of fellowship is clasped or slapped away by the AC—-is following the Gospel of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (and not as “club,” but as Christ’s Body). If it ain’t—-and no “Dr” of the church has yet convinced me otherwise—-I’m sure I’ll find out in Heaven. That’s where I’m headed, with God’s Grace (the only way that any of us will get there) .

[Would sticking “Dr” in my email link give me anymore credibility? Nah, probably not . . . ]

So far as I can see, the point being made is either trivial or incorrect: I’ll explain:

If the point is that texts written 2000 years ago presuppose the society of 2000 years ago, then that is true, but so obvious as to be trivial. Between then and now there are both some continuities and some discontinuities. ‘Lumpers’ emphasise the first, ‘splitters’ emphasise the second; but if we’re honest we’ll admit that both continuites and discontinuities exist.

If, however, the main point is that the texts do not give a blanket condemnation of homosexuality (and remember that whether or not they do so, the question of whether the texts are true is a separate question) then those in Romans and Leviticus are as blanket as you like. It is the very idea of anyone sleeping with the same sex that is in view. Can you imagine Paul continuing: ‘then again, if they’re in a loving permanent relationship, forget everything I’ve just said’?

Additionally, there may be power-play involved in using the concept ‘homosexuality’ in the first place. It’s a short step from devising a concept of ‘sexuality’ (sexual orientation) to arguing that all ‘sexualities’ are equally good. This concept is far from universal among different cultures at different times of history, and we therefore need to examine it critically. The biblical writers didn’t assume that there were various orientations to choose from , and why are they less likely than us to be right?

If the point

Allthough you may be able to discount the biblical passages concerning homosexual behaviour as being written in a different context or that the writers were not aware of monogamous faithful same sex couples or any other way those passages can be ignored, would J. Collins Fisher or someone else please show me where in the Bible anywhere at all where homosexuallity is raised up as a good thing, to be blessed or sanctified, and where God gives us guidance on how to live in a same sex relationship in order to glorify him.

Michael: as I’ve said, “homosexuality”—-the life expression of same-sex-oriented persons—-is not mentioned in the Bible (either as blessing or curse).

But for that matter, heterosexuality isn’t either. There is no “heterosexuality” apart from non-heterosexuality against which one defines it. In the Bible, it is simply a given that all persons will naturally seek out someone of the opposite sex in order to reproduce: it’s not a stated assumption, it is simply the universe in which all God’s creatures live. [The exception of the vowed celibate person being one who acts against nature, in order to more closely live completely for God]

Or so it was thought.

If it is understood that men and women will always seek each other out in order to reproduce, the concern is then that the reproductive relationships—-which will occur under any circumstances—-be ordered in ways that stabilize society (and thereby, glorify God).

In this way, the “urge to merge with the splurge of Spring” (Berlin? Hart? Porter? Gershwin? One of them’s words) can be translated into “it is not good that man shall live alone” and “for this reason a man leaves his house” etc. etc. (And also, for order’s sake, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery”).

But note: it’s not a heterosexual relationship which is being lifted up, it’s an assumed instinctive one.

“One man/one woman” makes perfect sense (no fighting over “Mama’s baby and Daddy’s maybe”), and its order reflects the Grand Order understood to flow from the One who looked out over chaos and said “Let there be light” (and then started dividing this from that).

“One man/one woman” is the noblest way to reflect the Total Love of God (in the sense that God loves each and every one of us, as if God were married to each one, individually).

Yes, “one man/one woman” is really the ONLY way to go . . .

. . . if we were all heterosexual (so assumed than an alternative could not even be conceived of in Biblical times: inc. Paul’s, Dr. Shell).

BUT WE’RE NOT.

When you get right down to it, the “goodness” of homosexuality consists in the God-given Reality of the homosexual orientation.

. . . and that, in turn, comes back to faith and trust: either the Body of Christ collectively believes its members who say “I’m gay: I know I didn’t choose it, and can find no credible explanation except that God made me this way”—-or it doesn’t. We see the latter now, in what we may (regrettably—-but hopefully temporarily) call the “Anglican Majoritarian” way: refusing to consider that those Anglicans calling themselves homosexual are anything other than pathetically sick or horribly sinful (or perhaps some of each).

I can try to explain this rationally, but Reason can’t get you all the way the way there: even as faith is required for the salvation of our souls, so will faith be required for the salvation of the Anglican Communion.

I’m not asking anyone to believe in me, personally, as anything but a miserable sinner. Nevertheless, relying completely on God’s Grace, I still humbly but boldly demand you believe me when I say that my sexual orientation is what God, in God’s Wisdom, chose to give me.

If you trust me, no further argumentation is necessary. If you don’t, no further argumentation will ever be sufficient.

Michael, Dr Shell, Canon Harmon: do you trust me?

It is a bold claim to know the mind of God better than fellow-Christians. It is an even bolder claim when that supposed ‘mind of God’ is directly contrary to Scripture.

We all have natural inclinations. Some of these are helpful if pursued, others harmful. If natural inclination were the only criterion, we would have ot accept the rightness and God-givenness of paedophilia forthwith, since it is extremely widespread as an inclination (few things are more widespread, strictly as an inclination). Proof of this is found in internet search engine figures.

This only goes to show that what is natural and what is right can be two very different things.

Trust you? I don’t even know you. Yes… I trust that you feel and believe just as you say you do. but…I still hold that marriage is raised up in the scripture as a blessed and sacred thing that was defined way back in Genisis. Homosexuallity is just is not spoken of in the same way as marriage. No matter how much anyone tries to spin it God never puts his blessing on a homosexual relationship. And that is the truth that you must realize, any sexual relationship outside of marriage is only an alternative to the prefered. An alternative, not the normal usual way.
God made me a man and as a man my natural incliation is to spread my seed to as many females as will accept me. It’s how I feel,it’s how God made me. But he has told me that I am not to do those things that feel so right and natural. I am only supposed to have sex with one woman who I have chosen to marry in a lifelong comittment. I may not like it and it surly is a lofty goal. The drive to have sex with many women is the cause of a lot of broken marriages because so many of us men cannot remain monogamous. But with Christ’s help we can. It’s not easy but God requires it. I’m sorry but that is what is required of a Christian. I did not write the rules. Christian people are required to express sex in only one way, married.
I’m off to church, lets pick this up later.
Gods Peace to us all
Michael

Quick point: Anyone who has read Plato’s Symposium will know that the concept of a gay or lesbian orientation was not unknown to the Greeks — even if they didn’t have a term for it. Thus, I find it doubtful that Paul had no knowledge of this either. That would need to be demonstrated, not assumed.

“…(The Anglican Church) claims to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church”

It only claims to. It is not. And that’s why it all happens

RB is right that Plato’s ‘Symposium’ demonstrates that the Greeks were aware of a range of different kinds of homosexual behaviour / relationships, including what we now call permanent loving relationships. It was this sort of (relative) free-for-all that Jews and Christians defined themselves against. Returning to paganism is going backwards.

Perhaps I erred in making my demand (through and only through God’s Grace) too individualistic: it’s not about trusting me, JCF, but about trusting God’s LGBT children—-the queerer members of the Body of Christ.

I’ll agree that Aristophanes’ discourse in Symposium suggests a certain intuition of differing sexualities. Since I would assert that the orientations have existed from time immemorial, it would be strange if sentient humans didn’t have some apprehension of these differences, at least somewhat (ala the “Two-Spirit” concept of certain Native American tribes). However, both of these concepts come from a time when peoples were more focused on what they believed were innate differences between them as peoples, more so than what unites all homo sapiens.

I believe that we best honor our ancestors—-our various forefathers/mothers in the sciences, arts and religion—-by acknowledging them, even as we stand on their shoulders and look further, deeper.

It is in standing on the shoulders of someone like Plato, that 19th and 20th century psychologists and anthropologists were able to take this intuition of a “homo-sexuality”, and actually examine it as an empirical hypothesis. We know that Zeus never threw down thunderbolts to divide 2-headed, 4-armed/legged men, women and Androgynes (how strange it sounds that so many heterosexuals would be proud to claim that they were androgynous!), yet the effect of this fable—-that some men look for male “other halves”, some women look for female “other halves” and the bulk look for their other-sex half—-seems to result nonetheless. What causes that? After a century, we’re only really beginning to understand (that it seems to be as involuntary as Zeus’ bolt from the blue!).

Did Paul know the Symposium? I suppose most NT scholars would surmise he would, being the cosmopolitan Roman citizen he was (w/ that learned upbring he so boasts of—-when he’s not counting it rubbish {g}). Regardless, I don’t take his particular same-sex denunciations as anymore pertaining to me, as I would the rest of Aristophanes’ paean (what w/ the supposed “manliness” of Greek paedophilia. Whatever.)

[And speaking of which, can we PLEASE stop comparing homosexuality and paedophiliac pathologies today? We don’t cite heterosexual paedophilia to condemn all heterosexuality do we?]

But returning to a personal vain: I’m pained, though hardly surprised, at the lack of trust. (I’m afraid, Michael, that I can’t count your “I trust that you feel and believe just as you say you do” as anything more than “. . . but that’s just your illness/addiction talking, you poor devil.” Moreover, there isn’t anything you said about marriage, with which I disagree . . . except that you, quite incomprehensibly to me, keep contrasting “homosexual” and “marriage”, when these two words so naturally, well, marry in my mind. Furthermore, I would suspect you don’t really desire to boink as many females as possible to spead your seed—-that’s just the effect—-but rather because the constant-novelty-boinking would feel so good. The Feel-So-Good factor is, so I’m told, exactly the same as many gay men feel . . . and against which the Christian ones, fight.)

One the one hand, it’s strange (not to mention pathetic) that the Communion should divide over this issue. On the other, it’s really not: it’s dividing over this inability to trust—-and maybe this trust was never really there to begin with (only a polite English Gentleman-like facade). Seen in this light, the excommunication ECUSA receives now, is really only the concrete reality of a brokenness between us that has been there a long, long time.

No matter. Even as Christ keeps standing at the door and knocking, so will ECUSA. And so will I (there’s me making another one of those bold claims again, Dr Shell. I can do ALL things through Christ, who strengthens me).

Shalom!

The moral of this sad story is that it’s time for the Church to get out of the ethics business.

Ethics is a secular, academic enterprise, like cosmology, astronomy and biology. There’s no more reason to look to Scripture or Church doctrine for answers to disputed ethical questions than there is to look there for the correct account of the origin and structure of the universe or the origin of species.

Very few lay people look to the Church for moral guidance about moral issues. At most they appeal to church doctrine in support of views they hold on independent grounds. Episcopalians never took the church’s official positions on sexual conduct, including pre-marital sex and divorce, seriously and the church for its part adopted a live-and-let-live policy.

It was the arrogance of liberal clergy, assuming that they had the authority and professional competence to issue a “teaching document” on human sexuality and imagining that by officially sanctioning gay sex they were enlightening the benighted laity, combatting homophobia and advancing the civil rights movement—as if anyone cared about these silly vicars’ half-baked politically correct notions—that blew the game open.

So, time to get out of the ethics business. Even if clergy aren’t involved in adjudicating between the competing claims of Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomy, calculating the age of the cosmos from the record of begats in Genesis or issuing statements about who may sleep with whom, there’s still plenty for them to do: conducting services, baptizing, marrying and burying people, visiting the sick, comforting the dying and engaging in other activities that are within their professional competence.

Canon Harmon wrote:
the Anglican Communion is not a club; it claims to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

The Church as the Body of Christ on Earth is indeed not a “club.” As for the Anglican Communion, it can claim to be anything it wants, I suppose. However, club it is - a loose collection of churches (note small ‘c’) all historically decended one way or another from the Church of England. If the AC decides to slap our hand of fellowship away, so much the worse. But it isn’t any worse than expulsion from a gentle(wo)man’s club in the long run…

BTW, Dr. Fisher, I liked your last response a lot, esp. the final two paragraphs :)

Dear Mr. Fisher —

You ask us to trust you on this subject, above the witness of scripture and tradition. Can you give a reason for us to believe that your witness is more reliable and more objective than these? I find it most unfortunate that you put the discussion in personal terms, claiming that if we don’t accept your position, we don’t trust you. This smacks of manipulation. When you put it this way, you’re right: I don’t trust you. Furthermore, is it necessary to mention that Christianity is about trust in the God revealed in Christ, not in each and every person who claims to speak for Him?

Regarding Baber’s call for clergy to get out of ethics, it seems to me that a Christianity devoid of ethical content is not Christianity but something else.

What? The Creed makes a number of interesting and controversial claims about the existence and nature of God and post-mortem survival. No ethical content there. I should have thought that anyone who bought those metaphysical claims counted as a Christian—and that anyone who didn’t, regardless of their views on ethical issues, wasn’t a Christian.

So what do you say about ethics as a field in philosophy, done without the benefit of clergy? All straw? Or are you suggesting some “double truth” doctrine? Do clergy get some special revelation about ethical matters while the rest of us struggle to achieve reflective equilibrium by human reason alone?

Would you be prepared to make a comparable claim about evolutionary biology or suggest that Christianity devoid of an account of the origin of species is not Christianity but something else? Why or why not?

J.Collins,
You wrote [(I’m afraid, Michael, that I can’t count your “I trust that you feel and believe just as you say you do” as anything more than “. . . but that’s just your illness/addiction talking, you poor devil.”]

Not True…I trust that you are being absolutly honest with us, but don’t jump to conclusions about my sincereity please! I have listened for years and I understand and believe desire is desire and it is something that we as humans do not chose, that said I still think that sex with another of the same sex is not something that God planned for or approves of. Is it a salvation issue? I would not claim to know. All I know for sure is that Christ died for all of us, as all of us are sinners, but forgiven by His Grace only. I am as worthless as you to recieve this blessing and will go to the Lords Table with anyone. But I cannot accept the false teachings and distortions of Scripture of the revisionist agenda that are ripping through our church today. A man who has made his sexuallity such a focal point in his life and has put his sexual gratification ahead of his promise to God does not deserve to be a bishop in this Church. God wants us to raise up men who are centered on Him to lead His church. God needs to be the defining force in a bishops life, not who he is attracted to by some biological force. I am sure Gene Robinson loved his wife and his children and could have and maybe does continue to love them. To be a bishop he needs to be 100% centered on God and Gene Robinson is not.

(granted a lot of other bishops regardless of their sexuality do not measure up and that is a large part of our problem)

Gods Peace to us all
Michael

Going back to the top of this string, I think that something David Huff wrote is indicative of something at the heart of our current problems. He said: “America is highly unlikely to submit to a non-American-led institution again…
Yes, the U.S. has historically cast a jaundiced eye towards being bullied or pushed around by our “betters” ever since that little Revolution of ours 200+ years ago. I’m sure most of us will feel just fine throwing our lot in with the mainline ECUSA.”

As long as we see ourselves as Americans first, as people who “historically cast a jaundiced eye towards being bullied or pushed around by our “betters” ever since that little Revolution of ours 200+ years ago”, we’re going to be in trouble. We are Americans, most of us, by chance— we happened to be born on the part of God’s earth that human beings have designated “the United States of America”. Our boundaries with Canada and Mexico aren’t God-given; they were “created” by human beings killing other human beings. Our human boundaries are designed to separate us, one from another.
The “one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” is just the opposite— we are all of us, whether American or Ugandan or French or Chinese, one within the Body of Christ. Within that Body, we are equals, and we are individuals— the national, human-made boundaries should mean nothing within the Body of Christ.
The greatest sin at General Convention ‘03 had nothing to do with homosexuality— it had to do with Anglican Christians in America telling the vast majority of their fellow Anglican Christians from throughout the world that we didn’t have to care what they believed or thought or felt. The greatest sin at GC’03 was our telling the rest of the Body of Christ, “We don’t need you”.
And David Huff reiterated it here.

But Michael, if this is all you think about +Gene Robinson (“A man who has made his sexuallity such a focal point in his life and has put his sexual gratification ahead of his promise to God”), why shouldn’t I believe that that is all you think about me? And if so, how can I not conclude that, no matter what I say (no matter how I love), all you hear in me is either a deluded mental-case, an unrepentant sinner, or both?

-NB to RB: “You ask us to trust you on this subject, above the witness of scripture and tradition.” No, I ask you to trust the testimony (the reason) of your Christian LGBT brothers and sisters ON the witness of scripture and tradition, because—-having had the condemnatory interpretations of same thrust on us for so long—-we’ve had to dig deeper into them, whereas for straight Christians, these texts only arise in context of “the other.” They don’t hit you where you live (although the irony is that, since the real sin of “sodomy” is inhospitality, then they quite possibly should). But as much if not moreso than our reasoning, what do your LGBT Christian brothers’ and sisters’ lives say about the various interpretations of scripture and tradition? (i.e. “By their fruits you will know them”?)

[My blood pressure’s been raised long enough on this thread, folks. If ya wanna raise it again—- or share a kiss of peace (the latter, please?)—-come on over to my blog. Adios y’all!]

Oh, BTW, one last word, to “Concerned”: if you’ve read David elsewhere, you’d know that your interpretation of his words above, is an incorrect one. While he can speak for himself better than I can, I believe he’s talking about the American Episcopal Church, in the context of its democracy (like its nation—-more or less!) and AC-canonical autonomy, but emphatically NOT like the U.S. of A. in its imperialist overreaching.

This “ECUSA is just like [Bush in Iraq/KyotoTreaty/Intl.Court/etc.]” canard is really getting old.

Thanks, Dr. Fisher - you responded well :) I figured that the moment I posted this, the (false) comparison would be made to the current U.S. administration’s neo-conservative political practices.

Concerned wrote:
The greatest sin at GC’03 was our telling the rest of the Body of Christ, “We don’t need you”.

Pardon my bluntness, but Bull! What is ECUSA’s alternative ? Having to run everything past the extremist socio-political agenda of primates like +Akinola or +Gomez and plead, “Father, may I ?”

The ECUSA is governed, like the USA, as a Republic (rule of law, our Constitution and Canons) where changes are decided in a transparent fashion by a Representative Democracy (General Convention). Is this system perfect ? Of course not, nothing made by humans is. However, as Sir Winston Churchill wrote, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

I also find our home-grown Anglican neo-conservative’s new found friendship with the “Global South” astonishingly hypocritical. I can’t wait for this marriage of convenience to be tested by the South’s demand for social justice, third-world debt relief, or simply for more than a token amount of the weekly proceeds raised at places like All Saint’s, Pasadena or Christ Church, Plano. Hmmm…perhaps we should split, and send the titles to parish property and the priests’ share of the pension fund directly to the bishop in Uganda ? ;)

Oops, that should be “All Saints, Long Beach” not Pasadena. My apologies to Rev. Susan Russell and everyone else in Pasadena :) my bad…

In my (perhaps limited) experience, there is one heresy (or mistake, if you prefer) that I find to be more common than any other.

It is assuming that true Christianity must be like the culture that we (whoever we are) grew up with or are used to.

Mormonism began because there were (and are) those that could not conceive that America could not have a central part in God’s purposes. The propserity ‘gospel’ began because Americans experienced prosperity in their normal lives so to them this was normal, the way things should be. For many Africans, you can’t get true Christianity without exorcisms, curses, spiritual warfare etc.. The English even founded a whole church named after not Jesus but themselves.

The thing to do is to realise that the area in which we are most likely to err is in importing our own culture into Christianity. Just because it is normal for us does not mean it is normal in the eyes of the rest of the world, let alone that it is authentically Christian.

It’s a short step to concluding that this is what has happened here. Lax sexual morals ahve taken hold in society; they then come to seem ‘normal’ to us; we confuse what is normal to us with (something which is very different) what is right. And the national church mirrors (not to say parrots; not to say apes) the nation -just a few years later.

The existence of this pattern can be more or less proved by the way that most national churches’ governing/main heresies are the result of succumbing to the prevailing culture of the nation in question. If America (or any other culture) is both sexually lax and solipsistic/unilateral, soon their church will be too, unless they are aware of this overall tendency of churches to reflect their surrounding nations.

A note on a specific point to Dr Fisher:
My point was not to make a direct comparison of homosexuality with paedophilia. Such comparisons can indeed be made, since, as well as differences, there are various points of similarity: both are ‘sexual orientations’; both are non-mainstream; a given homosexual is considerably more likely to be a paedophile than a given heterosexual (though this is of course only an average, not something that applies to anything like all homosexuals). But they were not being made by me.

My point was rather that people argue that whatever is a natural tendecy is therefore also ok/acceptable; and I was pointing out that they cannot really believe this. If they did believe this, they would believe that paedophilia (my chosen example) is ok, or that drug-taking (which could also have been my chosen example but wasn’t)is ok.

Had I happened to choose the example of drug-taking. I would never have mentioned the word paedophilia, since it was only an example chosen from among many possible examples, and not central to the point being made.

Dr. Shell wrote:
…a given homosexual is considerably more likely to be a paedophile than a given heterosexual

Wrong! This is one of the most vicious myths perpetuated by the anti-gay lobby. There is no properly done research that indicates that gay men are more like to abuse children that straight ones, quite the opposite in fact:

Surveys have identified few paedophiles amongst homosexuals: Westwood (1960) found less than 3% claiming to be interested in young people sexually. Another study showed that nearly half of the men convicted of sexually molesting boys were actually married at the time (Gebhard et al., 1965); less than a third preferred children sexually to older people. Using measures of sexual arousal to different sets of pictures, it was discovered that although heterosexual men were sexually aroused by pictures of girls rather than by those of landscapes, homosexual men were no more aroused by pictures of boys than landscapes (Freund, 1963). Newton (1978) concluded that there is no connection between homosexuality and paedophilia.

I could go on and on, but the point is that no reputable psychologist can make the claim that you did above. It is instead, pure slander…

I do apologise unreservedly for using the word ‘natural’ in regard to paedophilia. What I meant was ‘widespread’ - something amply (and abhorrently) proven by internet search engine figures.

My sources for the claim that a given homosexual is more likely (apparently: much more likely) to be a paedophile than a given heterosexual are:
(1) Freund and Watson 1992 (a study of 462 American convicted paedophiles);
(2) the Home Office Report ‘Sex Offending against Children’ by D. Grubin (1999);
(3) an IVP book by someone named Schmidt cited in Anne Atkins ‘Split Image’ (Hodder).
I am so sorry if these reports are incorrect or partial; I was just relying on the best evidence available to me, which is what we’re all doing. Youres is just as likely as mine to be wrong; mine is just as likely as yours to be wrong. We’ll just seek out the most apparently objective and large-scale reports and go from there.

But if homosexuals are not worse than heterosexuals in this matter, this must mean that heterosexuals are worse than homosexuals. Is this what you are claiming? They can scarcely be precisely equal, even though many people’s ideologies dictate that we should say that they are precisely equal in this regard. Let’s seek out the truth and shun ideology.

Dr. Shell wrote:
…this must mean that heterosexuals are worse than homosexuals. Is this what you are claiming?

It is indeed, as far as the topic we’re discussing. Firstly, sexual abuse of children is reported in underage girls twice as often as in boys. And even amongst boys, the victimizer is more often someone who self-identifies as heterosexual. Being a paedophile is not a “gay thing” and it’s slanderous to suggest the two are linked w/o solid research to prove it (of which none exists, AFAIK).

If different surveys have given different results (and I cannot ignore those you cite, not you ignore those I cite) we’ll both - if we are lovers of truth- have to plead ignorance for the time being.

‘The victimiser is more often someone who self-identifies as heterosexual’:
In a world where about 98% of people (or whatever the true percentage is: over 90%) are heterosexuals, this is not surprising. My point was only that a given homosexual is more likely to be involved than a given heterosexual, if the surveys I cited are correct.

Well, Christopher, I’ve looked at one of the sources you cite: the Home Office report by Grubin, which is available on the Internet. As far as I can see, it supports David Huff’s position rather than yours. Indeed it corroborates David’s point that most reported cases of sexual abuse involve girls rather than boys.

But this is a side-issue. The main point is this. Non-consensual sex with a minor is a totally different thing from consensual sex with an adult. The one is not a sub-set of the other, and to say that ‘a given homosexual is more likely (than a given heterosexual) to be a paedophile’ is simply a category mistake.

I hope you won’t be offended, Christopher, if I ask a personal question — not meaning to be critical, but simply in a spirit of friendly inquiry. How much do you actually know about gay people, not as statistics but as individuals? Do you have any gay, lesbian or bisexual friends? Because it seems to me, judging from your comments above, that your views are based more on your reading than on your personal experience.

(PS to Simon. This comments thread is getting formidably long; would it be possible for you to take it off the main page?)

Yes - in fact the 1999 Home Office Report, while impressively academic and therefore trustworthy & worth perusing - is largely on other matters: the point we are speaking of is not by any means its central concern. Though
(a) our discussion point was not the gender of the victimisers but rather their orientation;
(b) the nettle of proportion appears not to have been grasped. I believe that the most reliable recent figures put the homosexual proportion of the population at around 2%, and it’s not easy to see how one gets from this to claims that a given heterosexual is more likely to abuse then a given homosexual;
© what we all have to admit is that different surveys have come up with conflicting pictures and we all have to be very careful that we do not just select the ones that fit in with our preconceived notions & ignore the rest. In all events, there are apparently surveys that support both ‘sides’.

Among the people I’ve known who are relevant to this debate I’d single out three classes:
(a) ‘active’ homosexuals;
(b) those drawn to working with/among the same gender and with a passionate concern for their all-round development;
© those who have cherished very strong David-Jonathan friendships of the sort that they say were found amoung WWI veterans.

It almost makes me cry that the noble © should be mentioned in the same breath as (a) - nothing could show a greater misunderstanding. I can think of at least two (b)s that I profoundly admire - there must have been many more, e.g. among schoolmasters. Class (a) I’ve observed to be the least mature and most self-centred. But my experience is strictly limited, which is why it is so important to speak not from one person’s experience alone but from the much larger data, representing incomparably more people than one person can know, that are available through books and surveys.

Having been guilty of not checking chapter and verse I’ve now done so:

D. Grubin Home Office Report ‘Sex Offending Against Children’ (1999): p14:
‘Bradford et al. (Psychiatric Journal of the University of Ottawa 1988) suggested reasonably that approx. 20 to 33% of child sexual abuse is homosexual in nature and about 10% mixed.’
Since not even the most generous estimates put the homosexual percentage of the population at 20 to 33% (or rather 25 to 38% if we include half the bisexual cases), then according to this particular survey the claim that a given homosexual is more likely, in fact much more likely to be involved than a given heterosexual is correct. This has no implications for any individual: it’s merely an average.
T. Schmidt, ‘Straight and Narrow’ (IVP 1995) pp 114-15 quotes a figure of around 20 times more likely, perhaps a suspiciously round figure. Yet Bradford’s figures suggest something more like 40 times more likely given a homosexual population of 2%.

I don’t know how correct these figures are; the best that any of us can do (which is not perfect) is to rely on those who have done the research that we have not done.

A footnote: if it is offensive to suggest that the homosexual figure might be higher than the heterosexual here, there are two things that can be said. (1) Truth and acceptability are bound to conflict sometimes, since they are 2 different things. To avoid offensiveness can in some cases be tantamount to saying it’s ok to lie. (2) It is no more or less offensive to say that the heterosexual figure is higher, which in a parallel universe it might be. So everything is going to offend someone, and no-one’s feelings are more worthy of protection than anybody else’s. The third option, that the homosexual and heterosexual figures are precisely equal, is so unlikely as to be able to be discounted.

I don’t know what the truth is. I go by the best research, which may suggest, even suggest strongly, certain conclusions. If I’m a lover of truth, I resist the temptation to be selective with the research in order to suit my own ideology.

This is getting tedious. But let me try, one more time, to explain why you are mistaken.

1. You are assuming that 100 cases of sexual abuse = 100 sexual offenders. This is incorrect. Many paedophiles are repeat offenders. The number of cases therefore tells us nothing about the number of offenders.

2. You are assuming that, if we can come up with an accurate estimate of the proportion of homosexuals who are also paedophiles, we may be able to establish a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. This is a fallacy. Even if we could come up with an accurate estimate of the proportion of bald men who are also Arsenal supporters, it would tell us nothing about the relationship between baldness and supporting Arsenal.

(Or, to give you a less off-the-wall analogy .. say, for the sake of argument, that the percentage of black teenagers with a criminal record is higher than the percentage of white teenagers with a criminal record. Even if this were the case, we would not be entitled to draw any inferences about the criminal propensities of black men. And even to say that “a given black teenager is more likely (than a given white teenager) to have a criminal record” would be an extremely reckless claim, considering how easily it might be used to justify systematic discrimination against black people.)

Earlier in this thread, David Huff asserted that there was no link between homosexuality and paedophilia. That assertion still stands. You have failed to produce any evidence to support such a link; you have failed to refute any of the evidence that David cites; and your claim that “different surveys have come up with conflicting pictures” is merely an evasion.

Now be a good fellow and shut up. This thread has gone on long enough.

When should a conversation finish? In one sense, never; in another sense, it’s pointless to finish it until headway has been made, and judgments refined, nuanced and sharpened.

But when do conversations finish in practice? In my experience, often when one party has made points that the other party cannot answer, so that the other party wishes to change the subject. If anyone truly loves truth, the last thing they want to do is stop pursuing it when they are getting closer to it.

And the last thing anyone should do is assume to tell another when they can and cannot speak. That is to ‘control’ rather than to facilitate truth. You can say what you wish when you wish, and by the same token so can I and so can all of us.

There are various ways that we can refine the argument at this stage:

(1) One can’t assume there’s few homosexuals guilty of many offences and many homosexuals guilty of a few each. The opposite is just as likely to be true. Even likelier to be true is that the number of offences per person is similar regardless of sexuality. Which means that the 40x figure is currently the best available. We, not being those who have done the research, are not in a position to dispute it.

(2) You are right that a correlation is not a cause. But there must be some reason why the correlation is there at all. Regularly, the likeliest reason is that there’s a causative element.
There is no conceptual connection between being an Arsenal supporter and being bald. But there are various central overlaps between being homosexual and being paedophile. Both are terms for sexual orientation. Both are non-mainstream. Both are largely non-reproductive. The naturalness of both is less obvious than it might be. Such overlaps do not exist between ‘being an Arsenal supporter’ and ‘being bald’.

(3) Sometimes reckless claims are made, and they are reckless not because they are not true (since often they are true) but rather for pragmatic reasons, since to say them is to put one’s safety at risk. We need to distinguish things that are untrue from things that are unwise to mention but may be true none the less.

(4) I did claim earlier that ‘different surveys have come up with conflicting pictures’ - but I was going on hearsay re those quoted by David Huff, and I’m not now sure. Having examined the Grubin, an official, large-scale, recent, academically high-powered report which implies (all things being equal - and even if they’re not equal, the figure may just as well go up as go down) that a given homosexual is 40 times more likely to commit such offences than a given homosexual, no-one can think it’s possible for the truth to be the opposite. Maybe if the figure were 2x, but not by any means if it’s 10x, let alone 40x.

Blame me for the typos - para 5 should be ‘homosexuals’ the first time and ‘heterosexuals’ the second time.

Very well, then. I’ll reply to the points you make.

1. “One can’t assume there’s few homosexuals guilty of many offences and many heterosexuals guilty of a few each.” Quite so. But I wasn’t assuming any such thing. I was simply pointing out that it is impossible, from the statistics you cite, to settle the question either way. In other words, the statistics do not support the conclusion you are trying to draw from them.

2. “There are various central overlaps between being homosexual and being paedophile.” I dispute your claim that these ‘central overlaps’ add up to anything approaching a causative connection. However, I’m glad to see that you accept my main point (that “a correlation is not a cause”) and that you are now more cautious in suggesting a direct connection between homosexuality and paedophilia. Let’s leave it at that.

3. Agreed; but see my remarks below.

4. Oh dear, here we go again. The Grubin report “implies .. that a given homosexual is 40 times more likely to commit such offences”. It implies no such thing, for the reasons I have already pointed out.

Let’s try and move beyond the statistical wrangling, and let me try and explain why I find your arguments so tendentious. It seems to me that you are making some very unpleasant insinuations about the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of your opponents.

First, you are insinuating that we are privately aware of a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia, but that we are refusing to admit it, or choosing to ignore it, because we are afraid it might be seen as ‘offensive’. This is utterly false.

Secondly, you are insinuating that those of us who regard homosexuality as normal and acceptable have no choice, logically speaking, but to regard paedophilia as normal and acceptable. Again this is utterly false.

We believe that there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia. And we believe that there is no contradiction involved in maintaining a liberal stance on homosexuality while, at the same time, rejecting paedophilia as totally unacceptable. Is that clear?

Can we please draw a line under this discussion? I say this, not because I think I am losing the argument (another of your nasty little insinuations) but because I think we have reached a natural conclusion. Let’s stop here, and maybe pick up the argument again on another occasion.

Thanks for the reply.

I never insinuate anything on principle. You’ve gathered by now that I’m a plain talker, and this means that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Hence I never imply anything, since if anything could be implied it is better to state it openly: hence I take the course of stating it openly.

But even if I ever did change character and begin to imply unstated things, the only person who would know that I was doing so, and what those things were, would be myself. How could you or anyone else have any knowledge of them? I have no idea whether you yourself have implied anything unstated, and if so what. Nor can I have any idea of these things: only you can.

I don’t call outright disagreement ‘a natural conclusion’: quite the reverse.

We certainly don’t know whether 40x is the right figure. Then again, there’s a limit to how wrong it can be. Since the true figure may as well be lower as higher, higher as lower, 40x is the most responsible figure to treat as the peak of a standard distribution curve representing the options available to us, assuming that we treat Grubin as the best & most up-to-date available report.

It’s an issue of probability. Given the statistics we do have, there would clearly be shorter odds on around 40x than on any other figure. One can’t do maths without employing probability.

I see no direct causative connection between the concepts ‘homosexual’ and ‘paedophile’, albeit the concepts aren’t a million miles from each other. Any connection would therefore have to be proven not logically but factually, in terms of real-life statistics. This is what Bradford & Grubin aim to do.

As for the intellectual honesty & integrity of those on this weblog, each of them is a different individual; it’s not possible to lump them all into one. I doon’t see any as ‘opponents’, since I will agree with everyone on some points and disagree on others. Though I do agree that total, blanket disagreement tends only to happen when people have preconceived ideological positions.

My main point about ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ is a general one that need not have any specific reference to homosexuality or paedophilia. It is that the media and the man in the street often confuse what is normal with what is beneficial (or with what is acceptable), when clearly these are quite different things.

When you say that ‘we believe that there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia’, who are ‘we’? Doesn’t this sound like a dogmatic position? Doesn’t it sound like a statement of what one wishes to be the case, rather than that of one who has gone to the statistics and processed them mentally before thinking of coming to any conclusion?

The confusion of wishes with beliefs is so common that I frequently have to point it out.

Rather than evasion, examination of research and good old-fashioned thinking are what is in order.

Well, both of us have expressed our views very fully and frankly; and anyone else reading this exchange will, by now, have formed their own views on which of us is closer to the truth. Let’s leave it there.

There’s great benefit in debating from a position of being informed about facts and statistics. I feel that the current debate is better than many of the others on the weblog for that reason: the less rhetoric & presuppositions the better; the more refinement and nuancing of argument, and the more facts and statistics, then in general the closer one is getting to the truth.

It’s the second kind of debate that we should proceed with, and forget about the first kind.

Thanks for your responses.