On New Year’s day, Peter Steinfels posted his last “Beliefs” column for the New York Times. Reviewing twenty years of occasional commentary, he reflected on the polarization of American religious rhetoric:
Not only abortion and older questions of public morality and church-state relations, recently heightened by the political mobilization of conservative believers, but also newer issues like embryonic stem-cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and same-sex marriage, have pitted significant elements of traditional Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other faiths against leading voices of political and cultural liberalism.
I don’t know whether Steinfels is right about increasing polarization across all traditions and topics. It’s as much as I can do to keep up with Christian debates around sex. But I can see that Steinfels gets one thing right, if unintentionally. He deploys the most familiar rhetorical device from the last two decades of church debates: the fight is between “significant elements of traditional Christianity” and “political and cultural liberalism.” Religious tradition against secular liberalism: Steinfels’ neat divide has been immensely useful for those on the “traditional” side. Of course, the division is also misleading—to use no stronger word. It depends on two sleights-of-hand. First, Steinfels has to forget that “significant elements” of Christianity hold, often for traditional reasons, that same-sex marriage is religiously justified—indeed, that refusing it constitutes a religious fault. Then Steinfels has to ignore all the ways in which current “traditional” positions aren’t traditional at all.
The first trick is easier to catch than the second. While there are of course figures who criticize church teachings on “cultural and political” grounds, there have been for half a century now dozens of theological and historical writers in favor of changing those teachings. Those writers don’t take themselves to be resorting to secular principles to make their arguments. Indeed, they have frequently been critical of social views toward gender and sexuality.
Take Sherwin Bailey, who published Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition more than fifty years ago—thirty years before Steinfels began his column. As a writer and church lecturer, Bailey helped lead the Church of England to review its teaching on homosexuality. An Anglican priest, a pastor, and a historian, he had theological reasons for thinking the churches should change their teaching on sex, some of them drawn from new medical or psychological discoveries. But he also knew—he meticulously argued—that “traditional” church teachings on sex had themselves been cobbled together over centuries out of dubious material: misreadings of biblical passages, undisguised social prejudices, fantasies masquerading as science. When “significant elements” of the Church of England began to change their view on homosexuality, it wasn’t because they wanted to throw over religious tradition in order to embrace some passing secular trend. It was because they had been led, for religious reasons, to reexamine what was being claimed as traditional.
Bailey’s story has been repeated many times in the last fifty years. It’s impossible even to summarize all the teaching, writing, and preaching that has gone into distinguishing the core of Christian traditions from their accretions and deformations. What we are living through is not a fight between a pristine Christianity and the encroaching world, but a divide within Christianity over what exactly should count as tradition. It isn’t a fight between religious conservatives and activist revolutionaries. It is a deep disagreement inside Christianity over what conserving faithfulness means.
You wouldn’t know this reading Steinfels’ description of our recent debates. To be fair, he is hardly alone. Most reporting of religious debates over sexuality, whether in the Times or on the wire services, assumes the same division—or performs the same sleights-of-hand. When self-proclaimed “traditional” voices are quoted against same-sex marriage, they are allowed to claim scriptural evidence, church history, and even the name “Christian.” When other Christian clergy or believers are quoted in support of same-sex marriage, they become “activists” who are allowed only to speak about civil rights or fairness or—sometimes—wispy Christian principles, but not about scripture or church history or faith itself.
I used to think that this was the fault of progressives—that we reverted too often to the bland language of fairness, toleration, or rights. So I tried always to give reporters scriptural and historical arguments. They rarely found their way into print. I wondered whether the forced simplification of religious journalism had a built-in bias for obvious, “literal” readings of scripture. Or whether the need to tell a story—to sell a story—drove reporters back to the familiar plot: venerable belief versus modern liberalism. So I began to experiment with saying very traditional religious things in interviews.
“I support ordaining openly lesbian and gay candidates because that’s where I’m led when I study scripture and pray.”
“My belief in incarnation pushes me toward the blessing of same-sex unions.”
The reaction was mostly awkward silence. I could hear the typing stop at the other end of the line.
So I decided to attack the assumed familiar plot directly—to go after the division, enshrined by Steinfels, between tradition and innovation. I began to tell reporters what I fully believe: no present church position on sexuality would be recognizable to Christian writers of two hundred years ago—much less two millennia ago. Part of the reason is that the basic terms and psychological models have changed astonishingly in the last century. All Christian writers, even the most “traditional,” assume the existence of things (like “sexuality”) and mechanisms (like the unconscious) that are neither scriptural nor traditional. But the more striking difference is the scope contemporary “traditionalists” give to sexual pleasure in marriage. Evangelical writers famous for attacking homosexuality write pillow books for Christian newlyweds advocating sexual techniques that church traditions classify as unchaste and unnatural—indeed, as acts of sodomy.
What Steinfels and many other journalists label “traditional Christianity” is, when it comes to sex, actually an all too modern selection and rearrangement of a few old elements detached from the contexts and practices that gave them meaning. The claim for tradition amounts to repeating a few old formulas of condemnation, while the other teaching drops away. This isn’t a tradition. This is violently selective repetition—an ongoing revenge on tradition.
No reporter has yet bought my story. I don’t expect that Steinfels would. But I am bold enough to suggest—to plead—that he use at least a little of his new leisure to reconsider the storyline he’s been following for the last twenty years. It’s not a story about the debate so much as a position within it.
Tags: bible, lgbt, peter steinfels, reporting, traditional religion
The church can have debates over issues of sex, and because of the nature of sex those debates might continue for a while. If current issues about sex do get settled others might appear. As these difficult debates continue, just don't forget the easy issues in the area of science. Some of these easy issues might be difficult for people to deal with right now, but they are easy to pass judgment on because of all the evidence and advances in understanding that science is providing. The best topic is evolution vs. creation or ID. The evidence is overwhelming. An already settled case became even stronger in the last 10 years of science tying up loose ends, and finding the links to big changes in the fossil record at a rate faster than ever. I think the evolutionary scientists have become more engaged because of the conservative forces at work in the world today. In the next decade or two the case for evolution and the common tree of life will come 100 times more into focus because of the wealth of evidence that is now opening up through DNA sequencing. Evolution is now as settled as Galileo's planetary orbits were, and this time it shouldn't take hundreds of years for the conservative church to fall into line. Once the conservatives see how they made a mistake on evolution, it should be easier for them to see other mistakes they have made.
More evidence is showing up all the time. Scientists have found the fossils of fish from 350 million years ago that were using their fins to pull themselves up into the shallows, evidence of changing from fish to land animals. They have recently found the evidence of land mammals going back into the sea and becoming whales. The change into birds is becoming very well documented in the fossil record of dinosaurs with feathers and other bird like features, and becoming the first that could fly, although not as well as birds of today. We have evidence of the breakthrough change, and evidence of the continual refinement of the bird kind after that. It is a thing of great beauty.
Why is it necessary to throw around such inflammatory labels as God-hater? Good Christian theologians have disagreed on exactly these kinds of issues for two millennia. I am a Christian and I believe that God created the world and everything in it. Including all of the creatures who then evolved according to God's plans. There are thousands of credible scientists who are also practicing Christians.
"Evolution is now as settled as Galileo's planetary orbits were, and this time it shouldn't take hundreds of years for the conservative church to fall into line. Once the conservatives see how they made a mistake on evolution, it should be easier for them to see other mistakes they have made."
It should be the case but try talking to people at Creation Ministries or Discovery Institute, they are as determined as ever! No matter how strong the evidence, it's going to take more than science to make these people to see the light.
There is nothing more than science. Perhaps the Institute will have to die in darkness, and then the next generation will see the light.
Mark, thank you for a very significant statement. As a Catholic (albeit alienated) theologian, I find that many of the chief spokespersons in American Catholicism are implicitly promoting a neoconservative narrative about the interplay of religion and culture, when they deal with issues like same-sex marriage.
Even when--or especially when--they are liberal-centrist in other respects, their treatment of issues like same-sex marriage is consistently framed just as you report: tradition up against secular innovation.
It is frustrating to keep encountering this neoconservative narrative embedded in the supposedly disinterested centrist commentary of many of my co-religionists--particularly those with strong connections to the mainstream media, whose voice becomes "the" Catholic voice in the mainstream media.
Thank you for reminding us that many of us who struggle for justice for LGBT persons in the churches are doing so precisely because our faith and our reading of scripture and understanding of our traditions compels us to do this. Not because we've capitulated to secular liberalism . . . .
“Liberalism” is Diametrically Opposed to Christianity
Do mathematicians disagree on the sum of 2 plus 2? Only those who wish to ignore that there are sects, in opposition to the Church Christ founded, calling themselves “Christian,” but are really not, would say that there is “deep disagreement inside Christianity over what conserving faithfulness means.”
The Church teaches, and intellectually honest and forthright Liberals have always readily admitted, that the tenets of what is commonly known as “Liberalism” are clearly contrary to the teachings of the Church.
By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that "One religion is as good as another." The absurdity of this proposition is immediately obvious to all, for two beliefs that contradict each other cannot at the same time both be true. Therefore, insofar as one at least is false, it is simply not good at all, and definitely it is not as good as a belief which is true. Nor is it even as good as one that is nearer to the truth.
Additionally, Liberalism refuses to accept that there is in the world a One, True, Divinely revealed Religion that is true in all its doctrines and moral teachings--which is exactly what the Church unabashedly maintains that it is.
The Anglican denomination, having been founded on the lustful desires of King Henry VIII, is, frankly, not the best group to invoke when discussing the issue of Christian sexual ethics. Clearly, what is “traditional” to the Anglican denomination is hardly a standard for Christianity.
For Christianity, “Tradition” is not and never will be the repetition of “a few old formulas of condemnation.” Tradition is that which the Church, from the Apostles to their present-day successors, has always believed, always taught, and always practiced.
According to the Church, it is to her that the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted and her certainty about revealed truths is not derived from the Holy Scriptures alone, but rather from both Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, to be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.
According to the Church, it is to her that the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted and her certainty about revealed truths is not derived from the Holy Scriptures alone, but rather from both Holy Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, to be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.
That is what I think. The church has become their God.
Do mathematicians disagree on the sum of 2 plus 2?
Actually, in higher order mathematics (number theory, etc) the sum of "2" plus "2" is not necessarily "4". Perhaps you meant to speak only of basic grade-school arithmetic, in which case your supposition would stand.
By definition, Liberalism is the mistaken notion that "One religion is as good as another."
This is true if and only if that is the definition you choose. It is not, however, a commonly accepted definition of Liberalism either within or without the bounds of theological discourse. Simply saying "by definition" does not make it so, but it does reveal the operative definition by which one may be arguing. In this case, it's a clear straw-man fallacy in which a bogeyman of "Liberalism" has been defined only in order to show its insufficiency.
Tradition is that which the Church, from the Apostles to their present-day successors, has always believed, always taught, and always practiced.
What specifically has the church "always practiced"? Doctrine has changed over the millennia of Christian belief. The Word of God is not a static, fixed constant but a perpetually interruptive force in the world. If one cannot or does not accept that, then one runs the very grave risk of making idols of scripture, doctrine and the church itself.
Test the spirits always. Be nervous when you find that God apparently hates everything that you hate and requires no change of your life.
Thank you, Peter. This strikes me as especially important: "The Word of God is not a static, fixed constant but a perpetually interruptive force in the world." It reminds me of the line a Canadian friend uses on his e-mails: "Religion is the handing-on of fire, not the worship of ashes." I'd like to quote you in my own e-mails and website, if you don't object.
No objection at all.
I also thank you Peter. May I quote you in my seminary classes?
Liberalism is diametrically opposed to this kind of intellectual and religious hubris certainly. The Pharisees would blush at this arrogance. Thankfully Jesus meets us where we are and we do not worship the graven "church" but the reality of the living Christ free from arrogant mediators.
Tradition is that which the Church, from the Apostles to their present-day successors, has always believed, always taught, and always practiced.
You mean the successors of the Apostles who did things like father children out of wedlock (see any of the Medici popes) or, like Alexander VI, sponsored orgies in the papal palaces?
I'll take an honest, Christian liberal over a hypocrite seven days a week. If the "Holy" "Catholic" Church of Rome wants to retain even a shred of integrity, it has to admit that yes, like any other human institution, it is capable of being wrong.
I've had interesting exchanges with some "traditional" Christians about same-gender marriage and relationships. Some of these people have proclaimed that homosexuality is a "sin" but that the homosexual can be "redeemed." So I asked them: does "redemption" consist of deserting a faithful, lifelong partner? Is a Gay person in a longterm, faithful relationship supposed to abandon his/her lifelong partner in order to find another partner of the "correct" gender? I usually get some sputtering and embarrassed silence at this point.
The moral bankruptcy of most anti-Gay religious positions comes clear at this point. It lies in expecting desertion and an end of lifelong love because of physical characteristics -- in other words, in this view, physical characteristics, i.e. body parts, outweigh spiritual issues.
I don't recall Jesus ever telling us that we should be abandoning those that we love. So this anti-Gay position doesn't seem very traditionally Christian to me.
In all fairness, "pro-Gay" positions also can advocate for abandoning lifelong partners. I've heard many stories and known a few people myself where one spouse has come to the realization that he or she is gay and has left his or her spouse to seek a same gender relationship. It is not really the case that "pro-Gay" means "pro-long term relationships." In the cases that I mentioned, body parts also seem to outweigh spiritual issues.
In all fairness thobie1, you should continue your analysis - and see if you haven't mixed things up a bit, by comparing, say, apples and billiard balls... Leaving a "lifelong partner" in a heterosexual marriage upon coming to terms with the fact of one's homosexual orientation is not the same as a homosexual leaving a lifelong same-sexed partner in order to try to go straight... Those are very different situations - not analogous as you suggest.
In a marriage between a homosexual and a heterosexual, there is at least one realm in which they are NOT true partners. To put it in traditional Biblical terms, they can't "become one flesh". And that is a "spiritual issue"...not merely a thing of "body parts" as you suggest. Only if one subscribes to some sort of Body/Spirit-split dogma can your final conclusion make any sense. However, that kind of spiritualist theory is not universally accepted; In fact, for many it has been long discredited. And so your argument isn't useful for or pertinent to lot of us.
To be even more fair though, the mix-up may have come from WaveTossed's post, for a Body/Spirit split is implied there as well... Whatever the case, when it comes to issues of society and the human heart, I think we need to go beyond mere fairness and zero-sum morality and open ourselves to influence of that which is founded in loving-kindness and mercy... No?
Patrianews writes: “two beliefs that contradict each other cannot at the same time both be true.”
Since the words “belief” and “true” are used synonymously in this sentence, it is important to point out that there is a significant difference between a belief and the truth, or fact. Just because something is believed to be true does not make it so. How long (and by whom) was it believed that the Earth was flat? It is also important to understand that religion is a collection of beliefs, or mythological and metaphorical tales, to inspire, to stimulate thought, to pass along morals. But these tales should not be mistaken as factual. Thus, “two beliefs that contradict each other” are merely that – contradicting beliefs – and nothing more.
Moreover, religion serves different purposes for different people. It fulfills a need (or needs) for everyone on an individual basis; for instance, providing one person with a life purpose, another person with answers for their existence, and another person with a sense of community or belonging.
Therefore, there is no “better” or “right” or “correct” or “wrong” or “false” religion. And to think so is quite egocentric.
"Therefore, there is no “better” or “right” or “correct” or “wrong” or “false” religion."
Can't we get some idea if we go by what religions accept the findings of science, and which ones believe they have revelations from God that override science?
I don't think so. That risks setting up science as an idol. The "truths" of science are always provisional.
I don't think there is any risk of science being an idol. Science works through a process of peer review. Scientists check on the scientists, and that which can't stand up to the assault falls away. Scientists love more than anything else to prove each other wrong, and that process makes the consensus continually stronger and things become so well established it is unlikely they will ever be overturned. Idols come from beliefs that are considered to be above challenge. Science is providing the only truths that will survive the test of time.
As the comment thread illustrates, Mr. Jordan may be right that what we're dealing with is really a disagreement over what constitutes faithfulness, but traditionalists don't take the intentions of progressives to be faithful. They take them to be self-serving. It's hard to engage in a mutual process of discerning what is right and good and true (i.e. faithful) when one side assumes the other to be morally bankrupt.
Actually it is pretty simple. Penises go into vaginas. Anyone who things otherwise is mistaken. That's why the Bible recommends it, and doesn't approve of any other place to put them. Our bodies were clearly made in a particular way for a particular purpose.
That's also why we have male and female.
You can try other methods but they are not what was intended. If you are a believer, then the intentions are God's. If you are not they are no less valid. This issue transcends religion.
So actually it comes down to being "pretty simple?" A person should leave, desert, and abandon a lifelong, faithful partner because they possess the "wrong" body parts?
You say that the body parts issue "transends religion?" Have you read the Bible? Have you read the Two Great Commandments? There is nothing there about penises and vaginas. This has everything to do with love.
As I said before, this is the moral bankruptcy that is clearly revealed about what anti-Gay people think about couples in lifelong, faithful relationships.
Actually it is pretty simple. Penises go into vaginas. Anyone who things otherwise is mistaken. That's why the Bible recommends it, and doesn't approve of any other place to put them.
Please link me to what I'm sure are your numerous writings denouncing as un-Biblical evangelical Christian leaders who not only "permit" (to the extent that an evangelical leader can permit something) but even condone and encourage married heterosexual partners to engage in things like oral sex. If penis-in-vagina sex is the only approved Biblical sexual practice, anything other than that must be wrong by your logic.
...by the exact route described in Mr. Jordan's article. Before I get to the point...um...in hand...let me correct Tony's terrible understanding of human anatomy and point out how it leads to her misuse of scripture. Now class...
a) Penises go into other things besides vaginas. In humans and in every species of mammal. Quite nicely, I might add.
b) Men have prostates. They can only be reached through the anus (sorry kids, Tony made me go here). The prostate is a pleasure center. Do the math.
Some - even most - penises find a home in vaginas and are used to make babies. But not all of them. And therefore, your argument is just silly. Worthy of kindergartner.
And because of your bad understanding of anatomy, you then pick and poke around in scripture to wedge your misunderstanding into its pages. Sign up for a human sexuality class at your local community college and then give it another try.
It does, though, illustrate exactly what Mr. Jordan is talking about. What is more interesting for me, though, than considering the impact internal to Christianity (I have essentially given up any desire to engage in this 'discussion' with the other side within the church's walls)is the impact it has on the church's ability to be a witness within secular "liberal" communities and movements.
Using Mr. Jordan's example of gay marriage, I have been arguing to secular marriage equality activists for a couple of years that they need to listen to progressive religious voices and learn how to frame their marriage equality arguments religiously. But when I show up in my collar and try to speak as a pastor, the pressure is for me to stop all that and get on the civil rights bandwagon.
So the problem actually goes in both directions. The secular world doesn't "see" progressive religious voices because of its basic assumptions and the narrative Mr. Jordan describes...and progressive religious voices are actually silenced within secular progressive movements.
Thank you for reminding me that our hope is indeed in Christ. I've been "guilty" lately of resorting to political & cultural arguments to defend my place in the Church when the truth is that it is my faith alone that leads me there and not my civil rights.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.