The Episcopal Church’s recent resolve to bless same-sex unions and transgenderism, accompanied by continued membership implosion, has ignited a flurry of critical essays about the denomination’s demise. The New York Times’ token conservative, Ross Douthat, a Catholic, has ignited the most response with “Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?” Here it is.
But a Wall Street Journal column, which focused on the frivolousness of the church’s recent General Convention, has also excited a lot of reaction. Church historian Philip Jenkins, himself a former Catholic now Episcopalian, has likewise penned a thoughtful analysis called “The Church Vanishes.” So too has foreign policy pundit Walter Russell Meade, the son of an Episcopal priest, in a piece called “The Light that Failed.”
Douthat concluded that the Episcopal Church and similar bodies “often don’t seem to be offering anything you can’t already get from a purely secular liberalism.” He asked what “they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world.” Absent an answer, he opines their “fate is nearly certain: they will change, and change, and die.”
Meade called the “theological and demographic collapse” of the Episcopal Church a “bitter blow.” Amid “sadness and despair,” the church is “headed down what looks increasingly like the theological path of least resistance as it makes the transition from a church that once spoke to a nation to a sect in communion only with itself.”
Jenkins suggested this theory about the Episcopal Church and similar denominations: “The numerical growth and success of a religious denomination is inversely proportionate to the favorable treatment it receives in major liberal media outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, Nation, New Republic).”
No doubt.
The respondents to these critics, including at least one Episcopal bishop but also including liberal Christians from other denominations, have angrily insisted the Episcopal Church is just suffering a temporary blip. Or it is experiencing what afflicts ALL institutional Christianity. Or it will rebound once all the transgendered and other marginalized eventually flock to its now mostly emptied sanctuaries. That liberal religion, by denying the full authority of its Scriptures, or almost any absolutes, is intrinsically incapable of exciting a mass following is an unacceptable premise to defenders of the Episcopal and Mainline Protestant status quo.
Religious practice, despite the nay sayers, has remained remarkably consistent in America for 80 years or more. About 40 percent of Americans say they attend church regularly, i.e. usually defined as at least monthly. This number was true in the 1930’s, and it is true today.
What has changed is denominational loyalty. Americans now easily flick from one church to the next, and non-denominational evangelical Christianity is the fastest growing religious movement in our country. Part of this phenomenon can be faulted to the collapse of once predominant Mainline Protestantism. Forty five years ago, one of every six Americans belonged to the “seven sister” denominations or their predecessor bodies: United Methodist, Presbyterian Church (USA), Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran, American Baptist, United Church of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Today it’s one of every 15.
All of these denominations began surrendering to theological liberalism starting early in the 20th century. There are no major growing liberal denominations in America today. And the only major growing denominations or movements are almost all theologically conservative.
Liberal Christians, which now includes the Evangelical left, desperately want a faith that creates community and generates spiritual vitality without imposing firm moral and intellectual boundaries. But this combination is a contradiction.
It’s my observation that even many, perhaps most, liberal believers I know, especially young people, attend theologically conservative churches. Partly it’s because those congregations are more bustling with people and activity. But I think also, somewhat similar to teenagers who inwardly want parental discipline even as they outwardly cringe, that most spiritual seekers innately crave a faith that is more concrete than endlessly permissive.
Speaking of liberal Christianity, this evening I attended a gathering of United Methodism’s Northeast Jurisdiction, held in Charleston, WV, and which will elect three new bishops. It’s one of the denomination’s most liberal regions. The opening Bible study was not bad, but the speakers, a husband and wife team, were obliged to avoid personal pronouns for God. So it was “God, God, God, God, God…” Flimsy theology and terrible prose. Even an old spiritual’s words were adjusted for a “non-sexist rendering.”
Meanwhile, as I left the event, I almost stumbled over a massive “labyrinth.” One bishop smilingly warned me against treading on “sacred space.” Walking the labyrinth is an “ancient” Christian tradition that largely started in the early 1990’s in San Francisco at an Episcopal cathedral, of course.
Needless to say, United Methodism’s Northeast Jurisdiction is one of our church’s fastest declining regions.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 17, 2012 at 7:56 am
Liberal Christians, which now includes the Evangelical left, desperately want a faith that creates community and generates spiritual vitality without imposing firm moral and intellectual boundaries.
Hmm, that has not been my experience. In my experience, you are correct in stating that “liberal Christians” want a faith that (biblically, logically, morally) creates community and spiritual depth (are you suggesting there is something wrong with that part? I don’t think so, just asking…) but there is a huge amount of affirmation of/emphasis upon moral and intellectual growth.
In fact, in my experience, I meet people who are regularly leaving or turned off by the church by our more conservative brothers and sisters in their lack of development of community and their de-emphasis upon spiritual depth and intellectual growth.
For instance, I think you will see an increasing number of young people who see the IM-morality of denying marriage equity based on a shallow reading of Scripture, not upon a deeper reading or upon strong moral foundations.
That’s been my experience/what I’ve seen and heard.
What do you think?
Comment by David M. on July 23, 2012 at 9:32 am
“Marriage equality” is a weedy idea that seems to have sprung up and taken root. Unless you willfully mean to distort the meaning of marriage, it cannot apply to same sex couples. If you must, use another term, but not “marriage.” The garden of concepts needs to be weeded of specious and manipulative language.
This blog thread appeals to religious precepts to argue for or against same-sex unions. Fine, but this does not change personal perspective. One can find biblical arguments to support most willful positions.
To state the obvious, male and female have different roles in the context of family, both in procreation and nourishing. Even though exceptions can be cited, the fundamental biological reality is that marriage is between male and female. This is also the Christian norm, and the only defensible view for healthy families and society.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 9:40 am
David…
The garden of concepts needs to be weeded of specious and manipulative language.
Very colorful description. Ultimately, though, I disagree. There is nothing manipulative about two people in love (gay or straight) who wish to do something as beautiful and holy as committing together in sight of God and community to love, support, respect and care for one another in a marriage relationship. There is nothing manipulative about expecting the same legal rights and protections that are offered to one group (straight) and not another group (gay).
For us, it’s a matter of justice. I fully understand that some people will continue to disagree with marriage between gay folk. For those people, I encourage them not to marry someone of the same gender.
The rest of us are moving on to accept marriage as a moral good, whether between gay folk or straight.
You all are losing this argument because you are coming across as irrational and supportive of immoral, unjust prejudices. I’m sure that hurts to hear, when you’re so certain that you’re right, but that is how it seems to an increasing majority of folk. So, when you conclude…
This is also the Christian norm, and the only defensible view for healthy families and society.
You are welcome to think that for yourself. More and more of us find that to be irrational and immoral. Sorry.
Comment by David M. on July 23, 2012 at 10:44 am
Dan,
How do you apply principles of love and justice to polyamorous relationships?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 10:57 am
I’m not sure of the point of the question, David.
If two responsible adults love one another and want to commit to one another in a faithful, monogamous marriage relationship, it seems responsible and loving to support them in this endeavor. There is nothing inherently or obviously wrong or immoral in such an act (whether they’re gay or straight) that I have ever seen mentioned. Instead, encouraging a faithful, committed, loving marriage situation seems to be the very most moral and responsible way to express our God-given sexual natures.
What isn’t loving in either getting married or supporting marriage?
As to the justice side of things: It’s a matter of justice if we unreasonably discriminate against one group in favor of another group. If we say, “black folk/mixed race folk/Jewish folk/gay folk… whoever – can’t marry and enjoy certain legal and societal benefits, but white straight people can…” if we say that – AND there is no obvious moral reason to make such a distinction – then it becomes a matter of justice, because one group is being discriminated against.
I’m sure you would agree with that description if we were to substitute “no black folk can get married legally, and society won’t grant their non-legal union with any of the benefits of non-black folk…” you would agree, it’s a matter of justice to change that law, right?
Similarly, if we were to say, “rapists can attack a woman and force her into a marriage against her will…” then obviously everyone would oppose to such a law. I’m not saying there aren’t reasons to make some discrimination.
But two gay folk marrying is NOT like a rapist forcing a woman into marriage. There is obvious harm, there is a lack of consent, there are a whole host of reasons to be opposed to rapists forcing a marriage and not one single, non-religious-prejudice reason to oppose marriage between gay folk or granting them the benefits we currently deny them.
I can’t see how it isn’t a matter of love and justice. I suppose you don’t see it as such – If so, why not?
Comment by David M. on July 23, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Dan,
You did not answer my question I asked above about applying principles of love and justice to polyamorous relationships. Instead you introduced category confusion and the specious comparing of same sex marriage to “black folk/mixed race folk/Jewish folk/gay folk…” And, I don’t see you advancing your argument by citing the irrelevancy of rape in this context.
The point of the question was to understand how you would respond to the request of a loving and committed threesome, or “more-some,” or cousins, or siblings, etc. that wanted to marry. Would there be principles that would proscribe marriage in these cases? If so, what happens to justice and their expression of love? Are there boundaries and, if so, how are they relate to justice and love?
I am pessimistic about the possibility of people of so different perspectives and principles ever reaching common ground. And this has profound consequences for our society and churches.
Any further discussion of same-sex marriage probably does not belong on this thread, so I plan to call it a day.
But, thank you for your replies. It is better to communicate than not.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm
David…
You did not answer my question I asked above about applying principles of love and justice to polyamorous relationships.
I’m sorry, as I said, I wasn’t getting the point of your question. Now I do.
As to the suggestion of “specious” arguments and calling rape comparisons “irrelevant,” I stand by them. For someone to make a claim that is, on the face of it, rather unbelievable from all observable evidence (that expressing one’s sexuality in a committed loving marriage relationship is somehow “bad” and comparable to rape!) is just asking too much, and being offensive in the process. A loving, committed relationship can not be in any way somehow similar to rape. It’s rather the opposite of rape, actually, and it defies reason that anyone would make the comparison.
But to the question (which I’ll rephrase, to try to help clarify…) “Does this mean that loving, committed relationships between siblings are also good?” I don’t think we need to go there at all. I will admit, though, that this could be a tougher argument (as to can we draw a line in such instances).
The measure I’m using is harm, which I think most people can agree is a reasonable measure. Thus, OF COURSE we don’t allow people to forcibly marry their rape victims. It is harmful and not of a loving, mutual, committed relationship.
On the other hand, those who would be opposed to “mixed race” marriages are clearly in the wrong. There is no rational reason to oppose such a relationship.
Marrying a dog would, of course, be wrong, because there is no possibility for mutual consent, thus harm is introduced.
Marrying a person from a different culture or religion? Allowed because there is no harm.
But what of polygamous relationships? I think that most of us find the potential for harm in such relationships to be obvious, albeit difficult to prove. It seems probably to most of us (or at least me and mine) that polygamous relationships have tended to happen in negatively patriarchal societies and have tended to be sexist and tended to be oppressive towards women. That may not always be the case, but I would posit that for most of us, that is how it seems and thus, in a Republic such as ours, I think we will not see support for legalizing polygamy.
But the measure there is still Harm, not “cuz I think God opposes it…”
The problem with crafting laws based on “cuz I think God opposes it” is the problem of religious facism – or of forcing a religious view off on unwilling people merely because the majority wants it. I think it is contrary to good civic gov’t and reasonable Christian participation in such a gov’t. I for sure don’t want to legislate all my religious views and expect people to go along simply because I think God opposes it.
Poor form, it seems to me, and lacking in ration.
Does that answer your question?
(Or, if you’re finished, that’s fine, too. I just didn’t want to leave the question unaddressed…)
Comment by David M. on July 23, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Dan,
I would be glad to extend this conversation, but I wonder if this thread is the appropriate place.
If you and the host site are amenable, I will add a some thoughts.
You introduced rape into the discussion, and I continue to question its relevance in the context of same sex marriage. But I don’t want to dwell on this.
Marriage has not always been based on mutual consent. But the essential nature of marriage is the complementarity of male and female and the possibility of procreation and preservation of the race. Marriage viewed only in this way is not in vogue and I am not a fan of it either, but it seems to me to conform to the reality of nature. Perhaps advocates of “green” and of anyone who appreciate the wonder of our natural environment and the necessity of respecting it can appreciate the unnaturalness of same sex unions in the context of species survival.
You mention “Marrying a dog would, of course, be wrong, because there is no possibility for mutual consent, thus harm is introduced.” Really, is this the reason why it would be wrong?
You do not address my question about polygamy and polyandry, etc. If you were consistent with your appeal to committed, loving relationships as being the basis for marriage equality and justice, why the opposition to committed, loving relationships between any combination of people? There may be practical, and I believe societal, reasons for avoiding such relationships, but is there an underlying principle that would proscribe them? You do not answer this! I see you position as incoherent.
Let marriage stand as between one man and one woman, and let other relationships be called civil unions or something else. God will be the ultimate judge of these…at least in the minds of theist. For everyone, the coherence of society is at stake.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 24, 2012 at 10:30 am
Okay David, looking at some of your comments…
Marriage has not always been based on mutual consent.
Agreed, reinforcing my point that “how it’s always been done” does not necessarily equal good or right. Agreed?
David…
But the essential nature of marriage is the complementarity of male and female and the possibility of procreation and preservation of the race.
Procreation is certainly part of some marriages, but it is not a defining point of marriage (ie, you can’t say “only those who choose to have babies can get married…”). Agreed?
As to “essential nature of marriage” being “complementarity of male and female…” says who? I don’t find that to be a ration conclusion or way to define “The essential nature of marriage.”
What I and my tribe think is the essential nature of marriage is the loving, respectful commitment of two people to each other – and to their community (and to their God, for those of us who swing that way) – to mutually and faithfully love, cherish, respect, support and be faithful to. If that is the essential nature of marriage, then on what basis would we preclude gay folk? If it isn’t, based on what would you make that conclusion? Your faith tradition? Okay, for your faith tradition, don’t marry gay folk, but not everyone believes your faith tradition is morally or rationally correct on this point, and we’ll decide as we think right before God and community.
Where is there any problem with that approach?
David…
Marriage viewed only in this way is not in vogue and I am not a fan of it either, but it seems to me to conform to the reality of nature.
I’m not sure of your point. Gay behavior occurs in nature, there is nothing unnatural about homosexuality. It’s part of nature, thus, by definition, “natural.”
David…
Perhaps advocates of “green” and of anyone who appreciate the wonder of our natural environment and the necessity of respecting it can appreciate the unnaturalness of same sex unions in the context of species survival.
Again, there is nothing in the slightest “unnatural” about it. Now, as to species survival, IF someone were advocating that everyone in the world practice ONLY homosexual sex, you might have a case. But, given that we have overpopulation problems and given that homosexuality only occurs in a small minority (2-10%) of folk, that’s simply not an issue, since no one is advocating a universal forced homosexuality.
The question is, why would anyone try to force heterosexuality on anyone when the horror of forcing an orientation is so obvious if it were directed towards “the straights…”?
Does any of that make sense?
Comment by David M. on July 24, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Dan,
Our positions are set and further discussion will not change them.
I will say that although homosexual behavior is found in other species, I don’t consider it to be normal. Behavior that lies on the ends of the “curve” are not normal in my view.
And I don’t agree that traditional “marriage” should apply to same sex unions. Call it something else if you must. Of course, not all heterosexual marriage produce offspring, but that’s a different issue in my opinion. Some marriages are barren due to physical problems, some due to volition. Certainly, people that marry past child-bearing age do it for reasons of companionship, love, or other reasons. But, the common thread is that even these marriages are of a man and a woman.
I guess you think that Jesus would bless a same-sex(ual) relationship if we were to ask, “what would Jesus do?” I don’t think he would. Time may tell.
Again, thanks for the exchange. One of us inevitably has to have the “last” word. I don’t wish it, and I will not continue this thread, I promise, after this. But, please respond if you wish. Peace…
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for the polite exchange, David. Thanks for the opportunity to respond. I would respond to just two points:
1. I would be to suggest that while homosexuality is not normative (ie, it is not the norm), it is completely normal and natural – this would be the optimal English language description of homosexuality, left-handed-ness, blonde-ness and other non-dominant traits.
It is natural, by definition, but not normative.
It normally happens in the real world, but it is not normative.
The problem with using “it’s not normal” (beyond the inexact English) is that it then carries a negative, negatively-judgmental, arrogant-sounding tone, as in, “I know best and that is just not normal!” and one can’t easily use that word without sounding bigoted. Normative makes it more clear what you’re speaking of.
Just a suggestion.
2. While you may not like the use of the word marriage for marriage when it includes gay folk, no one owns the word. For many of us (soon, the large majority), “marriage” describes perfectly what happens when two gay folk wed, and we will continue to use it. No offense intended, but the word fits (to us) and so we’ll continue to use it.
You are free not to refer to marriages between gay folk as “marriages,” if you want.
I also have one question that maybe you just won’t answer, but I do wonder how you justify saying that gay folk marrying will “threaten the coherence of society…”? How could that possibly happen? I just don’t understand the usage of such extreme language.
I think sometimes when we get in a discussion about matters of great importance, that we tend to engage in hyperbole and overplay our hands. If that’s all that this was, fair enough. I was just wondering if you truly think that, how you think that would happen?
Thanks, and peace.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 23, 2012 at 10:51 pm
David, thanks for the polite invitation to continue the conversation. It is fine with me if it’s okay with the hosts here.
Tomorrow, I’ll return…
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 24, 2012 at 10:31 am
David…
You mention “Marrying a dog would, of course, be wrong, because there is no possibility for mutual consent, thus harm is introduced.” Really, is this the reason why it would be wrong?
Well, it is one hugely obvious reason it’s wrong. Now, I know that probably the point you’re trying to make is, “well, it’s wrong because God says it’s wrong and that should be enough!” (or, if you’re not making it, many people do). The problem with this is that God appears to call many things wrong in the Bible (at least, by our limited human understanding) – menstrual sex is wrong, tattoos are wrong, polyester is wrong (I actually agree with that), eating shrimp is wrong, it’s wrong to not give to anyone who asks for something, it’s wrong to work on Saturdays… on and on it goes. If we’re trying to treat the Bible as a rule book, we’d find many, many things wrong “according to God” that we may or may not agree with.
The problem is, this woodenly literal approach is exactly what got the pharisees in trouble with Jesus. These rules are for us, not us for the rules. The letter of the law kills, but the Spirit of God brings life. Trying to say, “This text says that when women get raped, they must marry their attacker, therefore, God says it, therefore that’s right!” is a shallow and inappropriate approach to Bible study. It’s grade school thinking and we adults should move on to deeper understandings. God gave us reasoning, we ought to use it, flawed though we may be.
Does that make sense?
David…
why the opposition to committed, loving relationships between any combination of people?
As I noted earlier: Because I think it obvious that not all combinations of people are good combinations. First and foremost, their must be freewill to be moral. Forced marriage is immoral. Agreed?
Secondly, there should be equal standing in the decision. Traditionally in many, many societies, the parents (or father) chose/chooses the husband for the bride and, while she may go along with it due to her upbringing and enculturation, it is not a decision made on equal standing, and that seems obvious to me to be not ideal at all. Agreed?
Thirdly, it should be a mature, adult understanding, thus, child marriages and marriages of those with mental disabilities must be avoided (in extreme age/mental capacities) or gauged carefully (as the age of the child/mental age of the person increases, along with reasoning).
These criteria (there may be others, I’m just spitballin’ here) would help encourage healthy marriage relationships and avoid unhealthy or even sinful “marriage” situations.
In none of this is there anything that I can think of to suggest gay folk ought to be treated any differently than straight folk.
There is the answer you say I have not supply. Does it make any more sense this time?
It is a very coherent position: Marriage is an adult committed, faithful union based on love, respect, fidelity, equality, etc. All good stuff. Where is there anything incoherent about and where, praytell, is there ANYTHING in letting gay folk marry that would threaten the “coherence of society…”? (!) You’ll excuse me, I hope, if I respectfully note that this sounds a bit paranoid? It’s how it sounds to me, anyway.
How could encouraging and supporting faithful, loving, respectful marriage relationships threaten society in any real way?
Do you at least understand how increasingly, people are finding that argument a bit devoid of rationality and morality?
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 17, 2012 at 7:59 am
As to “declining membership,” I’m sure we can agree that numbers are no indicator of spiritual depth and Godliness, right?
By that measure, the conservative Southern Baptist church is failing to follow God because their numbers are declining.
Sometimes, faithfulness can lead to a decline, too.
Comment by Dan Trabue on July 17, 2012 at 9:17 am
re: Walking the labyrinth is an “ancient” Christian tradition that largely started in the early 1990’s in San Francisco at an Episcopal cathedral, of course.
“The Middle Ages marked a period of increased interest on the part of the Church to incorporate the popular folk symbol of the labyrinth into ecclesiastical architecture, and so throughout Europe, labyrinths were built in churches and cathedrals as part of the sacred space used by the worshipers. It was a common spiritual practice for Christians to walk church or cathedral labyrinths in lieu of making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem…”
source
Comment by cjmartel on July 23, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I am an Episcopalian, and yes what you have pointed out is true. Marriage is a union between a male and female of the human species. I include species because as history has born out time and again that the more morals degrade the worse the perversion. I would not be surprised to see a push for inter-species marriage, after all, love is universal. This is exactly the reason more conservative churches are seeing their numbers increase. Couple this with so-called pro choice and there is very little doubt where we as a nation are headed, circling the drain. I will remain an Episcopalian because I also sense that this thought process is not going to last much longer. The people I worship with are starting to see the light, and that is a good thing.