PROPOSAL
Narrative
I have been involved in and witnessed many debates over homosexuality not only in the forum of its relationship to society in general, but its characterization and association in the life of the Church. Scholars on many sides have presented careful expositions of their own positions in relation to Scripture and the various traditions and theologies within the history of the church.
However, many of these studies are rather ignored in water cooler talks and in often whispered breaths in our congregations. This does not mean that people do not read them. It means that even when read, the conclusions are often ignored due to a personal discomfort with the outcomes. It also means that one's own experience often trumps whatever those conclusions might be.
The result is that in most debates, one's personal commitment intervenes and effectively blocks an objective engagement of the arguments. What I have witnessed are a lot of dishonest conclusions even when plausible objections are rendered against a certain view. The debate is then cut off due to altogether irrational reasoning strategies that result from personal adjudication rooted in experience rather than evidence.
What we often do not do from various personal motivations is test our own often deeply personal assumptions and boundaries about reality and engage such processes with the willingness to change. Or, if we are not willing to change at a given moment in time, we tend not to be honest with the reasons why. Often this is because the "other side" whichever it is, places an unfair demand on the opposition to capitulate. The message is that if you do not change now, then we should go our separate ways. Or you could take Brian McLaren's strategy of not talking about it for a while. But if one thing is clear about McLaren is his intentional lack of clarity as somehow inherently a good we need to observe. I find that has little to no use.
For instance, the idea of two men having sex is gross to many people. It is hard to get past that image no matter what any other evidence is presented. On the other side two people who are even in a monogamous same sex relationship cannot see past it if Scripture and the intent of the passages that deal with same sex relations clearly forbid it. For the former, the argument will usually boil down to "scripture is clear" even when it is not. For the latter, the argument comes down to "scripture does not address our situation" even if it very well might.
Intent
I would like to do something different here. I would like to propose hypotheses related to this issue where we do not look at it with personal interest or experience as a motivation at all, but bracket out personal commitments on either side of the issue and engage it on as rational a basis as possible. What I would like to do is propose hypotheses from the perspective of affirming homosexual relationships and see where the debate comes out. It might end up at stalemate and that should be OK since we are not here adjudicating polity. The reason for coming at it in this direction is that the affirmative hypotheses are the source of the discord which is a fact regardless of one's position in the matter. It is the affirming position that is new in the church.
I want to do this because I think we can work with the issue better. Whatever your take on homosexuality, one thing that we need to agree on is that division in the church is clearly not an effective witness of God's continuing act of reconciling the world to himself. Laying effective groundwork by being honest is a good way to do this in my estimation.
Format
The primary question is this: On what bases is our position on the affirmation and/or negation of homosexuality made plausible and legitimate?
Here is a proposed format:
- A series of blog summits following a general agreement on the hypotheses rooted in the above question that will be tested. There will be one of these a month starting the third week of May through the third week of August.
- The goal would be to have an essay that seeks to affirm the hypothesis and one that seeks to falsify it. In the spirit of fair and balanced dialogue I would recommend that the position you choose to take would be the one that you are most likely to currently disagree with in an effort to try to affirm it.
- At the close each participant would offer a personal concluding statement that takes into account their own theological, biblical, and traditional assumptions that inform their view with a reflection on how those assumptions are both plausible and legitimate.
- There would be no attempt to "sway" people to consent to a given view. The goal is an open and honest engagement of the issues in order to lay bare our assumptions for the good of reconciling the church. Moreover, we may not find a hermeneutic that can effectively adjudicate a balance between the two positions. However, an effective groundwork can at least be established.
- I will post an index of the summits as a separate page unless there are objections.
- I would also consider the contributions of the summit to send to a publisher if all participants would be in agreement. Lulu.com is also an option for this, but if the contributions are stout enough, I think we might be able to do much better. Naturally this introduces another level of risk, but I think one well worth it for the good of the church.
If you have concerns over copyright we can work something up to establish a good faith agreement to ensure that your intellectual property is protected when your content is posted on this site. (By default, if you post anything to a site for which you have no license, it defaults to a dual ownership between the license owner and the producer.)
Would anyone be at all interested in taking a risk here to engage the debate the summer? Post your interest here or use the contact form if you wish.
No related posts.
I hope you get some participation, I personally find most post moderns don't really like this "objective and scientific approach" to issues such as this and will bristle at your command to leave experience at the door.
I have no interest in this topic approached in this fashion but that's just me
I hope you get some participation, I personally find most post moderns don't really like this "objective and scientific approach" to issues such as this and will bristle at your command to leave experience at the door.
I have no interest in this topic approached in this fashion but that's just me
Per usual, I find this pretty challenging, but am up for it. I read through the format and, initially, couldn't imagine taking the "other side" of such a dialogue. Primarily because most days of the week I'm in conversation with other students, faculty, or coworkers about why my life is on the trajectory it is. I've made a LOT of friends and garnered quite a bit of personal respect for taking this approach.
With that said, I'm interested in participating. I don't think I can use such attractive, eloquent (scientific?) language that you do, but I'm not in academia by trade
I'm willing to write from the…negative affirmation?…viewpoint.
In response to Makeesha – give PMs a bit more credit, eh? Also keep in mind that, as with most things, post modernism and peoples' respective self-identifying as such is on a continuum. Dangerous waters lurk ahead when we start predicting behavior and definitively categorizing people.
Per usual, I find this pretty challenging, but am up for it. I read through the format and, initially, couldn't imagine taking the "other side" of such a dialogue. Primarily because most days of the week I'm in conversation with other students, faculty, or coworkers about why my life is on the trajectory it is. I've made a LOT of friends and garnered quite a bit of personal respect for taking this approach.
With that said, I'm interested in participating. I don't think I can use such attractive, eloquent (scientific?) language that you do, but I'm not in academia by trade
I'm willing to write from the…negative affirmation?…viewpoint.
In response to Makeesha – give PMs a bit more credit, eh? Also keep in mind that, as with most things, post modernism and peoples' respective self-identifying as such is on a continuum. Dangerous waters lurk ahead when we start predicting behavior and definitively categorizing people.
Hi Drew- It's an interesting concept. But your sentence- What I would like to do is propose hypotheses from the perspective of affirming homosexual relationships and see where the debate comes out. leaves me wondering i we don't already know where the results will come out? If we are a priori assuming affirmation of homosexual relationships, there doesn't seem much point in debating it. But perhaps I've misunderstood?
Hi Drew- It's an interesting concept. But your sentence- What I would like to do is propose hypotheses from the perspective of affirming homosexual relationships and see where the debate comes out. leaves me wondering i we don't already know where the results will come out? If we are a priori assuming affirmation of homosexual relationships, there doesn't seem much point in debating it. But perhaps I've misunderstood?
Makeesha: "most post moderns don’t really like this “objective and scientific approach” to issues such as this". I would consider my own methodology somewhat postmodern in that I take what we learn from neo-pragmatism and critical theory seriously. I am also not sure that this kind of approach is by default excluded by any postmodern methodology. After reading more postmodern theory than most, I am not convinced we have reached anything we can accurately call a "postmodern self" yet. It looks like a modern self that's cynically depressed.
Alex: "initially, couldn’t imagine taking the “other side” of such a dialogue" I think that is the challenge. Most of the folks who take hard sides on either end of the debate cannot imagine why the opposing view is rational. Hence the irreconcilable differences.
Jim: You can take the hypotheses in the negative as well. Any hypothesis is a starting point and if it is an a priori conclusion by the researcher, then the researcher has not tested the hypothesis well enough. The point is to test an assumption and see where it leads. That is why one side would argue to support and the other side would argue to falsify. That's pretty much the scientific method!
Makeesha: "most post moderns don’t really like this “objective and scientific approach” to issues such as this". I would consider my own methodology somewhat postmodern in that I take what we learn from neo-pragmatism and critical theory seriously. I am also not sure that this kind of approach is by default excluded by any postmodern methodology. After reading more postmodern theory than most, I am not convinced we have reached anything we can accurately call a "postmodern self" yet. It looks like a modern self that's cynically depressed.
Alex: "initially, couldn’t imagine taking the “other side” of such a dialogue" I think that is the challenge. Most of the folks who take hard sides on either end of the debate cannot imagine why the opposing view is rational. Hence the irreconcilable differences.
Jim: You can take the hypotheses in the negative as well. Any hypothesis is a starting point and if it is an a priori conclusion by the researcher, then the researcher has not tested the hypothesis well enough. The point is to test an assumption and see where it leads. That is why one side would argue to support and the other side would argue to falsify. That's pretty much the scientific method!
Interesting idea.
I've never been good at formal debating precisely because I find it hard, once I have researched something and come to a personal conclusion, to take the other side. Though I do find immense value in trying, best as one is able, to remove personal concerns from the question at hand. Though I'm fairly pro-gay (I hate that term – does that mean I'm anti-straight?), I've thought for some time that the best argument on the other side – which I almost never see used, or not used well – is seeing sex as sacramental (in the same way that the Eucharist and baptism are sacramental). Though I have my own reasons for doubting this, I think it may be possible for me to argue that stance – though the desire to then disintegrate it would be overwhelming! There is so much shoddy work on my own side of the argument though that I also find myself desirous to illustrate the coherency of it.
Interesting idea.
I've never been good at formal debating precisely because I find it hard, once I have researched something and come to a personal conclusion, to take the other side. Though I do find immense value in trying, best as one is able, to remove personal concerns from the question at hand. Though I'm fairly pro-gay (I hate that term – does that mean I'm anti-straight?), I've thought for some time that the best argument on the other side – which I almost never see used, or not used well – is seeing sex as sacramental (in the same way that the Eucharist and baptism are sacramental). Though I have my own reasons for doubting this, I think it may be possible for me to argue that stance – though the desire to then disintegrate it would be overwhelming! There is so much shoddy work on my own side of the argument though that I also find myself desirous to illustrate the coherency of it.
The idea is not so much to debate the issue as have people engage in the best good faith effort to be objective by looking at the evidences and articulating the legitimacy of a position. And this is something hard to do – especially if you have never done it before.
There might not be enough a concerted commitment to give it a shot, but I thought it would be worth a try.
The idea is not so much to debate the issue as have people engage in the best good faith effort to be objective by looking at the evidences and articulating the legitimacy of a position. And this is something hard to do – especially if you have never done it before.
There might not be enough a concerted commitment to give it a shot, but I thought it would be worth a try.
I'm not suggesting pm's don't want to think or debate – we lead a philosophy pub and work with "thinkers" – - that wasn't my point.
my point was that post moderns value experience, taking experience out of a discussion is pointless FOR ME.
I realize for others it's rad
also, this "issue" is a non issue for me – I wrestle with it but it's not an "issue"
I would also disagree that postmodernism is modernism cynically expressed. But I'm not a professional post modern philosophy so take it for what it's worth. I would however concede that I'm vaguely and broadly representing my experiences with post moderns – - most of whom are very deep thinking analytical types who love debate…just not debate that removes experience and seeks to address an issue such as this from a purely scientific perspective
I'm not suggesting pm's don't want to think or debate – we lead a philosophy pub and work with "thinkers" – - that wasn't my point.
my point was that post moderns value experience, taking experience out of a discussion is pointless FOR ME.
I realize for others it's rad
also, this "issue" is a non issue for me – I wrestle with it but it's not an "issue"
I would also disagree that postmodernism is modernism cynically expressed. But I'm not a professional post modern philosophy so take it for what it's worth. I would however concede that I'm vaguely and broadly representing my experiences with post moderns – - most of whom are very deep thinking analytical types who love debate…just not debate that removes experience and seeks to address an issue such as this from a purely scientific perspective
It seems a bit like starting with the hypothesis that the US is a monarchy, and then seeing what we can deduce regarding the US constitution. I won't say that nothing useful will be accomplished, but the likelihood …
Post-modernism to me is the overt rejection of a need for any consistent line of reasoning from topic to topic or from day to day, because, as Makeesha suggests, personal feelings trump. The result is syncretism, but they aren't the first to achieve this. They have merely introduced a doctrine which says that syncretism isn't a problem if you don't worry about it.
It seems a bit like starting with the hypothesis that the US is a monarchy, and then seeing what we can deduce regarding the US constitution. I won't say that nothing useful will be accomplished, but the likelihood …
Post-modernism to me is the overt rejection of a need for any consistent line of reasoning from topic to topic or from day to day, because, as Makeesha suggests, personal feelings trump. The result is syncretism, but they aren't the first to achieve this. They have merely introduced a doctrine which says that syncretism isn't a problem if you don't worry about it.
I suspect some of the commenters here don't understand the dialectic process. I'm not sure I do either, but I'm learning about it and see its value. I'm very interested in any process that brings people to the point where they can at least respect people who hold differing views and effectively and functionally coexist with them in church and society and even in family. And if the process helps both sides concede some territory by recongizing truth in new contexts, that's even better.
As a non-academic layperson, I'm probably not qualified to present an essay, but the homosexual issue is very important to me because my family is dealing with it. I cringe when people make absurd and dismissive comments, like Looney's above, because they show no regard for the precious and unique individuals they've lumped together in their sweeping generalizations.
I suspect some of the commenters here don't understand the dialectic process. I'm not sure I do either, but I'm learning about it and see its value. I'm very interested in any process that brings people to the point where they can at least respect people who hold differing views and effectively and functionally coexist with them in church and society and even in family. And if the process helps both sides concede some territory by recongizing truth in new contexts, that's even better.
As a non-academic layperson, I'm probably not qualified to present an essay, but the homosexual issue is very important to me because my family is dealing with it. I cringe when people make absurd and dismissive comments, like Looney's above, because they show no regard for the precious and unique individuals they've lumped together in their sweeping generalizations.
no, I'm quite familiar with it.
nevermind, I'm not explaining myself well.
no, I'm quite familiar with it.
nevermind, I'm not explaining myself well.
Makeesha: I think the experience part is why I would want contributors to have a closing follow up that tells us about their own pilgrimage through the issue and where they find themselves situated. Honestly and openly without fear of disparagement.
My suspicion is that on either side there are reasons for sticking with a position on the issue that are both extra-biblical and extra-traditional. The goal is for all to be honest with their own assumption about what they believe and why. I fear that too often in the church we assume things without reason or challenge. That is what I would like to see happen.
Looney: The only way your analogy works is if, say 5 or 6 states are in the middle of a process to secede from the union because they believe it's a monarchy under Bush. Besides that is too abstract.
I am getting the sense that this idea is not probably going to work right now… It was worth a try however.
Makeesha: I think the experience part is why I would want contributors to have a closing follow up that tells us about their own pilgrimage through the issue and where they find themselves situated. Honestly and openly without fear of disparagement.
My suspicion is that on either side there are reasons for sticking with a position on the issue that are both extra-biblical and extra-traditional. The goal is for all to be honest with their own assumption about what they believe and why. I fear that too often in the church we assume things without reason or challenge. That is what I would like to see happen.
Looney: The only way your analogy works is if, say 5 or 6 states are in the middle of a process to secede from the union because they believe it's a monarchy under Bush. Besides that is too abstract.
I am getting the sense that this idea is not probably going to work right now… It was worth a try however.
Drew – I'm just not comfortable ever treating the Bible in this way – as some sort of utilitarian tool devoid of experience or context – that's what the modern church has tried to do for a long time and it's not helpful or even theologically sound. I agree with you that we all need to acknowledge our context and subtext in any given situation but not so that we can remove it and attempt to arrive at some sort of pure conclusion free of any sort of personal bias but rather so we can approach all such conversations with humility. I'm wary of any supposition that proposes we can arrive at a position that is "pure truth"
Drew – I'm just not comfortable ever treating the Bible in this way – as some sort of utilitarian tool devoid of experience or context – that's what the modern church has tried to do for a long time and it's not helpful or even theologically sound. I agree with you that we all need to acknowledge our context and subtext in any given situation but not so that we can remove it and attempt to arrive at some sort of pure conclusion free of any sort of personal bias but rather so we can approach all such conversations with humility. I'm wary of any supposition that proposes we can arrive at a position that is "pure truth"
Makeesha: I don't think we ever arrive at absolute certainty with these things. But we can have a good idea about what is most probable. In the tradition of critical theory the goal is to bracket one's assumptions as best as possible to investigate a given phenomena, and then see how that investigation begins to bear on experience. Now I do have a penchant to be social scientific with these things. That is surely not everyone's cup of tea.
Makeesha: I don't think we ever arrive at absolute certainty with these things. But we can have a good idea about what is most probable. In the tradition of critical theory the goal is to bracket one's assumptions as best as possible to investigate a given phenomena, and then see how that investigation begins to bear on experience. Now I do have a penchant to be social scientific with these things. That is surely not everyone's cup of tea.
that's cool – have fun with that
that's cool – have fun with that
I'm still down to do this Drew. As long as you aren't looking for Ph.D. level work
I'll "bracket [my] assumptions as best as possible" so that we can look at this through a critical lens. I see the value in it, and as a (partial) Biblical Studies minor, understand what you're doing here. I think. I just have to wait for about a month before I can dive into giving you the caliber work that I think you're looking for.
I'm still down to do this Drew. As long as you aren't looking for Ph.D. level work
I'll "bracket [my] assumptions as best as possible" so that we can look at this through a critical lens. I see the value in it, and as a (partial) Biblical Studies minor, understand what you're doing here. I think. I just have to wait for about a month before I can dive into giving you the caliber work that I think you're looking for.