Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney, wrote an opinion piece for the Guardian that moved forward the debate over homosexuality within the Anglican church until he essentially equated those opposed to a gay bishop with Muslim terrorists.
Fraser takes issue with Jasper Akinola, the Archbishop of Nigeria, because Akinola is opposed Gene Robinson being an openly gay bishop. Fraser discusses the issue with dignity and class outlining why he thinks Akinola is wrong, but then he had to take it just a little bit farther to drive home his point.
According to Fraser, one of the reasons Akinola is opposed to openly gay bishops is the shift in Anglican practice has given Muslim extremists in Africa even more reason to oppose and attack Christians in the region.
The Muslims see the appointment of a gay bishop as even more proof that the Anglican church is simply another agent of the “decadent West.” The very lives of Christians are in danger in Northern Nigeria with terrorists looking for any excuse to attack and hurl demagogic attacks against non-Muslims, especially Christians.
While stating these concerns of the Archbishop of Nigeria, Fraser tries to turn a cute phrase linking Akinola with those who are coming into his churches with guns, killing parishoners.
…Akinola is playing a dangerous game of poker, trying to outbid fundamentalist Islam with fundamentalist Christianity.
I understand that those in support of gay marriage and other gay rights issues view them as being of the utmost importance and the equivalent of civil rights, but comparing a Christian leader opposing a gay bishop to Muslim murderers is beyond the pale.
Both sides of the debate should seek to establish civil discourse if want to see anything accomplished on this and other issues. Comparing those who disagree with you to killers, no matter how nicely you say it, will not help either side and will only anger people.
I agree with you on this one – while there may some similarity between the religions on seeing homosexuality as a sin, their approaches are vastly different – the Islamic approach is very harsh (death?), which goes along with their culture of death and destruction, justice without mercy. Christianity poses absolutely no mortal danger to gays, and to equate them is a foolhardy way to make your point.
But it does bring up the question – if we think that the Islamic approach to gays is inhumane, what about the Mosaic law making it a capital crime? Isn't that inhumane? Are we being inconsistent in condeming Islam while letting Judaism slide? And tell me again, why don't Xians follow the Jewish laws? Because they were only given to Israel to make them different and holy?
I mean, if we think hx is wrong, biblically speaking, why do we feel free to decide our own more lenient approach if God gave Moses an approach? Not that I am wanting that at all, but just asking the theological question.
"Grace, grace, God's grace, grace that is greater than all our sins."
I think Paul points out in several occasions (especially in Galatians and Romans) that the purpose of the law was to help us to realize that we are sinners. Only then can we realize our spiritual needs and respond to God's grace.
He's not comparing the two at all, however; he's simply saying that Akinola is trying to distance his branch of the Episcopal communion from the more liberal English branch.
Are we being inconsistent in condeming Islam while letting Judaism slide?
Remember the gay pride parade in Jerusalem a year or two ago? Nobody let fundamentalist Judaism slide. By and large fundamentalist judaism isn't so visible, hence the lack of criticism of it on these shores.
Perhaps I misunderstood – I could see the problem with the Guardian article as one of ignoring some stated motive ("homosexuality is a sin") in favor of a more cynical assumed one ("from a PR perspective, we have to compete with fundamentalist Islam, thus we have to demonize gays").
The comparison bit doesn't jibe, though. Inasmuch as both camps condemn gays in harsh terms, fundamentalist christians just are like fundamentalist muslims. That's simply a true statement. I have a hard time seeing how true statements contribute to lowering public discourse.
One calls for marriage to remain one man, one woman. One calls for the murder of any openly gay person. But they both use "harsh terms." That makes fundamentalist Christians "just like" fundamentalist Muslims?
I don’t see any difference at all. A plague on both your houses.
Louis, you of all people should know and see the difference between using “harsh terms” and killing people because they are gay. It is absurd to compare the two.
It is to the point of being silly to equate defense of traditional marriage/attacks on the prospects of gay marriage (depending on your position) with actually murdering people because of their sexual orientation.
People use harsh terms all the time in reference Christians, as Louis himself has done. I do not say there is no difference between him and those who murder Christians in communist North Korea or in Muslim nations.
Bah! Your religion is responsibile for centuries of persecution (up to and including murder) of gay people. Islam doesn't just kill gays, it has a similar record of homophobia. In fact, patriarchal monotheisms seem to need to scapegoat queers as part of their program of heterosexual hegemony (cf, today's release of the anti-gay Vatican document on gay priests for a prime example). I repeat, a gay christian makes as much sense as a jew Nazi.
Who knows what the spiritual truth is. What I know, deep down in my bones, is that organized religion is evil.
I don't think that the "grace" argument really explains why we don't follow the Jewish punishment system for the same sins. Anyone else want to answer that?
Perhaps the Jewish law was unjust? Come on people, let's bring the level of discourse up a notch… :D
So Louis are you the moral equivalent of a murderer since you have used harsh terms in reference to Christians?
We can debate the history of the world's faiths forever with claims and counterclaims. I don't mind doing that, but I don't find it very fruitful. I was speaking specifically to our current culture.
Since you brought it up, is the Vatican upholding it's teachings of not allowing gay priests (it doesn't allow anyone who is sexual active, gay or straight) the same as Muslims killing any gay person that comes to light?
I find it so odd, that here in America gays have essentially the same rights as everyone else. They only cannot marry a person of the same sex and that is the equivalent of being in a nation where gay people have absolutely no rights at all, they can't own land, they can't be open about their orientation, they can't live!
I also find it strange that you can say "who knows what spiritual truth is" and them claim to know a specific spiritual truth – that organized religion is evil.
Seeker, I think the grace argument does explain it. Jesus said He has fulfilled the law. Paul said the law has served it's purpose to show us how much we need a Savior. Paul tells us we are no longer under the law of sin and death. The Mosaic law has done all that it can do – show us our sin and point us to the One who could fulfill it. Which is why we no longer avoid shellfish (Sam's favorite example) and why we no longer stone children who disobey their parents.
But they both use "harsh terms." That makes fundamentalist Christians "just like" fundamentalist Muslims?
You're seeing things that aren't there. The article never said the two were identical – it only pointed out that they're competitors in the use of harsh rhetoric to denounce gays.
Aaron,
So by your grace argument, there should be no system of punishments for crime? No civil justice system? Jesus may have fulfilled the law regarding God's justice, but we still need a model for civil justice.
The moral law is still moral. It is still wrong to kill. Are you saying that we don't need to punish murderers? Are you saying that capital punishment, as prescribed in Jewish law, is no longer needed?
The fact remains that Christians are in the forefront in the battle against gay equality (and not just marriage). Why should I care what your religion says when it has made it abundantly clear that I am sub-human? The "gospel" of love and mercy and reconciliation is revealed as a sham and a cheat, an exclusive club for heteros.
btw: the new Vatican document goes beyond the old canard of "love the sinner, hate the sin." Now, homosexual orientation (ie "deep-seated" tendencies) disqualify one from priesthood. Celibacy and chastity are not enough. This, finally, brings to light the true agenda of christianism: the exclusion of homosexuals, or at best, relegation to second-class humanity and forced reinternment in the closet – both the Pope's and seeker's goal. The progress towards full citizenship and humanity you mention above was achieved IN SPITE of religion: as religion's influence has waned gays have advanced – in inverse proportion. Death to christianism!
The gospel is an excluse club for no one but sinners.
Actually, it brings up the true nature of Christianity, which is that Jesus demands moral purity inwardly, not just outwardly via chastity or celibacy.
Jesus said that this outward focus is really not what God wants anyway. He said "You say if a man commits adultery he is guilty, but I say if you LOOK upon a woman with lust, you are guilty."
Outward acts are just a manifestation of our inward sinfulness. Celibacy may give you the opportunity to focus on God, but if you don't remain inwardly pure, you end up acting out in some other way.
I rest my case.
Me too.
Which confirms my feeling that talking to christians is a pointless waste of time. Really, the biggest argument against christianity is christians.
No, your biggest argument is with the scriptures themselves. Homosexuality is clearly called a sin in the Old Testament, and Jesus did not invalidate the moral law. The fact that he had to die proves that God is intent on judgment according to the moral law, but has mercy if we accept his pardon via the justice of Jesus' death.
Jesus says to all of us, like to the adultress, "neither do I condemn you, go an sin no more."
Why stop sinning? Not just because it hurts us and others, but b/c there is still a pending day of judgement that we should fear. Jesus taught that. Nice, milktoast Jesus.
I am sorry that you tried xianity and found it wanting, and unable to transform your life. You should look for truth where you can find it.
Why stop sinning? Not just because it hurts us and others, but b/c there is still a pending day of judgement
This is slightly off-topic, but one reason I'm continually fascinated by Christianity is this crazy tension between two mutually exclusive modes of moral reasoning. On the one hand is the deontological: I have a duty to love, and I should do so regardless of consequences. On the other is a consequentialist ethic: do what ya gotta do to get to heaven. What's interesting to me is whether, and how, these two ethics can be kept in tension without one being subsumed by the other.
From what I've seen, a failure of American evangelicism is its inability to keep them apart: the deontological is swallowed by the consequentialist. For instance, I've asked dozens of evangelicals whether they'd still be Christian if God came down and said: "y'know, there's no heaven. When you die, you just vanish." A startling number of Christians claim there'd be no point to their faith.
Just throwing that out there.
I am not saying the government should not punish crimes. Paul says the government does not bear the sword in vain. I was arguing from a purely Christian/church standpoint. The argument differs when evaluating the transfer to civil law.
You have argued this before, I believe. Some moral laws can and should be moved other while others were meant purely as a personal moral standard. Murder is an accepted wrong by virtually everyone so we can safely pass laws against that. Gay sex on the other hand is not viewed as wrong by a majority of people and (if consenual) it leaves no blatent victim, therefore we do not pass laws against it.
As I said, the discussion differs when you change from looking at how Christians should personally evaluate OT law to how should societies evaluate moral laws.
JPE,
I'm not sure these paradoxical pairs of truths are mutually exclusive. They may appear to be so, but they are not.
Many profound truths appear in paradoxical pairs – free will and predestination, grace and truth, love and justice, faith and works. Hidden beneath these apparent contradictions are great riches of truth – they strain the limits of reason, but practicing faith will prove them to be true in experience.
See the section called Truth as Paradox in my essay Is man basically good or evil?
The paradox of divine judgement and salvation is not that complicated though, and is not a true paradox. The xian teaching is that there is a different judgement for believers than for non. Believers are saved from "the second death", that is eternal separation from God due to sin. However, their life's works will be judged – only what was done for God will garner reward, and the rest will burn away. But they will still be saved from eternal damnation. That's the doctrine.
But I am not sure that xianity teaches the consequentialist "do what you must to get to heaven" – heaven is guaranteed by faith alone. Works are merely an outworking of faith, although, there is promised reward for doing what is right. Christians aren't, or should not be consequentially driven in their acts of mercy and kindness because you can't EARN salvation, neither can you earn God's favor by doing good works with the wrong heart attitude (which includes an "I'm earning this for my own gain" motivation). Our whole goal is to please God, which is to say, to become loving and truth filled people.
Did that address your deontological/consequential question? Probly incompletely ;)
"I am sorry that you tried xianity and found it wanting, and unable to transform your life. You should look for truth where you can find it."
My dedication to the truth and to reason made me find xianity wanting – specifically its substitution for something for which there isn't a jot of evidence for reality. It may be that there is something hidden underneath all the b.s., but it has been squashed by christians.
Don't stand behind hypocrites to justify your rejection of the teachings of scripture. When people asked Jesus about whether they should obey the Pharisees whom he called hypocrites, he told them "your righteousness should exceed theirs, and you should do everything they tell you to and more."
Which means that we can't use them as an excuse.
I have no idea what you mean by "substitution for something for which there isn't a jot of evidence" – you mean there is no evidence for the christian claims? I'm sure you know that is certainly untrue.
BTW, I interpret Jesus' teaching above that we should not only be righteous outwardly, but inwardly, and not only do the little nitpicky righteous acts, but make sure we are doing the really important things, like caring for our families, the poor, and putting God first.
whatever