Why do more liberal churches tend to be the most ritual-driven and traditional?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's part of his charm. Where the jmfcsts believe that false modesty is a virtue, I hold that true arrogance is the hallmark of an authentic man.

doubt many posters here would consider me modest enough to even have a shot at being falsely modest.   

though I have my flaws with arrogance, I do believe my theology and doctrine are modest (not extreme)...I mean, after all, reading the bible and concluding homosexuality is OK is extremely extreme given all the evidence within scripture against it.

It's a considerably smaller amount of evidence, I hope you'll concede, than the evidence against usurping God's right to sit in judgment (something on which my feelings have changed even since a few weeks ago, actually, since I've been reading a lot of quietist theology lately; but this is why my spiritual life contains such an emphasis on praying for guidance and forgiveness, since I don't trust myself or any other human being to have what it takes to go at all times in the way that a person should). I'm not accusing you of doing this but it's common for people who hold your interpretation to end up doing it and it often doesn't end very well at all.

The idea that the Bible was given to the benefit of Man, similar to how, for instance, the Meiji Constitution was spun as a 'gift' from the Meiji Emperor to the Japanese people, is...well, it's one that I understand your disagreement with, since it's very easy for a certain type of person to come up with an entirely Man-centered theology based on that idea. The purpose should be to come to a God-centered theology, considering that the Bible is the word of God as given to, received by, and kept by Man, and hence at least in part (but not in full) a Man-driven document (whereas Jesus is the Word of God that was given to Man but rejected, tortured, punished, and ultimately murdered). Taking the Bible as the word of God, finding the various passages condemning different homosexual practices or favoring heterosexual marriage and family structures, and deciding on the basis of these that this is a necessary part of the divine plan for salvation is a perfectly reasonable way to go about things but there's a greater radicalism to accepting one's own absolute subordination to the will of God that can never be known in its entirety and simply trying one's best that taken into consideration, which (see two paragraphs down) can make sexuality in general questionable in ways that don't, at least in my experience, discriminate based on gender. The Bible contains all things necessary for salvation but it's nevertheless in some ways a quite slippery and tricksy thing to get a foothold on, which is a large part why more people (of whatever personal, political, or cultural stripes) aren't Christian.

I've realized recently that I'm less a Christian fanatic than I am a religious fanatic whose personal beliefs happen to be centered around the idea of God as the supreme judge of fates and men Who sent into the world His Son as a savior, expositor, and ransom. I believe strongly in faith as a force in general, which is part of why I'm a bit leery of attempting to interpret the Bible or any text that's important to me in isolation.

I also might point out that I'm more than a little leery of sexuality in general and that when I argue in favor of this sort of tolerance it's on the understanding within myself that considering what a whole mess of religious and secular pitfalls sexuality is it seems to me that the genders of the people involved shouldn't particularly compound matters any more than they already have to be. It's a somewhat mordant view that I do accept criticism of but usually, actually, from very different sorts of places than the criticism apropos to more theologically liberal approbation of gay relationships. (I apologize if my phrasing here doesn't make much sense; I'm in a bit of a rush and also pretty tired, plus I think I might have a cold.)

_________________

As far as the OP's question goes, jmfcst's interpretation of why this is, however, is I think more or less correct in that churches that don't adhere to sola scriptura interpretations are indeed more likely to (a) have scriptural interpretations that hew towards the tolerant on the specific issue of homosexuality (though if you gave me time to think about it I'm sure I could find issues that they/we are less tolerant on) and (b) follow the modes of dress and ritual that originate from secular formal wear of the late Roman Empire rather than secular casual or semiformal wear of the late American Hegemon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1) Jesus wasn’t called the Word of God in order for us to believe obedience to God’s word is optional, and 2) You’re arguing that obedience to God’s word is radical and lacks a foothold, which is the exact opposite of what Jesus said:

That's...not what I meant, but okay. I think we may be going on different senses of the word 'radical' here.

But you’ve already made it clear that you understand the bible preaches against homosexuality…so, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for your position other than you simply refuse to or can not accept what the bible is clearly saying. And that being the case, I’m not going to waste much time in this conversation.

It's not that I can't accept what it's saying as much as...actually, you're right, it's probably not going to be very fruitful to discuss this, since you and I have radically different views of what precisely the Bible is there for and presumably always will, but I at least don't really view that as how I think when I think about the way that I think (for, you know, whatever that's worth).

I'm happy that you found my post thoughtful (even if qualified; I know it lacks direction, I wrote it late Saturday afternoon after spending the vast majority of that day obsessively editing a Japanese presentation so forgive me for the low-ish level of internal coherence), and I'm sorry that you consider this conversation a waste of time. I certainly don't.

Probably we aren't going to end up treading any new ground anyway, though, so I think you might be right that this particular theological discussion should stop here for now.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Treating the figures in the Bible as an ideologically or spiritually homogeneous group of people? Attempting to use particularly simplistic techniques for sophomoric literary analysis on something that was written by about four dozen or so different people and compiled by scores of rabbinical and ecumenical councils over a span of almost a millennium? Treating the Bible as a monolithic entity that carries the same sort of weight within itself as the Napoleonic Code and remains unchanged over time rather than as the first ring going out in a massive complex of grasping and sojourning signs surrounding the colossal figure of the Son of God? Ascribing it a special significance either more or less than that of an artifact of an imperfect bridge between Earth and Heaven that describes and signifies the perfect Bridge, Who came into the world to save sinners? Not recognizing that believing in this kind of importance pays it and the blood and treasure spilled on our salvation far more respect than analyzing it the same way we would any other book?



(I would give a classier rebuttal but I really am swamped with work right now. In a few days I'll see about starting a new thread about views of the Bible if there's any interest, but we've strayed very far off topic by now from BRTD's sociological question.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Treating the figures in the Bible as an ideologically or spiritually homogeneous group of people? Attempting to use particularly simplistic techniques for sophomoric literary analysis on something that was written by about four dozen or so different people and compiled by scores of rabbinical and ecumenical councils over a span of almost a millennium? Treating the Bible as a monolithic entity that carries the same sort of weight within itself as the Napoleonic Code and remains unchanged over time rather than as the first ring going out in a massive complex of grasping and sojourning signs surrounding the colossal figure of the Son of God? Ascribing it a special significance either more or less than as an artifact of an imperfect bridge between Earth and Heaven that describes and signifies the perfect Bridge, Who came into the world to save sinners?

You forgot to mention that they probably used different pigments for their ink over the span of all those centuries…but did Jesus and the Apostles use such excuses to avoid assigning authority to scripture – even though the historically complex way they received the OT is pretty much on par with the way we’ve received BOTH the OT and NT?

Clearly not.

We're both assigning authority to scripture. Your somewhat narrow, though admirably rigorous, definition of authority is not my concern.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't addressing it because there were other aspects of what you were saying that I wanted to address first, namely that that's not at all, in itself, the obvious way to read any text. I've been studying medieval Japanese literature for long enough to know that the author is not always to be trusted as far as he or she can be thrown with regards to his or her own text, which becomes more true, not less, when the text in question deals with the life other than mundane.

You can say whatever you want about me but I will not hear you badmouth the Bride of Christ.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How perfectly IRONIC!  That’s simply contrasting the weight of the ritual commandments (the Sabbath) verses the weightier commandments to show mercy to those in need…

Strangely, I agree verbatim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I'm not disagreeing with at all. All I am disagreeing with is your answer to that question. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that. That wasn't really the part of the verse I was referring to anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't claim otherwise, and the relevant portion of the quote, since we're discussing the purpose of scripture, is the second part, not the first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know that too.

You've incidentally mixed Paul's theological arguments with the eternal Word of Christ, which even though they're both canonical and scriptural are there for different things. Do you also hew to Paul's position on his own ABSOLUTE RIGHTNESS AND SUPERIORITY to EVEN A MOTHERFCKING ANGEL?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm telling you that Jesus is not using some bizarre authorial intent standard, which is the aspect of your approach that I'm questioning. He's referring to the scriptures as a series of self-referential, occasionally self-critical or self-correcting texts, whereas you, again, are, consciously or not, treating it as a homogeneous mass. May I argue analogically for a moment? Jesus is treating the scripture the way Tendai Buddhists treat the Lotus Sutra--essentially, as a 'paradox spiral' that signifies the center of the mad and transcendent faith. You're treating it the way Nichiren Buddhists treat it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not actually the approach I'm arguing against. I'm trying to convince you that, as I keep saying, the Bible is only perfect within the context of the knowledge of the people who wrote it. Among things that the people who wrote the Bible didn't know about or foresee are astrophysics, non-Great Man approaches to historiography, psychological and biological discussion of where gender concepts come from, and (in the OT) the fact that there would at some point in time arise societies that didn't have an entirely survivalist and tribal ethic (which is part of the thrust of the NT!). Everything else holds up very well: The discussion of the different iterations of Law and Grace, the blazing love of God, the signification of the colossal figure of the Christ. It's tragic that insisting on a method of interpretation mostly without basis of any kind in the first eighteen centuries of Church history creates a great big honking window of opportunity for the whole thing to get thrown on the rubbish heap as equally mediocre and banal, because in reality nothing in the Bible is at all medicore or banal or mundane.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which I'm not disagreeing with at all. All I am disagreeing with is your answer to that question. The question itself is entirely legitimate.

Ok, now that you agree the central question is legit, then let’s answer it.

I would say: As a whole semantic thicket, certainly worthy of more respect than other such thickets because of its partially Divine provenance. Can we agree on that much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I admit I was kind of venting steam at that point, since I dislike a lot of Paul's writing simply on a rhetorical level (I also love a lot of it on a rhetorical level, but for instance the beginning of Galatians, which was what I was referencing with the angel thing, is something I've never much liked). Sorry (apology directed more to Paul than to you).

I would generally, myself, consider Paul a very highly-ranked secondary source, though, rather than 'straight from the horse's mouth' as it were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, yes, but there's quite a bit in the Bible that's incidental to salvation. Do you think that, for instance, some of the historical material in Chronicles is necessary for salvation?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed with this, though if we have enough of a disagreement over what constitutes immorality in a particular realm this becomes to an extent sophistry (then again, a lot of what we've been talking about has been sophistry, in which I've by no means been guiltless).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you mind if I answer this in detail and then give my short answer?

Romans 1.26-27 certain tend to present themselves that way. The word used in 1 Corinthians 6.9-11 and 1 Timothy 1.8-10 is arsenokoitēs, which does have roots related to 'man' and 'to bed' but which was also a neologism which doesn't appear anywhere at all in contemporary literature outside those two passages and which it's more than possible Paul simply invented as a pithy summary of a phrase used in the Septuagint reading of Leviticus 20.13, which there's a long tradition (Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 54a and b; Josephus, Against Apion 2.199; Philo, Abraham 135) of arguing is only really interested in anal sex. (I know gay men who would be upset with the idea that anal sex is an unclean abomination, but from a public-health standpoint among others...well, it kind of is.)

There's also the question of how to read the 'for this cause' in Romans 1.26. It can easily mean 'as a punishment [for idolatry]'. It can just as easily mean 'for purposes of [idolatry]'. Obviously that's an important phrase to get right, but it's grammatically ambiguous in the Koine.

So, the short answer: In a bizarre neologism referring to anal sex, and in a passage that either refers to it in the context of cult prostitution or considers it, basically, the punishment for itself (which is a common tack to take in the ancient world, particularly considering, as mentioned, health issues), yes, but it never rises to the level of a major theme in the NT and it's mostly the same sorts of throwaway mentions that Paul gives to, for instance, the issue of women who won't shut up in church.

Shorter answer: It casts the same sort of approbation on seedy gay sex that it casts on any sort of sex outside the context of a Christian marriage. Then you're left with the definition of Christian marriage, which honestly becomes arguing in circles. On both sides of the question.

what exactly are you calling self-correcting, and please give an example of it.

Perhaps self-correcting wasn't the right word to use. More like building upon itself, sometimes in ways counter to the expectations of the people involved in putting together the earlier portions. For one thing, Jesus Himself, while certainly the Messiah, wasn't the kind of Messiah that the Jews were expecting; the OT corrects itself on factual errors quite a lot, and things happen in it that were without prior precedent, such as conversion to Judaism coming into play in the Book of Ruth as a previously mostly unforeseen development. I can't think of any other dramatic moments where it's obvious that the understanding of something changed, but I should think that the coming and ministry of Christ is a dramatic enough instance all its own to make up for that. (Remember, this is from the point of view of the people who were involved in putting the thing together and what their expectations were and the Chinese-whispers process by which they worked; obviously God wasn't actually correcting or criticizing Himself). There's also theological multiplicity between or sometimes within OT books, such as Ecclesiastes's quietism, Deuteronomy's legalism, the triumphalism of many of the Psalms, the rage of the Jeremiads...here's a whole book on this subject if you're interested, which I'm recommending because OT theology (as opposed to textual analysis) isn't really my forte at all:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nE-xfAGv3ScC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

tl;dr mainly what I'm referring to there is instances of people breaking the letter of the law for its spirit in the OT, like what Jesus mentions, and the changes in understanding from Jesus Himself and His coming.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm not saying the language in question isn't literal, if anything I'm taking a narrower literal reading of the Greek vocabulary and grammar than you are. I'm not denying that the Bible comes out very strongly against anal sex, cult prostitution, the practice of taking catamites, and pretty much every other form of homosexual activity that existed at the time. Those aren't, with some exceptions that even most gay people find pretty seedy and unfortunate, the forms of homosexual activity that people who argue from my theological perspective are interested in. Indeed, I'm not particularly interested in sex at all; it's affection that's my primary concern here. If anything I think that altogether too much of an emphasis is placed on sex (in a positive sense; as in, I think sex is prioritized too much over other concerns) in general.

Basically, gay people shouldn't be having a lot of the kinds of sex that they're having. The same is true of everybody else.

The most generalized any of the condemnations at hand get is the Romans verse at issue, which--I mean, your position on it is concordant with that of many, many churches and theologians. Mine is concordant with that of many, many other churches and theologians. I don't think Romans 1.26-27 is going to be a particularly fruitful thing for us to continue to debate the meaning of in the light of all the ink that's already been spilled over it. Let me just say that I don't think it's the strongest language in the NT by a long shot, though.

Bestiality to be perfectly honest isn't something I have occasion to think about all that much, but I would submit that there's a very broad multiplicity of reasons even outside scripture to condemn it, on top of all the stuff inside scripture.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't need to hear from somebody who can't tell the difference between actual gay relationships and sexually promiscuous idolatry, or who disagrees on the relative clarity of Biblical passages with people who have actually made a study of them and then insults them for having differing opinions.

I use 'song and dance' because the world is song and dance. It's an exuberant and whirling dance-play made for the glory of the Lord who is similarly without contingency or purpose. Forgive me if I'm unable to consider being compared to the nature of the whole world an insult. If anything is intellectually insulting it's the puerility of your understanding of the lay of the whole world.
___

jmfcst, have you ever heard of the kakure Kirishitan? These were ‘hidden’ Christians who continued to practice in secret after the Shimabara Rebellion in 1637-1638 and the Tokugawa bakufu's subsequently stringent enforcement of the preexisting ban on Christianity in Japan.  They worshipped in secret rooms in private homes. As time went on, the figures of the saints and the Virgin Mary were transformed into figurines that looked like the traditional statues of the Buddhas and Shinto gods and goddesses. The prayers were adapted to sound like Buddhist and Shinto prayers, yet retained many untranslated words from Latin, Portuguese and Spanish (which led to many later generations of Kakure Kirishitan forgetting what the words actually meant, only knowing that the words were some sort of prayer).

Because the Catholic clergy had been expelled around 1600, the KakureKirishitan community relied on lay readers to lead the services; baptism was the only sacrament that had truly survived, though they do practice a sort of Eucharistic ritual during Otaiya (Christmas Eve) using three bowls of rice and three bowls of sake.

The Bible was passed down orally; it was only put in paper much later, under the new title of Tenchi Hajimari no Koto (天地始之事, ‘The Beginnings of Heaven and Earth’). One could notice that the stories were gradually 'corrupted' by time and are not purely from the Bible; there are also borrowings from Catholic tradition and iconography, as well as some folk embellishments.

For example, the account of the virgin Mary's ( さんた丸屋, ‘Santa Maruya,’ from Sancta Maria) life:

'Mary (Maruya) was born from a country called Roson (羅尊国, ‘Roson-koku;’ the name came from the Island of Luzon in the Philippines) of poor parents. Even though she was poor, she was very wise, and always thought about the salvation of mankind. By the age of 12, she received a command from Heaven that she is to remain a virgin (びるぜん, ‘Biruzen,’ perhaps from Portuguese ‘Virgem’). The king of the land heard about her and wanted to take her as his wife, but to no avail. In order to demonstrate her total commitment to her vow of chastity, Mary's prayer once caused snow to fall during either June or August (note: taken from the story of Our Lady of the Snows) which piled several feet high. While the king and his men were astonished, she was taken up to Heaven in a 'flower-chariot' (花車, kasha), where she talked with the King of Heaven named Deus (i.e. God; Japanese デウス, ‘Deusu,’ from Portuguese ‘Deus’), who, in turn, promised her a place in Heaven. Thus she was sent back to earth. Then, San-Gamuriya-Arikanjo (さんがむりやありかんじよ, from Portuguese ‘São Gabriel Archanjo;’ i.e. the Archangel St. Gabriel) appeared to her, saying she will be the mother of the Lord. One night, Deus, in the form of a butterfly, came and entered her mouth and immediately she bore a child in her womb. When her parents saw this, they were deeply troubled (since if this news reaches the king of Roson, they would get in deep trouble) and sent Mary away. She wandered across fields and mountains, finally reaching the country of Belen (べれん国; ‘Beren-koku;’ from Portuguese Belem, ‘Bethlehem’), where she gave birth to a son inside a stable, named Jusu-Kirihito (じゆすきり人, from ‘Jesucristo’). Since Mary gave birth in winter, the animals inside the stable tried to keep the newborn child warm by breathing on Him (which attempts to explain the practice of abstinence from meat during Wednesdays and Fridays). When the owner saw Mary and the Child inside his barn, he was moved with pity, accomodated them in his irori (a type of traditional sunken hearth in Japanese homes). Jusu-Kirihito grew up, preaching and healing. Eventually, the king of Belen, Yorōtetsu (よろう鉄; from ‘Herodes’) had Him arrested and crucified, which was commemorated on February 28 under the name Haritsuke (磔, ‘Crucifixion’). Later, Mary once more received a command from Heaven: that she should climb the mountain called Oribete (おりべて山, i.e. ‘Mount of Olives’). Thus she did, and she was taken up into Heaven, where the former promise made to her was fulfilled and she became known as Suherutosan (すへるとさん, ‘Spiritu Santo;’ i.e. the Holy Spirit).'

In other parts of Tenchi Hajimari no Koto ‘Deusu’ creates ‘Adan’ and ‘Ewo’ in a Japanese Garden of Eden. Pontius Pilate is split into Ponsha and Piroto, who are twins. Jusu-Kirihito says ‘The person who eats his rice with soup every morning is the one who will betray me.’ Maruya's friend composes a prayer at the River Abe - ‘Maruya, full of grace, to you I bow.’ Consequently, the prayer becomes known as the ‘Abe Maruya.’

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't need to hear from somebody who can't tell the difference between actual gay relationships and sexually promiscuous idolatry

oh, sorry, I must have missed the biblical exclusions for "actual gay relationships".  If you would kindly direct me to the chapter and verse I'm sure you and I will quickly put the issue to bed (pun intended)

Zenbu Sekai.

There are examples but you'd find a way to explain them away or categorize them as something else.

How many times must I tell you that my interest isn't in sex acts? There are gay relationships that don't involve sex acts of any kind. What if any opinion do you have on those?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

if you haven't noticed from scripture, God doesn't like song and dance excuses for not following his word.
[/quote]

Good thing that's not become relevant in my life, then.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Zenbu Sekai.

Larry and Sergey have no idea what you're talking about.

It means 'the whole world', as in 'yes, I certainly believe that rather than just taking the world as what it is we should strive to transfigure and redeem it, but I've known gay couples who are a lot more transfigured and redeemed relative to the stuff that went down between people of the same sex back in the day than some straight couples I could mention relative to other bans.'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

such as...[/quote]

'Homosexual' may not be the word we're looking for here, mainly because of the second part*, but it's relationships like David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi, or that one centurion and his pais that I'm referring to. Romantic friendship, if you have any interest in it (I doubt so, but one never knows) is a fascinating concept, arguably a lot healthier than most modern sexual relationship scripts, gay or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

homosexuals – sexual = homos

…they're still gay

[/quote]

If they're not having sex? Well, yes, they're still gay, but they'd also be gay if they were married to and having sex with people of other genders so I honestly don't see what the problem is even if one takes into account the simultaneously literal and broad (as opposed to literal and narrow, or figurative and broad; I can't think of any figurative and narrow reading that I've ever heard of) reading of the verses we're arguing about.

*The concept that I'm referring to is more like romantic friendship; I don't actually think that's the acceptable ne plus ultra of relations between members of the same gender necessarily, but I'm willing to concede to your reading of the parts of the NT at issue merely for purposes of this conversation as long as we're clear that that's what I'm doing at this stage