Well, the Jakeite liberal attitude is rather obviously grounded in a view of the church as a locus of power for indoctrination etc. Tolerance really doesn't figure in their vocabulary because it's really about putting up with things one doesn't like, and that's not what they want. They aren't interested in people who put up with homosexuality; they want everyone to endorse it, and to that end the merely tolerant are actually an impediment.
It's the flat-out meanness that strikes me the most. Even if God intends us to believe that homosexuality is equivalent to normal, progenetive sex, I can hardly imagine that he wants us to be so vicious about it.
I was reading some of the comments over at the Fr. Jake site, and it further confirmed something I've long accepted - that none of this is over "tolerance" or "inclusivity" (favourite words of liberals), but what simply amounts to a different orthodoxy. It's written all over what the commenters over at the other blog are saying.
Charley and Tim, you've both described the thing!
When a bishop says what they want to hear they're higher in their ecclesiology than St Ignatius and Blessed Pius IX combined. But when he dares try to run his parishes - you know, do episcopal stuff including being a conscientious pastor - and doesn't toe Fr Jake's line the comments include wishes about punching him in the face as one regular actually said about ++Sydney.
The criterion of truth in this looking-glass world obviously isn't the creeds, 'follow the bishop' as St Ignatius taught nor 'God for your father and the church for your mother' as St Cyprian taught but something else entirely.
Speaking of the creeds, yes, TEC is a Christian church... on paper. The big question here, and I think you can read this meaning into +San Joaquin's remarks quoted by Fr Jake, is since the Pike acquittal 40 years ago, when orthodoxy became merely optional for bishops, ecclesiastically (this is not a knock on the faith or sincerity of any random Episcopalian!) does that really mean anything?
I read Fr Jake regularly; I never comment, as he's made it quite clear that only one position on the various issues is acceptable.
What I always find most striking is the amazing crap thinking that goes on. No one ever discusses first principles for constructing an ethical system, and so no one can offer any sort of rationale for their assertions that isn't based on feelings and experience.
To my mind, if you're going to raise up sodomy from its traditional place in moral theology, and still condemn certain other positions, you have to do some theological heavy lifting. The Roman position, although demanding and counter-cultural, is at least consistent. The "reappraiser" position, which allows same-sex gratification, but still wants to take a stand against polyamory, prostitution, consensual incest, etc., etc., is a theological house of cards.
I just read something from M.Z. Forrest that describes this problem, Paul:
'Subjectivity in any moral judgement renders us incapable of drawing any objective conclusions.'
Within a typical moral decision, there are a myriad of criteria, most of which are objective. It is not uncommon for someone in dissent to cite prudential judgement. It is not so much that someone could not subjectively conclude different as much as one's argument is objectively wrong.
BTW, gotta love the 'that's for locksmiths are for' comment at Fr Jake's regarding stealing buildings or 'it's not theft when we do it'. Reminds me of an interview with a pro-abortion group's leader back in the 1990s:
'It's outrageous that in our nation of laws these people want to force their anti-choice agenda on us.'
'What would you do if they're successful in changing laws?'
'Break the law.'
No first principles indeed.
What's so obnoxious is that in spite of this problem with "first principles" there is quite a dogmatic tone with these folks, whether they exist in the ecclessiastical or political spheres. That's the part I can never get past - they're beyond any pretense to simply being indifferent (or put nicely, "open minded").
However, I'm not so sure it can really be said these people do not have "first principles." Rather, I think it's just that they don't bother to state them openly, for a lack of either having looked at them critically, or (I suspect in at least some cases) knowing damn well that they're not Christian first principles.
I'd like to think I'm not an exegetical simpleton. I realize that the Bible is composed of many genres of literature, and that a failure to understand this can lead to all sorts of mischief. I'm even willing to entertain the idea that with time, the depth of our understanding can grow with regard to the content of our Christian faith (and that obviously would include what the Scriptures have to say to us.)
But to reduce everything that we find disagreeable to an accident of history, begs the question - "if this Book is so unreliable, what good is it?" Well, the answer is obvious - it becomes about as good as any mythic work which we can run through the strainer of our own opinions. While that is something, there is one thing it definitely is not - Christianity.
Related to what I just said, I would like to make clear that I do not think the typical criticisms that these folks bring up whenever they attack basic, traditional Christian values, have any validity. I noticed in the messages at Fr. Jake's board, much is made of the usual red herrings of how women were regarded in the Old Testament, etc. Of course what these same folks are failing to understand is that not everything we find recounted in the pages of the Scriptures is given moral endorsement. In certain cases it may be tolerated by the mercy of God, but it's never been the position of the Church that one will find evangelical perfection in the "Old Testament Saints". I also think it's telling that whenever those red herring issues come up (ex. polygamy), the circumstances they create in the Biblical narrative are never shown in a flattering light (ex. Patriarch Abraham's family situation brought him a great deal of grief, as did the similar situation of later Patriarchs.)
Of course where many are deceived, is where the Scriptures (esp. in the New Testament) clearly contradict their own cultural experience. The issue of slavery is often pointed to as an example of this. Well, I hate to break it to people, but slavery in and of itself is not inherently immoral. Enlightened reason certainly doesn't bear this out. However, people when faced with this (taking for granted the imprecise modern definition of the subject), too often will lose at least a little confidence in the authority of the Holy Writ, and as such leave themselves open to other forms of deviation (ex. "maybe the Bible isn't right about that gay stuff either?")
As somebody else has noted this kind of religion is self-refuting: 'We have bishops and the Eucharist on Sundays because the Bible says to' but 'because we want to, we teach that homosexuality is objectively good because it doesn't matter what the Bible says'.
Given that illogic no wonder most people lie in on Sundays instead.
(Yes, yes, Fr Jake's fans, 'God hates shrimp'. Ha ha. Try looking at natural law to tell the difference.)
So you can deconstruct away the bits you don't like and then look down on those simple folk who 'lust for certainty'. OK then - what's going to stop others doing that with the things Paul named here?
Also... not to open an old wound but regarding the ordination of women a priest sympathetic to that wrote:
Ordination as a whole is a human invention.
Not 'the accidental forms of the apostolic ministry' but 'ordination' itself! What's noteworthy is, although he doubtless means well, thinking in terms of rights, again, the means he's using to argue for this undermine belief about the church! Don't get me wrong: Father's a nice guy and AFAIK nothing to do with the viciousness at Fr Jake's. (Elsewhere he's said he understands where I'm coming from even though he can't agree - mission accomplished - and I think I can say the same.) But that argument like the others is a complete non-starter to a Catholic.
Paul, your answer is so good it's now permanently linked in this blog's sidebar under 'other'. Gives some much-needed counter-balance to the infelicitous wording of Robert Cooper's article on the subject also linked there.
I don't think you'll get a defence of slavery out of me!
Well, now this exchange has gone down the tube because it's engaging the the same sort of thing that goes on in Jake's comments.
First, there is a Christian basis in their system. The problem is that it takes a fairly small set of Christian principles and expands them to the point where they play havoc with plenty of other things that Jesus (and especially Paul, whom they tend to view as something of an interloper) said.
Second, I don't think that doubts about the text are nearly as important as some would like to believe. These people by nature allow room for the doubters, and the doubters by nature are going to wash up with these people. But the connection isn't necessary.
Third, subjectivity isn't really the problem either. If Christian principles are absolute, the application thereof has been marked by a long history of compromises, etc. ofhow to get past not being able to live with/by them. People who like the current expression of those principles in the rules say they are absolute; those who oppose them say they are absolutely wrong. Meanwhile, day to day, most Christians apply them rather, um, subjectively anyway.
A fairly accurate cartoon of the thinking at Fr Jake's (not of all Episcopalians!).
Well, now this exchange has gone down the tube because it's engaging the the same sort of thing that goes on in Jake's comments.
Mr Wingate,
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. To the best of my knowledge, comments aren't being deleted, people aren't being told to shut up, and arguments are being addressed, rather than the people behind them. It seems the very opposite of what occurs on Fr Jake's 'blog.
Jake’s place is an exclusive little tribe where outrage is considered both critical thinking and good theater.
That’s my story based on my experience.
Commenting by HaloScan
