I made a comment over on Ryan's blog regarding the incommensurability of the traditional understanding of Christian marriage (one man, one woman, for life, and--as God grants--being fruitful and multiplying) and that of same sex unions. I stated, "In point of fact, it is a matter of irreconciable and diametrically opposed moral systems. As such, it cannot be solved by dialogue or compromise."
Ryan didn't appreciate my reply--and I admit my written "tone" probably came off as a bit more than brusque--taking my comment as simply a refusal to dialogue and work for compromise. In other words, my reply seems to stake out the conclusion before we can even get to the table.
I do, indeed, believe that there can ultimately be no compromise between Christians who insist on the traditional Christian dogma on marriage and that of Christian activists today who espouse the validity of same sex unions. I base my belief in part on my front-seat view of what's going on in the Anglican communion. (And you can see the impact of this activism in the Anglican communion at titusonenine, American Anglican Council Blog, VirtueOnline (David Virtue's news site), and CaNNet (Classical Anglican Net News) Update: Also The Anglican Communion and human sexuality.) Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans could offer their comments vis a vis their own respective communions. But really it is very simply put:
Christians who espouse the tradition (Scripture, liturgy, canon and the lives of the saints) understand homosexual behavior as sin.
Christians who espouse the validity and blessing of same sex unions must necessarily also espouse the validity and blessing of homosexual practices.
Christians who espouse tradition can, and in the parishes I've encountered do, welcome gay and lesbian persons as they are. They are invited into their homes, prayed for, greeted at the passing of the peace, are guests at meals in home and elsewhere, and so forth. They are, in a word, loved. However, they are loved as Christ loves: which is to say, as they are and called to sin no more.
If Christian gay/lesbian activists feel that traditional Christians aren't loving as Christ loves, then they are right to call their traditional brothers and sisters to account, and to the path of Christ who shared meals and hospitiality with us sinners.
But if Christian activists ask their brother and sister traditional Christians to betray their Lord by failing to obey all that he commanded and taught, then they will find there is no compromise possible.
And unless I am greatly mistaken, Christian activists are not merely asking for the most basic of Christian obligations to love and care for our neighbor, they are asking traditional Christians to disobey and dishonor their Lord. Christian activists, of course, do not think they are doing this. But they fail to deeply apprehend that traditional Christians do not see Holy Tradition as a set of immutable laws to be obeyed, or as some great security blanket with which to shelter themselves from the cruel changing world. Rather, traditional Christians understand Holy Tradition to be nothing less than the life of Christ lived in his Body, the Church. It is the life-giving Torah, the way of living that is our manna, our transforming constraint. To cast it off is to cast off the only thing within which the Holy Spirit can transfigure us. (I make similar comments over on a thread at AKMA's blog.)
So, if the compromise sought which Ryan speaks of is for Christians to love the sinner and hate the sin, then indeed, traditional Christians can do this and indeed must do this. But if the compromise sought is both to love the sinner and love the sin, then traditional Christians cannot do this because to love the sin is to hate the sinner. And we are called to love, for love is of God.
Posted by Clifton at January 25, 2005 10:08 AM | TrackBack