Approaching Social Change and Tradition (cont.)

Read Part 1 here.
Part 1 demonstrates how focusing on social change at the expense of tradition can oversimplify the case for it, which does a disservice to both. However, this may not be only the fault of progressive activism, but also with traditional commentaries against change:

"... when tradition collides with social change, some traditions are rejected while others are retained. The process of determining which traditions are kept and which are abandoned is governed primarily not by reason but by complex cultural dynamics; the resulting social customs are often both unquestioned and unreasonable."

(Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Women Caught in the Conflict: The Culture War between Traditionalism and Feminism, p.11)

Could traditional analysis be possibly worse? Let's explore this in more depth:

[Note: Unless otherwise, all quotes in Part 2 are from Are There Homosexual Saints? by Joe Bob Briggs in issue 190 of The Door Magazine]

Part 2: The Con Position

Joe Bob Briggs' Are There Homosexual Saints? attempts to address the conflict within the Anglican Communion about homosexuality, particularly regarding the active gay bishop in the United States. It confronts the dynamics and issues stemming from this situation, ultimately offering a moderately traditional stance. The article first examines why American Anglicans "make up the rules as they go along" about homosexuality, compared with the rest of the Anglican dioceses. Why are there differences? After all, even in places where homosexuality is "more common and open than it is here", it is considered by Anglicans as legal outside the church but unacceptable within it. Briggs suggests that the accountability implied by the traditional notion of sin is resisted by Americans, with the most relaxed groups proposing that some sexual behavior be overlooked instead.

With Us or Against Us

So when and where should there be accountability? The article clearly states that it should NOT be enforced from outside the church, since it does not have the authority. Because it is not the religious arm of the state or just a registered charity, church standards have sole jurisdiction there. Moreover, Briggs says, the struggle is "not about power or social justice", but "about Biblical authority or divine revelation," so only Anglicans (in this case) are applicable anyways. The broader society need not intervene.

Although this clarifies where scrutiny must lie, it has two uneasy implications. First, if tradition or the church needs social reform, it must come from inside. Yet it is not clear what recourse is available when tradition may be deemed unnecessarily certain and infallible. Second, since the main issue concerns Biblical interpretation, worries about injustice may be dismissed prematurely. When would social change matter?

Regardless, a practicing homosexual Anglican, under current policy, would be required to stop (i.e. repent) or leave, since continuing homosexual activity would be paramount to insubordination. The church could not simply ignore such behavior, like it or not. To demonstrate how this can be handled, the article offers two examples. In one, the preacher in question was expelled from the Southern Baptists without a "mechanism for mercy". The other case concerned an Anglican bishop in England who "resigned in order to protect the communion", also indicating that he and his former partner had remained celibate since 1991 to live within church guidelines.

Yet this does not explain why certain individuals act out inappropriately here. (The article does not suggest any theories.) Do the responses deal with the motivations behind homosexuality or are they just shortsighted and inflexible? Moreover, perhaps some people stay or persist because they believe it is more complicated than is evident to others. The only options presented are certainly unsatisfactory to some and does not determine whether the church could be lacking in this area.

Erring on the Side of Tradition?

Despite this, Briggs emphasizes that the church must attend to each of its members by its own terms. It does not conform itself to current values to be relevant, but with past faithfulness to tradition for the sake of integrity. This is the crux of the matter, as even the Protestant Reformation aimed for a more authentic connection to history, not social change or innovation. There seems to be no viable alternative when shortcomings are possibly evident. Also, this does not prove if tradition is accurate in its assessments of wrongdoing, since it could be only partly correct or fully incorrect.

However, to evaluate the nature of sin and homosexuality, Briggs refers to Romans 1: 24-27, which is traditionally used in this case. It states that God allowed humanity to participate in futile and unproductive behavior (i.e. sin), in order to reap the consequences of their misguided focus on nature. In order to describe how erroneous and artificial this had become, the author uses acts towards the same sex to illustrate the irony, where humans try to go towards themselves (i.e."against nature") instead of moving towards and acknowledging God. "As such, it's the ultimate self-love."

Briggs notes that this is not strictly referring to homosexual acts. "The sin isn't homosexuality. The sin is regarding God as nothing." Therefore, the article suggests, if gays are cast out, then so should other sinners as well. Yet while other actions can be forgiven by not allowing them to become habits, the pivotal question is whether homosexuality is more than simply a distorted practice. Previous thought assumed it only referred to confused or reckless heterosexuals, but today it is viewed and treated differently.

Should the church respond accordingly? This depends on how much the traditional answer here could be modified in the face of new considerations. If the issues involved are seen as more complex and ambiguous than originally construed, then perhaps a reappraisal should occur. However, if tradition must prevail in spite of everything, then some discrepencies will emerge.

Take the Biblical passage mentioned earlier regarding homosexual and sinful behavior to start. Although the fact that the two activities are related to each other may lead some to conclude that all homosexuality is automatically sinful, this obscures two things. First, the fact that heterosexual acts are not mentioned in these particular verses does not necessarily mean that they are never used sinfully. Pursuing the other sex does not guarantee that it will be more effective. Second, although homosexual acts are considered a result of sin, it does not indicate if there are instances where it is not. Perhaps it is a conflicted expression at best, so conflating everything together gives a false picture. However, Briggs does not explore these options.

Convenience Over Change

In contrast, the article affirms the traditional perspective, which can be simpler and easier than the alternative. Briggs summarizes the conflict this way regarding the active gay bishop in America:

This may be a good or a bad thing as far as society is concerned, but the church is not society. The church has believed for 2000 years, with Paul, that homosexuality is something invented by God to reveal man's selfishness. Ordaining a bishop who says, "I intend to practice it continually," becomes, for the faithful, a rejection of God and an elevation of a "me first" gospel....Aside from what the church regards as a sin in itself, the whole typology of the office is perverted.

This reveals the main points of contention about this issue within the Anglican Communion. First, the option of homosexuality as a lifestyle comes from a foreign source, which can not override Biblical or church authority. Second, church precedent does not permit such behavior, as the Bible portrays homosexuality as an illustration of self-absorption. Third, the church position would be devalued as a consequence of such rebellion. Therefore, there seems no need to change the traditional view.

The article Are There Homosexual Saints? attempts to explain the tension about the practicing gay bishop in the States, offering a rationale for the traditional objections against any change. Yet it does not explain why this seems merely convenient instead of truly adequate. Moreover, it conveys social change as insufficient while ignoring the tendency of some to hide behind the church when it expresses potential prejudice. It also does not give any conditions under which change may be required when needed. At best, this article appears overconfident in its conclusions.

Caught in a Stalemate

These articles illustrate how difficult it can be to justify social change or tradition. The typical response tends to focus on one side while generally downplaying or dismissing the other, with a fairly insufficient result. It is easy to be complacent when we agree. Why does this happen so often? In essence, the appeals provided either way are ultimately fraught with compromises, since the circumstances are technically caught in a stalemate. This does not indicate that there are no real solutions to these problems, but that people want more fulfilling resolutions than there may really be. Let us proceed carefully.