Writing at the American Conservative, Rod Dreher posits that public acceptance of gay marriage represents not just a social revolution but “a cosmological one,” meaning, as he sees it, “the gay-rights cause has succeeded precisely because the Christian cosmology has dissipated in the mind of the West.” He intones:
Christianity, as articulated by Paul, worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love. …
Rather, in the modern era, we have inverted the role of culture. Instead of teaching us what we must deprive ourselves of to be civilized, we have a society that tells us we find meaning and purpose in releasing ourselves from the old prohibitions. …
Gay marriage signifies the final triumph of the Sexual Revolution and the dethroning of Christianity because it denies the core concept of Christian anthropology. …
Still, if the faith does not recover, the historical autopsy will conclude that gay marriage was not a cause but a symptom, the sign that revealed the patient’s terminal condition.
It’s sad that Dreher doesn’t seem to know any of the hundreds of thousands of deeply believing Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or those of other faiths) who are gay and favor the right to wed not because they seek unrestrained sexual excess (that would be the queer radicals who reject marriage), but precisely because their spiritual belief leads them to favor marital sexuality infused with love.
Among the strongest communities of faith I’ve experienced have been gay religious congregations, and some of the weakest, most hypocritical and shallow expressions of spiritual understanding have been among those safely conventional religious followers who mistake the status quo for God’s eternal plan.
More. It’s good to see at least some Mormons discussing gay marriage, and some defending the idea that promoting marital fidelity among gay people is a far better idea that trying to force gay celibacy.
24 Comments for “Blind Guides”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Dreher’s giving us a ten dollar explanation for a ten cent problem.
All research data suggests that the most important factor in predicting support for marriage equality support is whether a person knows and loves/likes a gay or lesbian family members, friends, co-workers and/or neighbors.
Jews, by the way, Stephen, aren’t suffering the cosmological collapse that Dreher claims Christians are experiencing — Reform Judaism has been conducting same-sex religious marriages for at least a decade, and Conservative Judaism likewise. I’ve been to at least a dozen over the years.
posted by Lori Heine on
It isn’t that people like Dreher don’t know any devout and committed gay Christians. It’s that they clamp their eyes shut, cover their ears and shout “la-la-la…I can’t hear you!” whenever we speak.
The cosmological shift in Christianity, to the degree that there has been one, is that many conservative Christians have been guilty of making their own comfort and self-satisfaction a substitute for God. That they have, in other words, done the very thing they so often project onto others.
posted by Sandhorse on
“…many conservative Christians have been guilty of making their own comfort and self-satisfaction a substitute for God. That they have, in other words, done the very thing they so often project onto others.”
AMEN!
And may I say, I believe that is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think ‘mainstream’ christians, or what I would simply call ‘American Christians’, are a sorry example of what Christians are suppose to be.
I think the self aggrandizing notion of America being founded as a ‘Christian Nation’, has gotten American Christians equating faith in government as faith in God. Thus they are crestfallen and distraught when their ‘God’ (i.e. government) doesn’t maintain the values they expect ‘God’ to uphold.
And since they see Government as God and The Constitution as Christ, they expect these pseudo-deities to protect them, and *just* them, from whatever they perceive to be an encroachment of their rights.
Better yet, these pseudo-deities are better then the Real Deals because unlike the real deals, they can control and distort the pseudo-deities to their benefit.
What passes for Christian ‘persecution’ here in the United States would be considered a walk in the park in counties truly hostile to Christians. And when American Christians perceive they are being ‘persecuted’ what do they do? Do they put their faith in God and Christ Jesus who promised them that the world would hate them for His sake and to count this as a blessing?
Nope.
They kick and scream that America was founded as a Christian nation and that as such the Constitution grants them the right to treat others as refuse ‘for their own good’. It grants them the right to use tax laws to disadvantage gay and lesbian couples. Their ‘God’ promises them they should never have to feel the discomfort of offering goods and services to those *they* perceive and designate as heathens.
I often hear more vocal American Christians opine that God is removing his hand of blessing from the Untied States. That He will soon turn his back on America. From their perspective this is because of feminist, homosexuals, liberals and democrats. I wonder if it ever crosses their deluded minds that, to whatever extent God may be ‘punishing’ the U.S., it could be because the people, who are called by His name, are prostituting themselves to Uncle Sam.
posted by Doug on
Well said, and thank you.
posted by Houndentenor on
All of this is hilarious. No longer being religious myself but still working in religious venues on a regular basis (of various Christian and Jewish kinds), I can say that there are plenty of Christians and Jews who are either pro-gay rights or indifferent on the subject. The anti-gay crowd is the loudest and from personal experience the most likely to be hypocrites on issues of personal morality. That’s from first hand experience, followed by tons of experience of friends and relatives. Just because the Fundamentalists scream the loudest doesn’t mean they speak for everyone in their religion.
posted by Thom Watson on
Dreher writes, “The struggle for the rights of ‘a small and despised sexual minority’ would not have succeeded if the old Christian cosmology had held.”
But then, neither would the struggle for the rights of a despised racial minority, or for the rights of a denigrated gender, have succeeded if the old Christian cosmology had held. If Dreher wants to suggest that we’re worse off because we’ve abandoned that old Christian cosmology, then he also owns the concept that we’re worse off now that we don’t still enslave Africans or prohibit women from voting/working/owning property/being property.
Otherwise, he expects us to accept that the old Christian cosmology was absolutely wrong about slavery and oppression of women, yet at the same time somehow uniquely right in its condemnation of homosexuality.
And if so, then it’s just the same old cherrypicking.
posted by Houndentenor on
WHICH “old Christian cosmology”? Pieces like this are infuriating to anyone who knows the least bit of history? The various Christianities practiced before the Council of Nicea? The Christianity of the Middle Ages that suppressed scientific exploration? The countless branches of Christianity practiced in my lifetime, many of which support gay rights? (Quakers published a pro-gay statement in 1950 well before I was born.) Sorry but this is nonsense and the obvious ignorance of the author negates any point he might want to make. Yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that opinion used to be assumed to be based on good evidence, not on ignorance.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
WHICH “old Christian cosmology”?
The author’s. Dreher was raised a Methodist, but converted to Roman Catholicism when he was in his mid-twenties, practicing a conservative/traditionalist Catholicism of First Things genre, and then, disgusted with the Bishop’s coverup of the child abuse scandals, converted to Eastern Orthodoxy in 2006. The differences between Roman Catholicism (with its emphasis on highly defined theology) and Eastern Catholicism (with its emphasis on the Divine Liturgy instead of a fine-tuned theology) does not seem to have changed Dreher’s thinking, although he might loosen up in time. So neo-Scholasticism, focus on Natural Law, and so on seem to constitute Dreher’s cosmology. The fact that Dreher even thinks that there is a cosmology differentiates him from fundamentalist Protestants.
But I think to focus on the minutiae is to miss the point. Dreher’s argument is a variant of the “marriage equality will destroy Western Civilization as we know it” lament, a variant that posits the reverse: “Marriage equality is thinkable only because Western Civilization as we know it has already been destroyed.”
The two are coin sides of the same argument, and perhaps it is correct, in one sense.
All research data suggests that the most important factor in predicting support for marriage equality support is whether a person knows and loves/likes a gay or lesbian family members, friends, co-workers and/or neighbors.
The shift that comes with knowing gays and lesbians seems to be related to empathy, the ability of straights to see that gays and lesbians are “like us” rather than “unlike us”.
As the generational gap in attitudes toward marriage equality suggest, a lifetime of anti-gay conditioning can thwart the human instinct toward empathy, and as the divide between conservative Christians and other Christians suggests, conservative Christianity can amplify and extend cultural conditioning.
But, whether or not that is true, it seems to me to be irrelevant to the task of moving forward to equality. The empathy which is a benefit of coming out and living out might be thwarted by anti-gay cultural/religious conditioning among the old and among conservative Christians, but coming out and living out has been both the foundation and the keystone of our progress toward equality. We need only to stay the course.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know why no one talks about this. Many religions, most in fact, believe that they are the only true faith and that all the others are doomed to eternal damnation. They don’t often say this outside their own circles because it’s divisive. It is, in fact, the reason that religion was once a taboo topic in polite social conversation. Catholics do not technically believe that any other Christians are TRUE Christians. They might not be so rude as to say that in mixed religious companies these days but if one reads the statement about non-catholics taking communion in the missalet (right there in every pew), it’s obviously what they mean. The same is true in many protestant faiths as well. Growing up in the Southern Baptist church I heard far more sermons outlining what was wrong with everyone else’s beliefs than ones telling us what Baptists claimed to believe. There are many Christianities and many are not compatible and in fact believe that the others are false just as they believe all the other religious faiths are wrong.
It’s odd to hear about “western civilization” being destroyed. Which one? The Western civilization in which the RCC doctrine of the divine right of kings was employed? We toppled that one a few centuries back. Slowly we moved towards democracy, an idea from the enlightenment and one with no basis in Christianity (or any other religion I can think of). Again, the ignorance of history (or assumption of OUR ignorance of history) is baffling. I am happy to live in the post-modern era in which individual rights and liberties are guaranteed throughout the west and hopefully spreading into the rest of the world. The past was better? For whom? Certainly not for the vast majority of human beings who weren’t bishops or kings.
posted by Kosh III on
“Catholics do not technically believe that any other Christians are TRUE Christians. ”
That is true of most Christian groups. I grew up LC-MS and Communion was not allowed even for Lutherans of another denomination such as ELCA. Absurd!
posted by Kosh III on
“core concept of Christian anthropology. …’
This is the author’s misunderstanding. The core concept of Christianity is to feed the hungry, tend the sick, clothe the naked, visit the prisoners, support widowers and orphans etc etc
But these folks have made “hate one another” their core practice.
posted by Lori Heine on
Western, Judeo-Christian tradition has — overall — been a progressive tradition. Its conservatism and its progressivism are both born of that same tradition. This is exactly why kings no longer ride out on Crusades in the first place. It’s why witches are no longer burned at the stake, why women are no longer locked into chastity belts, etc.
Dreher needs to learn some actual history. If he lacks even enough respect for that tradition to learn about it, he has no reason to expect serious thinkers to mistake him for somebody who knows what he’s talking about.
A friend, confused about my own convictions (Sometimes she sounds like a conservative, and sometimes a progressive — so what IS she?) expressed frustration a few days ago because I’ve gotten so hard to pin down. I explained that I’m a liberal conservative — using conservative as a noun, and liberal as its modifying adjective. That I want to carry forward my country’s tradition. But that this means I must honor both strands of it.
I think it is, in a sense the double helix of our cultural DNA.
posted by Houndentenor on
We also no longer have slavery which the Catholic Church had no problem with a few hundred years ago. (The Bible doesn’t have a problem with it either.) We have moved forward. It’s easy to look backwards and see the past as a more moral time. But in almost every case it really wasn’t. Were we a more moral country when we had slavery? Segregation? when women couldn’t own property? I’d love to pin some of these idiots down on just exactly how those earlier times were so moral? It doesn’t sound like it to me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Traditional Christianity has long assumed that homosexuality is a byproduct of “the Fall” — i.e., it was an aberration introduced into the perfection of Creation by Adam and Eve’s sin. Which is to say that in the ideal, prelapsarian, Edenic state of mankind, the incidence of homosexuality would have been ZERO PERCENT, rather than the 1-5% that we actually observe.
It’s true that some more progressive Christian (and Jewish) theologians have defended the view that homosexuality was invented by God (not by Satan, nor by the residents of Sodom), because God actually thought it would be a good idea if a very small percent of the populace were instinctively homosexual rather than heterosexual.
But this possibility remains beyond the imagination of most religious conservatives/traditionalists; their assumption remains that “0% homosexuality” is What God Wants.
posted by Throbert McGee on
“No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.”
“But my uncle, Angus Hamish Macbeth, puts sugar in his porridge.”
“Well, no TRUE Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge!”
posted by Throbert McGee on
Are you sure?
My impression is that Conservative Judaism, at least, currently insists that the ceremonies for solemnizing same-sex unions must be clearly distinct in both ritual and language from the traditional heterosexual marriage ceremony. But I’m not sure whether Reform Judaism has an official position on whether the marriage liturgy can be used (mutatis mutandem) for same-sex unions, or if a substantially different liturgy has been devised.
(Note: I’m only talking about how things work inside the synagogue — AFAIK, some Conservative Jewish rabbis, and pretty much all Reform rabbis, have supported “equal is equal” when it comes to secular marriage law.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m certain.
Jewish marriage is a contract between spouses. The marriage contract is signed by both, and the marriage is completed when the spouses begin to live together and commence sexual relations.
What non-Jews typically think of as the “marriage ceremony” (the chuppah, the bride’s dance, the seven blessings, breaking the glass) do not create the marriage, but are instead symbols of marriage and blessings upon the couple.
In the religious weddings I’ve attended or participated in, the blessings have been modified to reflect that both are male or both are female, but the essence of the blessings is not modified.
In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that marriage is not solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of procreation, but instead, following Torah and traditional sources, primarily about companionship, love and intimacy. (God created Eve for Adam because “it is not good for man to be alone” rather than because Eve was necessary for procreation. ) As a result, the blessings are relatively easily modified without changing the essence.
The important thing is not the form of the blessings, or the ceremony, but the marriage contract itself, and the fact that the marriage contract is recognized as creating a valid religious marriage.
As I understand it (with the caveat that I am more familiar with Orthodox practice than either Reform or Conservative practice), Reform Judaism recognizes the marriage contract between gay and lesbian Jews as valid in almost all cases, and that most congregations within the largest Conservative union in the United States do so, as well.
I understand that a number of Conservative congregations, and a few smaller Conservative unions, do not recognize same-sex religious marriage, but instead treat those marriages as commitments between the couple.
The Orthodox do not perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
So what the hell is “mutatīs mutandīs”? Catholic mumbo-jumbo, it sounds like to me.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Thanks for the clarification, Tom!
My understanding was that Conservative Judaism didn’t recognize this contract (i.e., the ketubah) between same-sex partners, and so any “blessing of the union” for gays and lesbians was done without the contract. (Part of the reason is that the traditional ketubah was very distinctly “gendered,” with different roles for the groom and bride.)
But based on Googling just now, I get the impression that the CJ movement finally authorized same-sex ketubah, although this may have been as recent as 2011 or so.
And “mutatis mutandis” is just a pompous way of saying “with the necessary changes having been made.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
(Part of the reason is that the traditional ketubah was very distinctly “gendered,” with different roles for the groom and bride.)
Well, sure. Men and women are different, and play different roles in the marriage.
Women, for example, traditionally determine the nature of the sexual relationship in a marriage, not the other way around, as it is in conservative Christian preaching, if not practice — a minor example of how conservative Christian nonsense about the existence of a “Judeo-Christian heritage” conforming to conservative Christian dogmas rings false. (As a general rule, when a Christian starts talking about “the Judeo-Christian heritage”, you can pretty much assume that the “Judeo” part has gone missing.)
But the marriage contract is negotiable between the future spouses — every single jot and tittle. It is not a set thing, even (or perhaps, particularly) in Orthodox practice.
But based on Googling just now, I get the impression that the CJ movement finally authorized same-sex ketubah, although this may have been as recent as 2011 or so.
I understand, too, that the Union slouched its way toward issuing an opinion in mincing steps, but as Houdentenor pointed out, congregations are independent. I was present at a religious marriage between two Conservative women (one a close relative) as early as, oh, say 2000, maybe a year or two earlier. I don’t remember the date, exactly, and I’m too lazy to dig it out, but it was when their younger kids were waist high, and the kids are in college now.
And “mutatis mutandis” is just a pompous way of saying “with the necessary changes having been made.”
Thanks. I finally Binged it, and pretty much explains what is done with the marriage contract, the blessings, and the symbols.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m certain as well. Remember that each shul is an autonomous entity. They organize together into things that might appear to be denominations but like Baptists and some other christians, there is no denominational hierarchy. Each temple can therefore do what it chooses and join or leave any national or international organization of congregations at will. No one is telling them what to do from on high as is true of say Catholics and Episcopaleans. My guess is that some reform and conservative rabbis will marry gay couples and some won’t, but it’s been happening with both for quite some time. (Someone may want to correct me on some details. I was a frequent singer at reform and occasionally conservative congregations, but I was not a member so my understanding may be incomplete or incomplete in several ways. I’m always happy to be educated.)
posted by Throbert McGee on
Aargh. From somewhere — very possibly from the 7th circle of the Inferno — my old high school Latin teacher hurls a chalkboard eraser at my head and screams, “McGee, you motherf*cking slacker, it’s an Ablative Absolute — mutatīs mutandīs!”
God love ‘im.
posted by french62 on
As far as Dreher’s analysis of the dethroning of Christianity as a centralizing “civilizing” force in western culture, all I can say is good riddance. If individuals wish to lead their lives by Christian precepts, particularly those perverted over the millenium to be used as a cudgel to beat down any opposition, more power to them. As for myself, I see the “dethroning” as a liberating advancement of human rights and freedom. Thus always to tyrants. Sign me gay and happy.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s always hilarious when people ask where we would get morals if not from the Bible. Obviously such people have never bothered to read their Bible. Slavery, genocide, and stoning disobedient children? Oh, and so much more. No, thank you. I prefer my morals based on empathy, compassion and reason, and I think most sane people do as well.
posted by Throbert McGee on
A slightly belated comment on this old thread:
Remember, Communion does NOT commemorate the “Feeding of the Multitudes” (i.e., when thousands of people dropped by to hear Jesus preach, and everyone ate their fill even though there was only a few loaves of bread and a couple of dried fish).
It commemorates the Last Supper, which was attended only by Jesus and his “inner circle” of Twelve Apostles.
In other words, there actually is a symbolic rationale for excluding non-Catholics from Communion, even though they’re perfectly welcome to be in attendance at the mass. Communion is supposed to be for those who have been properly “initiated” (i.e., catechized and validly baptized) and who understand and endorse the Catholic interpretation of the Communion ritual (or, at least in theory they’re supposed to understand what “transubstantion” means, etc, and they’re supposed to accept that a Catholic priest’s unique authority to consecrate the bread and wine is directly dependent on the valid Apostolic Succession through the Pope, etc.)
And (again, in theory), it’s not that Proddystints are suspected of being insincere or lukewarm in their devotion to Jesus; it’s that youz guys are suspected of holding heretical beliefs (possibly through no fault of your own), and thus are not in a state of readiness to partake of Communion.