I recently read a scholarly discussion article
by a blogger/pastor regarding the issue, common in many progressive churches
these days, of whether to allow same sex marriages to be conducted by their
clergy. While well written, it still seems to me to focus on irrelevant issues while ignoring some very specific
ones.
The general tone of the article seemed to be an attempt to answer how the
church could cope with persons of conflicting beliefs regarding gay marriage,
both partners and clergy, within current doctrinal confines. As usual, this
involved what I consider to be the meaningless discussion of what members
believe regarding scripture, as well as established church policy which in
truth has everything to do with institutionalized homophobia and damned little
with faith or scriptural mythology.
A better question might be to really ask
oneself why the oral traditions and musing of desert nomads ca 3000 years ago
have any relevance related to a civil ceremony which happens in many cases to
be performed by a person of faith.
Regarding legal status, a marriage performed by a Druid
clerk of court is the same as if performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,
although in probably not as impressive a venue unless you can rent Stonehenge
for an afternoon. By custom and tradition, we in America grant special status
to pastors in allowing them to perform just this one special legal function.
The Pilgrims knew marriage had too important a legal connotation to make it a
simply religious ritual, which is why in Plimoth colony it was a civil rite
first.
Jesus, if you believe the words ascribed
to him by the humans with agendas who wrote down his alleged quotes 55 years
(at the earliest) after his death, was mute on the issue. Believe it or don't
believe it (scriptural relevance) but if you trumpet your New Testament, Bible
thumping, "Gawdliness" as some do, then you must own the lack of
condemnation regarding sexuality attributed to Jesus.
Remember, Paul isn't quoting anyone but himself in his
ramblings, about a third (at least) of which, he didn't write anyway. The
Paulician Church differs from the Church described in the synoptic gospels,
primarily because Paul is directly, or indirectly involved in either authorship
or primacy of influence in about 15 of around 30 books of the New Testament. If
we are assuming that any of Paul's writings should be doctrinal in direction we
have made a huge leap away from the zero mention or condemnation of any
sexuality ascribed to The person who is held to be the iconic figure of the
faith. (excluding of course the Nag Hammadi references to Jesus', relationship
with [probably] Mary Magdalene)
Those who are quick to point out that
Christians are still bound by Old Testament Myth have a great deal to answer
for, as they tend to ignore essentially all the other OT prohibitions, rituals
and taboos. You want to ban same-sex weddings?
Then let's re-institute burnt offerings, slavery, stoning, and all the
other delights of Leviticus, and oh yeah, spit out that friggin' shrimp and
dump that rack of ribs in the garbage!
Those who would point out as spiritually
directive some minor ramblings of Paul are equally guilty of shifting the
paradigm of doctrine from Jesus, however you see him, (apocryphal messianic
preacher or God in flesh), to a decidedly human, Saul/Paul, whose ministry
seems a bit like a first century twelve step program for recovering epileptic ex-zealots.
No comments:
Post a Comment