Two troublesome facts are not mentioned here: (1) Matthew and Luke notwithstanding, earlier writings about Jesus show no interest in his conception, birth, and early life. (2) Other ancients of stature were said to have been born of a virgin, suggesting that such attribution was a common hagiographic device.

"(2) Other ancients of stature were said to have been born of a virgin, suggesting that such attribution was a common hagiographic device."

True, and this is a useful scholarly approach. But if we strip Christianity of everything that's not unprecedented, what are we left with?

And as for "(1) Matthew and Luke notwithstanding, earlier writings about Jesus show no interest in his conception, birth, and early life," surely the fact that Matthew and Luke draw on such different traditions about the birth of Jesus but agree on Mary's virginity suggests that it was important to several different constituencies very early on.

Not that this proves anything, of course -- just channeling Raymond Brown this morning.

Lionel,

You are correct that neither Mark nor Paul are explicit about the virgin birth. That having been said, Paul is quite sketchy on most details of Jesus that do not relate directly to the crucifixion and resurrection. Note how frequently he refers to direct teachings of Jesus... Arguments from silence are hard to make conclusively especially when we know that our surviving material is fragmentary.

On the frequency of virgin births in legendary material it's common knowledge that these were "common." But were they? How many actual virgin births are claimed that are not related to or discussion with Christian claims? The only that fits the bill that I know of are the incarnations of Vishnu. One other instance in another part of the world hardly strikes me as "common." Do you have other examples to provide?

"Matthew and Luke notwithstanding..."? Whoa! They are two of the four main sources by which we know of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Let's not be so quick to discount the evangelists, now... They are among the earliest writings we have about Jesus.

"Other ancients of stature were said to have been born of a virgin, suggesting that such attribution was a common hagiographic device." Care to name any of the "other ancients of stature" to whom virgin birth was imputed, rather than just make a vague blanket claim? And did the "common hagiogrpahic device" in their cases include details like the virgin mother being something of a scandal as an out-of-wedlock pregnancy (a la Matthew 1:18-24), or the offspring of the virgin birth dying an inglorious death as a criminal? Usually "legends" don't allow such sordid details into their story about their hero.

Gregory Orloff

And that is the theological truth, "universe creation." As with Derek, I see this truth physically written in the Incarnation as it is then to be spiritually written in us (Angelus Silesius).

The Incarnation is both the renewal of creation, making all things new, and a new creation. The Virgin birth holds both of these together in Christ, who becomes of the flesh of the BVM and is at the same time is the enfleshing of God to us ex nihilo/ex amore. The Incarnation mirrors, fulfills, completes, renews, and redoes God's work over the deep in Genesis. I see this as miraculous in a typically Anglican sense that God's creation is meant to show forth God. And that this showing forth is completed once-for-all in Christ.

It does not really matter to me whether the scientific facts "work" or not. On a deeper level - the story of a young woman (the least and lowest in personal agency) chosen to be the God bearer is a powerful example to those who feel too lowly and without power in their lives. God can choose to be born in any of us and we can choose to birth God.

In relation to Ann's comment---there is a theological payoff here, however it's at the end of the full piece. I didn't know this would appear as a multi-part post! (Although looking back at its length I shouldn't be surprised...) :-)

My comment was relying on a Bart Ehrman lecture. I’m not sure if I can retrieve the details. Perhaps someone else can help out here.

Jewish New Testament scholar Geza Vermes at Oxford comments repeatedly on virgin birth. I haven't got the book at hand, but as I recall in "Jesus the Jew" Vermes quotes first century rabbinic discussions of 'virgin births' that were birth from premenstrual, apparently prepubescent young women. These are not rabbinic comments on Jesus' birth or Christian doctrine, but simply rabbinic discussions. So Vermes offers in these references discussions of extraordinary (literally quite out of the ordinary) but non-miraculous events which the rabbis did interpret as sign of God's special interest or favor.

Derek, you don't mention the other odd dilemma, that the 'virgin will conceive' quoted from Isaiah is the Septuagint translation of a Hebrew text that would more reasonably be translated 'girl' or 'young woman,' so the Greek New Testament is quoting the Greek translation 'virgin' that translated the Hebrew 'young woman.' This is part of the reason that Greek and Russian Orthodox Christians often assert that the Septuagint has the status of scripture, a translation inspired in its very words by the Holy Spirit.

But the Greek translation is also consistent with Vermes' observation of that rabbinic understanding of 'virgin.'

Vermes' observation is also consistent with the genealogy that traces 'son of David' through Joseph.

The first Christian accounts of 'virgin birth' are more complicated than Bart Ehrman's commonplace of Hellenic miracle stories of the virgin births of heroes, emperors, and demigods.

What's appealing to me about this line of interpretation is that, in this early stage of Christian narrative, we don't necessarily see what later does emerge in some Christian writers' suspicion of body and sex.

It's best to take Ehrman with a grain of salt. As an ex-conservative Evangelical now agnostic, Ehrman brings a certain ax to grind. We all bring our own perspectives to the texts we study and teach, but I remembering hearing some tapes of his lectures--I thought on occasion his angle got in the way of his evidence.

It's also worth noting that most of the Hellenic stories about Emperors, heroes, and demi-gods are quite explicitly *not* virgin birth stories--they're stories about the god physically impregnating a woman (sometimes adopting the form of their husband) which is also quite a bit different from the Christian narrative.

Well, we could talk about miraculous birth stories.

Anyway, why should one be any more skeptical of the biases of an agnostic scholar than of a Christian apologist? Even objectivity is a kind of bias.

Derek,

What I wrote doesn't address this useful question:

"Do we believe the observations and explanations of modern science in all cases over the faith handed down, or do we give faith the benefit of the doubt in the face of scientific knowledge in cases of importance—like the Incarnation and Resurrection?"

Modern assumptions of scientific certainties is an enlightenment carryover. The laws of nature get some serious scientific challenge in 20th century scientific theory and then eventually in observation. Inviolable "laws of science" are predictions based on lots of observation, but they don't tell us what is possible. Natural and supernatural aren't biblical or Hebraic categories. The miraculous teaches wonder at what is (all miracle).

The Matthew and Luke accounts give two different, incompatible stories of the Nativity, both with fantastic elements -- yet they agree on the Virgin idea! We can go with that!

People in the 1st century world didn’t understand the birds and the bees; they knew precisely how babies got made—maybe not on the biochemical level, but in the acts that mattered.

. . . yet God is unable to fertilize a single egg cell?

Religion gets in trouble when it seeks to claim the sort of credibility that science bases on evidence. Christianity is a story, told and retold. The original facts are lost; we are left with only the test: "By their fruits you will know them."

Looks as if Ann has the most viable view at this time (though modern law would hold that a very young teenaged virgin could not legally give consent, even one borrowed from the song of Hannah).

Lionel,

No one is above biases, and many would dispute any claims to objectivity. Indeed--sometimes our biases help us! They become a problem when our agendas get in the way of or drive our conclusions despite the evidence. As I mentioned above, my issue with what I heard was when I perceived his bias undercutting the evidence.

Donald,
I definitely agree! We look askance at some of Augustine's writings on the transmission of original sin and at Aquinas on the sacrament, but would do well to remember that they were trying to discuss theology in relation to the cutting-edge science of there day. No doubt our own attempts would look just as dated if read from a thousand-year distance!

"Do we believe the observations and explanations of modern science in all cases over the faith handed down, or do we give faith the benefit of the doubt in the face of scientific knowledge in cases of importance—like the Incarnation and Resurrection?"

The trouble with religion, it's said, is that even the nicest forms train people to believe without evidence. (Teabaggers, anyone?) Science tends to be open-ended. Dogma is closed. Science seems to me more open to possibilities than is doctrine.

Inviolable "laws of science" are predictions based on lots of observation, but they don't tell us what is possible.

The Book of Genesis gets a spurious authority from its position as the opening of the scriptures, although it was only part of the writings assembled in the sixth century BCE in Babylon. But if our side is too sophisticated to quote "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," you still hear a lot of "Male and female created he them." But in fact, we all start out female, and development takes some of us into more or less masculine territory. (Intersexed individuals show that nonstandard development happens -- gay and lesbian persons, although their psychosexual development isn't visible, show that girl-->boy isn't the whole story.)

But Schell implies that what can't be checked is then probably all right. Anything is possible, n'est pas? As a gay person who suffered for half his life from the certainties of faith-based religion (now thankfully in question at last), I'm glad that people, if not preachers, are beginning to trust evidence and experience over tradition.

I must admit, I never really considered the matter overmuch, but you’ve caused me to do some digging.

As some folk have pointed out in the comments, the greek word used in the scriptures, παρθένον, is used in contemporary greek literature to describe a young girl, a maiden…but not solely one who has not known the touch of a man. This tracks with the Septuagint translation of Isaiah which is quoted in Matthew.

The more technical matter (which I think has relevance here) is that virginity under rabbinical law is defined by a woman's hymen being unbroken. As it is possible for mortal men to have sex with a woman and not 'deflower' her, and this is common enough that it is rabbinically recognized (and yes she's still a virgin), the idea that the Divine could plant the seed within Mary without deflowering her is trivial.

More importantly, both Matthew and Luke highlight that Mary had not ‘known’ a man while she was betrothed to Joseph, which would have been a stoning offense.

To my eyes, that is what the story is attempting to impart. There are unique and unusual circumstances around the conception, despite those circumstances Mary is an upright woman in her time and culture, and that Joseph supports and acknowledges this.

Murdoch Matthew, gay people were roundly loathed by one and all - including scientists and the New York Times - until about 10 years ago.

I'm always surprised that people forget this so easily. "Liberals" hated us just as much as "conservatives" did - and scientists as much as theologians. This really isn't debatable, I don't think.

And I really don't think that "evidence" - the scientific method has been around for hundreds of years, let's not forget - was the tipping point.

Murdoch Matthew,
I believe in extra-scientific credibility. There are somethings that can't be weighed, measured or analyzed by components. I can grammatically and metrically define for you every single line that Yeats--or Coleridge or Neruda--ever wrote and the analysis will never put its finger on the pulse of the power there. Religion's truth is far closer--and more truly spoken in and through--poetry than science. Science impacts it where religion touches the world, but religion's power in my life isn't best defined by any attempts to explain natural phenomena or replace scientific thinking.

I am looking forward to Derek's second part. I don't personally see how anyone could belong to the Church without assenting to its fundamental teachings. Given belief in the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth doesn't seem that increrdible. I suppose one might reject the whole package, but what would be left? I suppose soccer and the NY Times. Certainly no good news.

I don't personally see how anyone could belong to the Church without assenting to its fundamental teachings

Depends on how you interpret the teachings - for me it is a non-essential - whether or not Mary was a virgin or Jesus resurrection was how you think it happened. I know what it means for me and my worshipping the Episcopal Church and following Jesus. Luckily you do not determine my membership status - which I believe only requires that I be baptized.

Yes, Ann, but doesn't the baptismal covenant that initiates church membership include this assertion on the part of the baptizand, per page 304 of the Book of Common Prayer?

"I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the *Virgin Mary.* He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day *he rose again*..."

Gregory Orloff

Gregory - depends on whether we are talking biology text or faith text. I believe it just probably not the way you believe it - or maybe so. I say the creed without crossing my fingers.

It may be that we've seen all the permutations of this in the whole Northern Michigan conversation.

This is no private interpretation of mine, but the faith of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

I would maintain that the phrase "apostles' teaching and fellowship" in the baptismal vows definitely includes a bodily resurrection. It is THE central assertion of the New Testament and the early Creeds, including the Creeds accepted by the Episcopal Church.

The Virgin Birth is more peripheral but still important enough to be included in the Creeds.

Assent to the Creeds is not optional. They show us how to read the Scriptures with the Church.

There is some latitude of interpretation, but not nearly so much as some seem to think. The whole point of having bishops and creeds is to preserve the apostolic proclamation of the crucified and risen Lord, and the associated

dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation.

(my post cut off)

Derek Olson,

It seems to me that you're reveling in the power of story. Story is powerful; we live by story. Language is story -- a noun, verb, and object make a story. We don't remember every event of a day, much less of our life; we weave them into a story. The church has offered an overall story that has given meaning to individual lives. Unfortunately, that meaning in some cases is false. The church has conjured up guilt and shame where none was necessary. What we've learned of late is to check our stories against evidence, and against experience.

Bill Snyder,

Evidence was part of the tipping point for the social acceptance of gays -- research strongly indicated that some people are indeed attracted to those of their own gender; they aren't just straight people seeking perverse thrills as Paul supposed. And homosexuality at last has been acknowledged as present throughout the animal kingdom. But the rest was experience -- as gay people began to live openly, and pair off publicly, they were experienced as natural members of the community. And gay people experienced their desires as positive, rather than matters of guilt, shame, failure.

Bill Carroll,

Interesting that you're still ruminating on your part in sabotaging the episcopal election in Northern Michigan. It sounds as if they're doing valuable work there in lay leadership and a post-doctrinal church. It seems that we're beginning to question the whole point of having bishops and creeds, since the apparatus they preserve is proving irrelevant or regressive. Does the church teach approaches to love and life, or a set of opinions based on traditions whose origins are lost in history? Not sure that the traditional message comes across as good news nowadays. Life seems to proceed well enough without it. There is, of course, the organization and the good it does, the community it provides. Those may be enough to assure its survival. They will do more than all your theology.

The virgin birth of Jesus is not a biological fact but rather a theological symbol. It can symbolize a new beginning with Christ from nothing. I like Ann's take that it says a lowly young woman can give birth to God.

As for the bodily resurrection, William Temple said for religion it is insignificant what happens to Jesus' body. Resurrection is not resuscitation.

Religion and biology are different discourses. The creeds are bad biology. And they don't make it as poetry either. They are used in worship. They cannot be justified through bad biology and bad poetry.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Nothing I said had a thing to do with the outcome of the Northern Michigan consent process.

The bishops (and Standing Committees too), especially my own bishop, showed real leadership in asserting basic Christian doctrine and proving that none of us is in a post-doctrinal Church.

The point of bringing that up is that everything any of us is likely to say was probably said then, more or less by the same people. In other words, time, for me at least, to move on.

I look forward to the second part of Derek's piece.

Thank you for a well-written and thought-provoking piece, Dr. Olsen, and congrats on the PhD! As one whose Mariology is fairly high, I wonder what happens to Jesus without the Virgin Birth. Is is possible then to have Jesus be the incarnate son of God as orthodox Christianity believes it? Is it possible to have the resurrection and redemption through Christ? Or does Jesus become (merely) an "ethical man".

I was interested to read what Derek Olsen wrote, because I have often thought that creation ex nihilo, not out of anything, is the greatest miracle I can imagine, and most of the rest is small change, in comparison. That is why I do not have a problem with the biblical miracles. shalom uvrakhah, peace and a blessing. -- C

The Creator God can do anything she wants.

This entire discussion ignores the transforming *process* of prayer, to which God invariably responds, sometimes perceptibly, sometimes not. She litters the world with minor miracles; that's how she has fun. Primarily these are miracles of presence, not of helping us win the lottery.

Let us not ignore the evidence that strong majorities of people around the world report perceiving the presence of God at various times. Why should the Holy Spirit visit Aunt Tillie, much less you or me? Spirituality is a fact like any other.

I didn't used to believe in the Virgin Birth, but I do now.

Josh, If people wish to believe the virgin birth, fine! But I don't see that it is very Anglican to force it on people as a litmus test for theological orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism already does that, as do the Southern Baptists.

I see no reason to push virgin births or miracles on modern people. Mythological language from another era may have made sense for people centuries ago but I suspect it is keeping many people away from churches today.

I don't believe it nor will I pretend that it is a good idea to believe it.

The possibility argument is fun. God could choose to do nothing to help people, as in earthquakes and other natural disasters. The Holocaust was allowed to happen so I don't see how claiming there are small miracles does much to make people want to worship a doer of miracles.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I have no problem believing that Jesus is the incarnation of God - it is a primary tenet of my faith. Virgin birth and resurrection - even if proved untrue would not affect my belief.

Ah yes, the "post-doctrinal Church" with nothing to say, even less to believe in and no challenge to society. A perfect embodiment of meaningless and useless post-modern "emergent" thought.

I have to say that I am mostly unmoved by the various expressions of skepticism, in no small part because they seem to trace back to bigger doubts that make their explanations plausible. That others claim virgin births for their heroes proves nothing unless one is ready to accept those accounts as being on the same level and of the same ilk as ours. Arguing about the biology seems pointless unless one has already conceded that one has more faith in naturalism than in the church. And heaven forbid that we should reject something simply because the Catholics and the Baptists hold to it! If I were to accept all these doubts in terms of where they seem to come from, I would find myself abandoning Christianity, because it seems to me that there is nothing to anchor faith in Christ to. Even if one accepts that the gospels relate Jesus to us imperfectly, without some restraint on one's belief in that imperfection it quite quickly turns Jesus into a idol whom we refashion out of our own prejudices and sins. And in terms of things one has to swallow, I don't see the Virgin Birth as being that difficult. And I don't live in any kind of fear that it will be conclusively disproven, and I'm willing to have my faith taken away if it were disproven, because I don't think it's worth believing in something that's immune to reality.

I believe in the virgin birth. But I think I have the support of as eminent an orthodox scripture scholar as John Meir in believing that Scripture seems to indicate the existence of brothers and sisters, not cousins or kinfolk.

Brothers and sisters come in the next part. But you knew that, didn't you, Jim? :-)

Chris,
Thanks! I wonder what happens to Jesus without the Virgin Birth. Is is possible then to have Jesus be the incarnate son of God as orthodox Christianity believes it? No, it's not; that's why I say that anything else is simply a gussied-up form of Adoptionism. If you reject the Virgin birth then you're dealing with a merely human Jesus. The problem with this is not that it denigrates humanity or some such, rather, it means that we do not have a God who knows with the depth of connaturality what it means to be human--only one who can imagine what it's like to be us. The miracle of the Incarnation is that God knows *exactly* how it feels.

Craig,
I'm with you on that--once you have creation from nothing, everything else falls into place.

Josh,
I think this is the some of the strongest evidence that we have that is and always will be apart from scientific evidence gathering: the experience of the presence of God and the transformation that this presence brings about in lives.

Gary,
As Episcopalians we looked to the Baptismal Covenant as the foundation of who we are. It starts with the Apostles' Creed. No one's calling it a litmus test--it's a fundamental belief of the community we're discussing.

"Less to say and no challenge to society" if we don't buy your version of the meaning of the virgin birth? That is not my experience at all. The challenge of following Jesus in my life gives me plenty to stand up to injustice and oppression. Making faith in Christ dependent on such a weak myth of as virgin birth is sure to lead people to reject faith in Christ not the other way around - but I mostly talk with those who are seeking not those who are sure they have found.

To brother Robison: Is it the case that the emergent church folks advocate a "post-doctrinal" church? (I just didn't know.)

To brother Olsen: Mark 3:33, "Your mother and your brothers and your sisters are outside, asking for you." I did not even think about the siblings when I wrote my comment. I will be interested to read the rest of your essay.

Shalom, khaverai, peace, my friends. -- C

Standing up to injustice and oppression is all well and good, but if you are so unwilling to stand by your religion when it teaches so easy to swallow a claim as the Virgin Birth, it's hard for me to see that it represents much of a commitment. And if people are unwilling to believe in such a birth, how much more unwilling are they to believe in a resurrection? And if they cannot bring themselves to believe in a resurrection, why bother? There are plenty of other ethical teachers out there, without the bothersome metaphysical and miraculous claims.

Dear C. Wingate
I am eternally hooked on Jesus as the one I follow -- the claims of virgin birth run the gamut from metaphor to biology. I said I don't think it is a biology text but a faith text. I am surprised that there is so much "one way' of faith in these comments. I was answering a previous question about having nothing to say to the world by Christians who doubt the apparent literalist version of virgin birth being discussed here.

Mr Abernathy: It is my experience that most "emergent" types are "post-doctrinal" to the point of being "post-content." It's so much cooler to have rituals without meaning, other than what the individual wishes to put into them.

Rev Mthr Fontain: I was referring to the concept of "post-doctrinal" Christianity. Since "doctrine" means "teaching" I was following the logical conclusion of the term. And yes - I think that the refusal on some specious "scientific" grounds of the Virgin birth leaves us with the far more palatable to current intellectual tastes idea of Adoptionisim. "Jesus the really Cool Guy" allows us to move with out all that nasty mystery to muddle things up and get in the way of self soothing "service projects" that so many think is the primary mission of the Church.

Also, I think I should add that it is my faith that leads me to creedal orthodoxy, not the other way around. I believe in a literal Virgin Birth, but I do not confuse it with a biology lesson. I also happen to believe in a literal, bodily resurrection. I don't place a false dichotomy between science and faith either.

This isn't about virgin births, this is about Scriptural authority. I will always love the Episcopal Church, but right now I stand aside as a member because I cannot accept the witness of the Evangelists as authoritative, or the formulation of the Creeds as a process led from the Invisible. There's too much blood shed because of this and countless other "articles of faith" for me to say that they make the world a better place, or give us a glimpse of the Divine that is ultimately useful, life-giving and helpful. The grace I am given from God is to care deeply about those who were killed because they could not say yes; they are my brothers and sisters in faith. I do not have the necessary grace to believe in the virgin birth, and if any of you don't like it, you can pray for me and take it up with God because it's not inside me to say yes. If a yes is required for God to take me home after this life is over, then I'm cooked. I guess everything else I've ever done is in vain, is that the apostolic witness? What kinda manipulative junk is that?

Ann, what does "faith text" mean? And why are you calling the orthodox view a "biology text"? The miraculous claims make no sense at all unless one believes in natural order in the first place; it isn't as though scripture says that Jesus came into being through something like spontaneous generation. The text is quite clear that the Virgin Birth steps outside the rules of natural order, so I cannot see the "biology text".

And here again I see this subtext: that faith can be challenged, but doubt cannot be challenged. I don't think so. We do not necessarily need to cater to doubts; if they have no basis or are founded in error or prejudice, they should be swept away, hard as that is to do.

Derek, wait: if Mary wasn't virgo intacta in some sense she couldn't also be pregnant "by the power of the Holy Spirit?" That makes no more sense than the thought that claiming "that God [who] created the universe... is unable to fertilize a single egg cell." It is God's participation, and not possible previous events of intercourse, that accomplishes the Incarnation (and that, I think, without Adoptionism).

I believe in that Mary happened to be virgo intacta, because it is the received tradition; but I can't state that the Incarnation depends on it. Much more important, I think, is Mary's assent to participate, represented in the Orthodox Πνεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής Παρθένου. That's why I find myself, on the odd Fourth Advent, preaching on the Blessed Virgin Sophie - the postulated one who would have said "Yes" if Mary had said "No."

Marshall Scott

C. Wingate, Faith does not require bad biology (in this case not even modern biology, which was invented in the 19th century) or myths. The point of a faith text is to teach about ethics rather than reporting facts about births and other biological phenomena.

Ann made a good point earlier about how the character of Mary, a peasant lass, gets to play an important role in a story where one would expect men of high social status to figure.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Evidence was part of the tipping point for the social acceptance of gays -- research strongly indicated that some people are indeed attracted to those of their own gender; they aren't just straight people seeking perverse thrills as Paul supposed.

I don't think anybody was ever swayed by evidence like that - and I don't actually know what you're referring to, which I would think I would since I've been arguing about this for dozens of years now. In any case, people are not swayed by evidence such as that on so-called "moral" issues; the precise question has always been whether or not such attractions should or should not be acted on. And homosexuality has been a deep, deep taboo for a very long time; such things are not overcome quickly or, usually, by means of evidence such as you suggest. People my own age still have averse reactions to the idea, even when they support us! The taboo is only now being overcome in a new generation which didn't have it instilled in them from early on.

"Experience": yes, I agree - but what you're referring to is completely subjective, which is the opposite of what science considers to be "evidence"! And you seem to deny that "religious experience" of the sort Derek is talking about here - just as subjective - has any validity.

(I'd also like to point out that many, many people - the poor, the mentally ill, recovering alcoholics, and yes: gay people, too - find (what is sometimes their only) solace in God, in a harsh world that does not seek their well-being.

Hopeless people are given hope through faith, and it won't do to toss it out and say, "Tough luck." Homosexuals have been hated just as much by officially atheistic governments, too, and killed just as dead.

I agree with you, of course, that both church and atheist government have been wrong and vicious in their treatment of gay people - and that's pretty much my point here, actually....)

BSnyder, I thought people were supposed to post their full name on their comments.

I think Murdoch's point is that in the past thirty years, many disciplines have become enlightened on homosexuality, whereas religion in general has remained most definitely unenlightened. Murdoch and I were married civilly in Montreal six years ago. The most Christ Church Cathedral could do was give thanks, which was lovely at the time, but the court treats all couples the same. New York State recognizes our marriage, even though it refuses to allow same-sex couples to marry in New York. The Diocese in New York is even more retrograde because all it offers is secret blessings. We have found the civil authorities to be more our friends than church leaders.

Liberal Christianity is a minority.

Psychology modernized because of the work by people such as Evelyn Hooker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker

Hooker is an example of progress which can be made through empiricism. Religion, alas, does not really care about evidence.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul Gilbert, your statement has nothing to do with either Murdoch's original claim (that "research strongly indicated that some people are indeed attracted to those of their own gender" - this was not at all the subject of Hooker's research) or my response to him about that claim. (I'm still interested in hearing about exactly what he was referring to, because I'm not aware of anything like that.)

Your statement that "Religion, alas, does not really care about evidence" is also incorrect. Maybe you're not aware of, for example, the Catholic Church's stance on "faith and science"? Here's something from the Catechism on that topic:

Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth."37 "Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are."

Gary, whether or not Ann means the same thing as you do, I have to say that your claims about scripture fail to move me, on three grounds. First, ethical instruction is easy to come by, and as a rule requires no faith to motivate it. Second, your contrast with biology does violence to the text, for the miraculous claims of Matthew and Luke rely upon the understanding that biology forbids what they say happened. As I believe I said earlier, the faith in that respect is in absolute naturalism, not in the text. And third, perhaps most damningly, the ethics in which you actually seem to have faith do not come from the text. They come from secular sources and are used to direct the interpretation of the text. One can take the approach that scripture condemns homosexual acts, or that it says nothing about them, but I do not think a plausible claim can be made that it commends them. That commendation comes from elsewhere.

When it comes to having faith in the text, it seems to me that those who accept its miraculous claims have faith in it, and that those who reduce it to an ethical text need not have any real faith in it. So I don't see why you use the term.

C. Wingate, Faith is unnecessary for ethics, although some general principle is always necessary in ethics. One has to hold at least to a minimal notion that it matters in the end whether one tries to do the right thing. The dignity of the person would be the principle to use to work for the equality of LGBTs within the tradition, although I admit the so-called secular world is light years ahead of most churches, with the exception of the United Church of Christ and others. Alas, the tradition has been written by straight white men with dog collars. Liberation theology would start with the assumption that the tradition has to be reread from the position of the marginalized. LGBTs need no longer justify themselves to the oppressive institution but the institution has to justify itself for its unfairness.

Slavery was likewise dismantled as an institution. When read from the persepctive of the slaves, the tradition could not be justified. The dignity of the person trumped the supernatural nonsense of the tradition or the scriptures.

Whether one calls this liberating approach faith or not doesn't really matter.

Gary Paul Gilbert

BSnyder, As an ex-Roman Catholic I do know what Rome says about science and faith. I obviously do not buy the notion that faith is above science.

If Rome respects science, then why have they failed to accept LGBTs as equal members of their sect?

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, it matters a great deal if you call it faith, because if you have nothing to say about Christ, much less Jesus, you have nothing to say about Christianity. You have your own internalized ethical text, and if it agrees with the gospels, OK for you, and if not, still OK for you, but unimportant to anyone else. I do not need to confront the inaccuracies in your history of ethics to fail to care about your claims; as far as I am concerned, and as far as the church ought to be concerned, you might as well be yet another apostate, or a Hindu, or for that matter an Objectivist. I have to wonder why you even bother responding here.

Gary Paul Gilbert: I'm surprised you don't know the answer to that question! Even I, who've never been Catholic, know it: the Catholic Church, even officially, accepts that some people are gay as a straightforward fact. It only says that gay people shouldn't act on their attractions. This follows, I'm assuming, directly from the Church's stance on artificial birth control (which 90% of Catholics worldwide completely ignore).

But these are moral questions, not questions of science. I don't agree with the church's position - along with most of the world's Catholics - but the logic works.

Again from the Catechism: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

As a matter of fact, this isn't even "science"; it's logic and observation. There wasn't any "science" at the time that could make this statement - but in fact the above policy is a humane and kind approach to a group of people the rest of the world outright hated. In fact, the church's policy at that time was far more enlightened than that of the rest of society.

There still really isn't any "science" on this topic; people have come to accept gay folks strictly on the basis of experience, as Murdoch said - but experience and evidence are actually contradictory kinds of ideas.

(James Alison has just argued that something Josef Ratzinger said not long ago has at bottom the meaning that "Humanae Vitae is over." I take this to mean that the church's stance on birth control is now open for debate once again. That's pretty interesting, if true. It'll be interesting to see what happens in the homosexuality discussion at that point, too.)

(I'd also like to point out the quaintness of the idea that "this constitutes for most of them a trial"!

That was true at the time - but of course it isn't anymore. That's because the "trial" was of others' making - society's, the church's, the "majority." For most gay people, being gay isn't a "trial" anymore - amazingly enough, once people stopped treating us as sick and crazy, we stopped feeling sick and crazy.)

BSnyder, To say that it is okay to be gay, as Rome does, but that it is not okay to have sex, is a strange moral position to take. Has Rome decided to take back Leo XIII's 1896 apostolica curae, in which he signed a statement written for him declaring Anglican orders invalid?

C. Wingate, name calling is lovely! You get to decide who is a Christian? It is enough that one refer to Christian myths in his or her thinking about ethics. If someone prays with the Prayer Book that should be enough.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, there is something perverse about how you accuse me of personally arrogating the authority to decide who is and is not Christian, and then you set forth a standard which dismisses the consensus of the world and of the ages. And it seems to me that imputing "we believe" to mean "they believe, but I do not believe" makes so sharp a distinction as to put oneself outside the community of believers, and never mind the mental gymnastics it seems you must put yourself through when you are confronted with a renewal of baptismal vows.

It is not enough to "refer to Christian myths"; even the heathen do as much.

C. Wingate, I love your affirmation of nonChristians by your use of the word "heathen." I suppose this is what you mean by the consensus of the ages, that other cultures are inferior. I suppose that sort of thing would be popular on some rightwing websites.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, I quote Jesus to you and it seems to me that you do not even notice. I long ago freed myself from the paradigm of "culture", but in any case your derogatory reference to the right wing shows that you too believe that some cultures are inferior-- such as that of those right-wingers.

The fact remains that people who are not Christians (by their own telling) are still willing to pay Jesus the lip service of calling him a great moral teacher. I do not see any practical difference between this and the position you have been espousing here, excepting your advocacy of the BCP, whose words it appears you do not believe when you say them-- at least, you haven't said anything which convinces me otherwise. It seems to me that you could find some other prayers which truly expressed your intent; perhaps you could simply cease from prayer, as it has yet to be clear to me that you perceive any object to which your prayers could be addressed.

C. Wingate, Your notion of religion is based on an old-fashioned view of language. Not all language represents or mirrors reality. Imperatives such as "open the door" needn't represent a state of affairs in order to be meaningful.

God is not an object. Even the most traditional negative theology would tell you that.

You also have a naive view of the speech act of intending, a big issue in philosophy of language.

I admit I don't like ideologies which fail to treat all similarly situated people as alike before the law.

Gary Paul Gilbert

BSnyder, To say that it is okay to be gay, as Rome does, but that it is not okay to have sex, is a strange moral position to take. Has Rome decided to take back Leo XIII's 1896 apostolica curae, in which he signed a statement written for him declaring Anglican orders invalid?

Gary Paul Gilbert: I can't imagine what Leo XIII has to do with this conversation. We were discussing "evidence and experience," I thought. For the record: I have absolutely no interest in Leo XIII. I don't care what he did or said, and fail to understand how he's relevant to the topic in any way.

I've already said I don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality; what I said was that it was remarkably humane at the time it was written - in the mid-1980s, when most of the world, perhaps you're too young to be aware, definitely did not believe it was "OK to be gay," let alone that "having gay sex" was OK.

"Having gay sex" only became "OK" relatively last week in parts of the West and is still not "OK" in most of the world. Including in the non-religious world, BTW; homosexual sex was a crime in China until just a few years ago.

Acceptance of gay sex is a very, very late development. Gay people have been detested in most of the world - including in almost all non-religious nations and including by very "scientific" thinkers - for most of history. We're a minority that the majority doesn't "get" - we don't fit into the system - so it has always tried to eliminate us.

It seems silly to me to pretend the secular, "scientific," world has been way out in front on the issue; it really hasn't. We're talking about something that's only about 20 years old and not very sturdy, in fact.

Mr. Dasein, I at least was never seduced by the now-antique notions of mid-20th-century philosophers and theologians, Heidegger for instance having died before I went to college. The point remains the same: your doubts, and those of the philosophers for that matter, are not incumbent upon me. It seems to me that they, and you, are engaged in what I consider to be extensive doubletalk to conceal what is a pretty simple truth. The reasons you are failing to convince me are (a) you are relying upon a superiority of authority which I don't acknowledge, and (b) you continue to dance away from any point I make.

Your mistaken claim that I have said that God is an object is a case in point. My point was not ontological, but grammatical: if you say a prayer, there is nothing to which you pray. And if in that sense you agree that God is not an object, then I say that you have no basis for that objective claim other than mere distaste. If you cannot know God, then you cannot know about God, and anything you say about God is vacuous. And if you can know God, then God is the object of your knowing, grammatically if nothing else. You may want to call all of this old-fashioned, but the very notion of "old-fashioned" is itself antique, a relic of the past century or so that I have set aside as a kind of snobbery.

C. Wingate, You clearly have failed to read all of Heidegger.

Gary Paul Gilbert