Truths behind theology & Biblical interpretation
Submitted by Ray on March 03 2000 at 03:34:30
In reply to The definitions defined Submitted by F.O.D. on March 02 2000 at 19:17:54
|
FOD, and all, Again, I'm moving the discussion from basic question, issues, and definitions, to more foundational theory. I'm looking for Truth! It may seem I'm moving further away from the basic question of cross-generational or man/boy sex -- or sex between adults and minors, however that may be defined. But I think there is much to be gained in questioning some basic assumptions. Scott Peck stated, "The path to holiness lies through questioning everything," (The Road Less Traveled:..., 1978, p. 185) and I've tried to follow that path. Forgiven: 1) Christian Theology has always argued that sex should be an expression of permanent relationship and FOD: Here I agree. I won't dispute the "has always argued" part, but I do question the "should" in that statement, or more particularly the sex as "expression of permanent relationship." I can see legitimacy in "experimental sex" as learning about human relationship, intimacy and love -- particularly adolescents but also adults who have been taught by Christian theology to avoid sex and also have avoided learning about human relationship, intimacy and love! Emphasis is on responsible consideration of self, other, disease, conception, pain/pleasure. Several months ago, I was in a group of gay men to whom Daniel Helminiak was presenting his theories of human behavior and he wanted to demonstrate how people do moral reasoning on difficult sex questions. About six small groups each were assigned a "moral" question to discuss and report to the larger group. My small group was assigned "sex with minors." How's that for movement of the Holy Spirit! After most of the usual input from others about power of the adult, age and disability of consent of the minor, harm to the child, etc., I mentioned that about 18 years ago a YF about 11yrs old had asked to sleep over at my place on a regular basis and I agreed (not implying that we did or didn't have sex). But implying that the discussion seems to disregard the minor, that "sex" without regard to "relationship" may be the wrong question here, that there is some "data" from which "ideas," "facts," and "values" are derived which seems to call into question the "values." Another person who had been a missionary, I think to New Guinea, mentioned a custom he had observed there of adolescent boys spending some time with men in their homes to learn about sex -- and not from books! The result wasn't concensus on an answer to the question, but a broadening of the understanding of the breadth and depth of what appeared to be a simple question! I suppose my attitude toward "casual" sex is similar. I can see legitimacy in short term sharing of intimacy and love making. Emphasis on fidelity in relationship is not on with whom you have sex, but on consideration and faithfulness to persons, committments and realistic expectations in relationships. For most persons, energy, economics and time will limit sex to just one partner. But I can allow exceptions. Seems to me that "unfaithfulness" as sex outside of a relationship, which I have seen, is a symptom of a relationship problem. The forsaken partner usually concentrates on blaming the unfaithful partner, rather than addressing the relationship problem. I think relationship problems and sex outside of a "permanent, committed relationship" are two issues usually conflated. I really don't expect much agreement with this whole idea of morality of casual sex, maybe I do expect even outright rage from the "abstinance/celibacy" adherents. But it's where I'm at now -- in theory! John McNeil, a gay Catholic priest, in his seventys, in a committed relationship, has conducted seminars for gay men where he has broached the subject of "open" relationships. He has said that it has long been a criticism of gay men for being promiscuious, but it may be time for men in mature gay relationships to talk about the topic. I mention this not to encourage open relationships, but to encourage open minds on the topic! Forgiven: 4) Gay sex is illegitimate in itself (I had to throw that one in for completeness :=) FOD: Here I again agree with you, that the gay side of boylove is a stumbling block. The question to ask here is whether the church is correct in teaching us that gay sex is always illegitimate, or whether they have been misinterpreting the Bible all these years. There are only some parts of the church that teach that "gay sex is always illegitimate." That currently seems to be one of the most emotional divides in both church and society. And that strong emotion seems to indicate to me that the Holy Spirit is at work to correct an error in something that the church and society have been doing "all these years." The Holy Spirit will not be thwarted in bringing Truth to the fore! So, the sooner and less painfully we discern that Truth and change the teaching and practices of church and society, the better! Ray |