My short response to another Christian blog article supporting immoral and unjust actions

MY RSPONSE TO “After Francis: What’s Next in the Vatican?”
By Professor Phillip Jenkins
On ANXIOUS BENCH
a Christian site, which DELETED my comment.
So strange that such Christian sites won’t post comments that
support NT moral truths:_(

Your article oddly states, "...divorce, abortion, clerical celibacy, homosexuality, and same sex marriage, with transgender issues rising on the horizon. A good Pope will change church stances on those things, a bad pope won’t, end of story. Onward to the Third Vatican Council!."

Well, changing back "clerical celibacy" to what Christianity originally supported, would be a powerfully good, true action.
But all of those other topics are not only contrary to the New Testament moral truths of Jesus, some of them are scientifically wrong.

For instance, biologically there are only 2 sexual genders, man or woman. Check out for instance, Professor Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago and Richard Dawkins' many recent articles and book.

While it is sad that a few humans do have gender dysphoria, there are no nonbinary humans, no individuals with a penis, etc. who are women, no individuals who have ovaries and a womb who are men.

The immoral actions of abortion and divorce have become rampant in modern society. Abortion (except in obvious tragic biological errors such as tubular pregnancy) is the killing of human lives.

Divorce was condemned by Jesus. Yet many Christian couples divorce causing hardship, sorrow, and, often, severe problems for their children.

Strangely, divorce has become so bad, that now Protestant Christians in some surveys actually have more divorces than non-religious individuals.
Jesus weeps.


In the LIGHT,
Daniel Wilcox

Part #2: Review of Meetings by Chuck Fager

from Amazon's website:
"Chuck Fager’s transition from a conservative Catholic, pro-military youth to an active peace witness and a lengthy period of “spiritual formation” among progressive Quakers...a special religious coming of age in the mid-1970s...in a continuing time of tumult and change."

"The result is both a compelling story of our time, and the narrative of a unique personal quest for meaning, transcendence, and a useful life."

Yes, no, and maybe not.

I've finished the book. Chuck does deliver some intriguing stories from his life as he promised. Kudos for that.

And at times, stories of his intellectual quest do come through clearly. His account of professor Milton Mayer of the University of Chicago is powerful and moving.

Furthermore, Chuck's recounting of those radical days of the late 60's and early 70's, and his involvement, will bring back many memories of that best of times, worst of times.

But overall this book appears to be at first-read weaker than some of his other books. Unlike those, this one seems fragmentary, more of a starting outline. There are key stories like wall pegs; now hang deep personal reflections on them.

Yes, the book has up appealing and shocking stories, but Chuck doesn't show how they relate to his interior life, doesn't put them in the context of his personal life, and doesn't reflect on them in relationship to his spiritual belief and life.

The reader feels unconnected and is filled with many questions unanswered.

For instance, there is the fascinating story of his discovering a missal like the ones of his childhood.

But after the very detailed nuanced narrative of how he comes across the book at the Saint Vincent de Paul thrift store, he just leaves the aged ritual book stuck on a shelf in a plastic bag.

We don't know how he felt and thought about religious ritual, and Catholic ritual especially, about how filled with superstition it seems, about it relationship to Church history, about cannon law, about hell and purgatory in relationship to himself and all humans.

This is so unlike his recent posts on the same sexuality controversy in North Carolina Yearly Meeting, where even in those brief blog posts, Chuck ferrets out the motives, reasonings, etc. of the not-so Friendly leaders in that tribulation, that ocean of darkness.

Here's another particular example of a disconnected story from Chuck's book:
Suddenly, half way through his autobiography, we learn that his wife, Tish, has a severe drinking problem, and he moves out. Then he speaks of his own "sin."

Wait a minute!

We readers didn't even know he had met a girl, gotten married, had a kid, developed relationship problems, etc.

We have no idea about his views of sexuality.

Or his coming of age as a teen guy in the late 1950's.

Or how his wife developed her alcoholism, and why they couldn't work this out.

Meetings is a short autobiography so Chuck didn't have time or space to go into great detail, but a short 2-page lead-in on his youth and girls, his views on sexuality, and his life relating to women was very necessary.

And we get only a very brief glimpse of his relationship with his mother. And we learn nothing of his relationships with his siblings. We don't know about his views, his ethical and spiritual wrestlings.

All of those aspects are very important in understanding the sudden split, of his moving out to a friend's.

And how did he meet Tish, and their marriage?
Was it a Roman Catholic wedding?
Was she a practicing Catholic?
What were their views on birth control?

And most importantly: What are his reflections of how his spiritual and religious experience relates to his sexuality and marriage?

Then there is a girlfriend, called Sylvia. Again, we have no idea who, why, when or how this relates to his religious life.

Even more importantly, he fails to reflect on all of this and other unexplained vague statements about "sin."

And he mentions having sex after his wife and him split? Does he mean he engaged in fornication?

Does he go to confession? Or not? Why or why not?

At another point in the book, Chuck states that his class ring, "the red and gold band" is much more important than his wedding rings!!

He wrote that the ring took on "much more important" meanings.

Again, as a reader, I am left confused.

We readers don't need lots of private details, but we do need to understand--to feel and experience and think what he did.

I don't expect an autobiographical writer to completely bare his soul or his very private life, but without some details, some description, and extensive inner reflection, the reader is left confused and unmoved.

If Chuck does a revision--
I did about 7 on one of my book after its first edition--
he needs to keep in mind the old very truism of writing:
Show, don't tell.

And in a religious autobiography, REFLECT on your motives, your inner directions, your shadow, and how all parts of your life relate to the spiritual.

And Chuck needs to remember that in many cases, he didn't even tell.

He's right, "any religion that's worth it is built around stories."

And he ought to have added, any religion that's worth it reflects on its stories.

Shows potential.

Evaluation: C-

The Seldom Sought Ideal of Loving Monogamy and Fidelity

Very widespread in the news of the last year were many pro-monogamous efforts and protests for marriage.

Diametrically against such monogamous marriage, at the same time, are all the new movements continuing the emphasis since the 1960's of sexual freedom, multiple sexual partners, even recreational sex, and specifically rejecting monogamy and fidelity.

First, the efforts of same sexual people to receive marriage licenses in all states of the United States, and in countries overseas has been highlighted almost every day. The most dramatic event of the past few months as far as same-sexual monogamy goes was in Ireland, a traditionally religiously conservative country and nation which voted 3 to 1 for same-sexual marriage on May 22nd.

But only a month later, the Supreme Court of the U.S., by a vote of 5 to 4, made same-sexual marriage the law of the land in America as well.

In contrast to all of this support of the ideal of monogamous marriage, it has been something of an ironic contradiction that many conservative Christian leaders (as well as Islamic scholars) have stringently opposed the movement toward the covenant of marriage among gays. Doesn’t it seem odd that these religious leaders would prefer same-sexual people to live in promiscuity or cohabitation rather than in a covenantal relationship?

However, these Christian leaders aren’t primarily thinking about the value of monogamy in this particular case, or of the ideals or emotional needs of same-sexual people, but rather only of the 4 or 5 verses in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament which condemn same-sexual activity as evil, where same sexuality is called an “abomination.” Strong words indeed.

These Christian leaders also have an illusory and fallacious understanding of traditional monogamous marriage as it has existed in past history. Seldom if ever has legal marriage in the past been at all like marriage as idealized by Christian leaders now.

First, most of the leaders portrayed in the Hebrew Bible--covering the historical period beginning in about 2000 BCA--weren’t monogamous by any stretch of biblical interpretation. On the contrary, Jewish leaders were almost all polygamous. Who adhered to an ideal of marriage as promulgated later by Jesus?

Not Abraham or Jacob…or Moses…Certainly NOT David! or Solomon or Gideon or Samson, etc.

King Solomon and a few of his 700 wives and 300 concubines.

There are a few exceptions. An ideal case for life-long monogamous marriage could be made for Ruth and Boaz, and for Isaiah and his wife the prophetess.

"When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. …Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife.” Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study by George Joyce

The New Testament is more ambiguous. Passages do state that leaders need to be the husband of one wife, but scholars disagree as to whether that meant that the lay members of Christians churches could be polygamous or not.
Generally, marriage tended to be looked upon as a sometime negative necessity to deal with sexual desire. According to the Apostle Paul, the ideal (and most useful way of life since the end of the world was soon) was celibacy. Paul even stated, that “it is better not to touch a woman” but because of immorality, leaders should allow marriage.

And he further clarified, “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9

In Christian history from Paul to the present, Christianity varied in its attitude toward marriage.
Martin Luther permitted the German leader Phillip I of Hesse to be married to two women (bigamy), but tried to keep the polygamous marriage a secret.

Elsewhere Luther said, "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459.)



Some other Christian leaders at the time also permitted polygamy such as Phillip Melanchthon or they even promoted and participated including the Lutheran leader Carlstadt and the Anabaptist leader Bhernhard Rothmann.

The most infamous case was King Henry the VIII who practiced serial polgamy, 6 wives in a row, 2 of whom he beheaded. Oddly, even a Puritan leader supported polygamy, the poet John Milton. And, of course, there are the infamous examples from history such as the Mormon leaders Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

Generally though, monogamy and celibacy were the two accepted views of Christian history, though scholars disagree about whether monogamy itself comes mostly from the Bible or from Roman law and custom since Catholic matrimonial law came from Roman law as well. The Romans were officially monogamous, though in actual practice men could have concubines and affairs.

The actual facts of history don’t support the sacred ritual of Christian marriage as modern American Christians claim. There never was in wide practice such an institution that Christians now say gays are destroying. Many, probably most, marriages in history weren’t at all like the conception of ‘traditional marriage’ as conceived by conservative Christians in modern America.

First, most marriages in the past were arranged--even forced--marriages not freely-chosen loving, life-long relationships. Read a few articles by women leaders of the 19th century to get a more accurate perspective. For example, wives in the 19th century couldn’t vote, couldn’t own property, often were ordered to obey their husbands, etc. Marriage was all very patriarchal.

Furthermore, many marriages among the upper levels of society were mainly for political, cultural, and social purposes, and had very little to do with marriage as understood in modern America or in Genesis as explained by Jesus.

But all of this has an even stranger twist in that many of the millions of Christians who stridently oppose same- sexual marriage actually practice or allow divorce!

Divorce is more often condemned in Scripture and Christian history than homosexual relations. It destroys relationships, harms children, and is so tragic. (This, of course, is in no way a condemnation of those who, despite their best efforts, experienced a tragic divorce. My only point here is that Christians who accept divorce yet condemn same-sexual individuals who want to marry as evil are being hypocritical.)

This seems to show an amazing amount of irony and seeming hypocrisy. For instance, the Barna Research Group reports two of the groups with the highest divorce rate are conservative Christians and Baptists! At least 29 to 34% of such Christians have chosen divorce, some more than once.

The story is considerably different in the case of Islam which has always permitted—even condoned--multiple wives. Muhammad himself after the death of his first wife married his adopted son's newly divorced wife, married a 6-year-old girl (according to historians, Muhammmad consummated the marriage when she was 9), married others for political alliances, was given a concubine by an Ethiopian Christian leader, etc.

And in Shia Islam, there is temporary marriage, temporary wives. It is called the Nkiah al-mutah, a brief legal marriage of at least 3 days, 3 months, or one year (basically short-term legal prostitution).

Into this current mix of a mess related to marriage, comes something even more bizarre—the recent promotion of polyamory by some Christian leaders, even those who hold strongly to creedal Christianity!!

In polyamory, sexual relations occur with multiple persons among a group of friends or acquaintances, but according to the promoters, these multiple sexual relations are, allegedly, based in Christ's love. Like God is a multiple Trinity, so then Christ-followers can or ought to model this by having multiple sexual partners!

This outlook differs from traditional polygamy (and in a few societies, polyandry) in that no marriage license is involved and generally the relationships aren’t necessarily long term and sexual partners are with each other in a group.

The Christian promoters and others call polyamory, "ethical non-monogamous."

Very immoral. Polyamory seems to be another case of convoluted, self-deceived theological rationalizations.

Okay, enough of that.


The huge question is why on the one hand—very positive--are many same-sexual individuals seeking the sacred outlook of monogamous marriage?

while in contrast

many others are disparaging monogamy and fidelity,
and choosing, instead, multiple sexual relationships
of various forms?

Even sensitive and reflective leaders such as the thoughtful humanist and atheist Neil Carter support “recreational sex.” The famous psychologist, Dr. Eric Berne, originator of Transactional Analysis, also wrote positively of recreational sex. As did the Alan Watts, the British born philosopher and Zen Buddhism
scholar: “I do not believe that I should be passionately in love with my partner…and still less, married.
For there is a special and humanizing delight in erotic friendships with no strings attached…
My life would be much, much poorer were it not for certain particular women with whom I have
most happily and congenially committed adultery…”
Alan Watts

This, of course, is about as far as one can get from the ideal of life-long fidelity in a loving monogamous marriage.

Once again: With the exception of some same-sexual individuals who have campaigned for years for the right to marry,
why is the sacred view of monogamous marriage fragmenting away with millions of others?


Let's close with a positive example of loving monogamy
from literature:

When thinking of loving monogamy, consider Roman and Grace, a Spokane Indian couple.
He is standing close to her with his basketball between them, as if the ball represents the expectant infant
they will soon create…

“Michael Jordan is coming back again,” he said.

“You can’t fool me,” said Grace. “I heard it. That was just a replay.”

“Yeah, but I wish he was coming back again. He should always come back.”

“Don’t let it give you any crazy ideas.”

Roman pulled the basketball away and leaned even closer to Grace. He loved her, of course, but better than that, he chose her, day after day.

Choice: that was the thing. Other people claimed that you can't choose who you love—it just happens!—but Grace and Roman knew that was a bunch of happy horseshit.

Of course you chose who you loved. If you didn't choose, you ended up with what was left—the drunks and abusers, the debtors and vacuums, the ones who ate their food too fast or had never read a novel. Damn, marriage was hard work, was manual labor, and unpaid manual labor at that.

Yet, year after year, Grace and Roman had pressed their shoulders against the stone and rolled it up the hill together.

In their marriage bed, Roman chose Grace once more and brushed his lips against her ear."

From “Saint Junior”

by Sherman Alexie

--

To be continued--

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Part #3: You Have Been Our Dwelling Place in All Generations—Long Moral Arc

We left off last week admitting…

What a great demonic ocean of darkness still holds sway in the world, in existence.

Where, indeed, is God in a world traumatized by natural disaster and disease and destruction? Where is Jesus’ delivering “moral arc” when millions of humans wreak havoc, harm, and slaughter?

Sure, sometimes in the midst of the suffering and the shame, a rainbow of justice, mercy, and truth does spangle the moral sky.

When Martin Luther King Jr. took up Theodore Parker’s statement for one of his anti-segregation articles in 1958 and later heralded out the prophecy in one of his famous speeches,
all heaven did begin to break loose in U.S.

And America has never been the same.

People, millions of individuals, were changed. Justice and mercy kissed, however briefly.

Yes, King’s witness for God’s love in Jesus, the Chosen, did help transform so much of how we thought and how we acted in the 1950s and 60s.

Except, of course,Wrong has lashed back since. While there is less overt racism now—thank Divine Love and human freedom and the great leaders of the Civil Rights Movement—YET so much other havoc and hell now
wrecks destruction upon many millions.

Almost 50 years after King’s ethical speeches, the condition, overall, of African-Americans is worse today. For instance, in 2013, 72% of African-American infants are born to single unwed mothers!

Where are the husbands? Where are the fathers?

WHERE?

As bad as life was back in 1965, only 24% of African-American babies were born outside of a marriage covenant then.
WHY the drastic change downward?

Currently, young African American men are nearly 6 times as likely to die from homicide as Caucasian young men. Why?
Since the start of the Afghan War, 2000 Americans have died in Afghanistan, but over 5,000 have died in Chicago!

Can’t we get a heart? Can’t God hear our cry? Doesn’t God weep?

How has Martin Luther King’s great moral dream turned into a frightful nightmare?

Even becoming religious or spiritual doesn’t necessarily seem to help. On the contrary, sometimes being a Christian appears to make matters worse. Consider that the Barna Research Group found “born-again Christians divorce more often than non-Christians,” and that Atheists have “the lowest divorce rate.”

So do we need to abandon faith to increase the moral arc?!

Let’s not even look at all the other worse destruction in the world and around the rest of the globe, especially not in the abysses of the East or Africa.

Indeed, why does the rough beast always slouch through humankind endlessly?

For the last 50,000 years at least, humans have been faced with ethical choice—with the spiritual battle between good and evil.

At this point, most readers will probably now expect this long article (in 4 parts) to give a quick spiritual and biblical fix to all this endless horror of many thousands of years. That’s how religious reflections usually end—with a sure confident answer to why God hasn’t brought the Good News to triumph, why the words of Revelation at the end of Scripture haven’t come to pass, why so often faith drastically fails, actually destroys, and utterly so.

Check out these words from the last chapter of the Bible: “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord...

That was 2,000 years ago! Many horrendous bloodletting centuries ago. Billions of humans have suffered and died.

Too long.

Have You been our dwelling place in all generations?


To be continued

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox