Come in! Come in!

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a Hope-er, a Pray-er, a Magic Bean buyer; if you're a pretender, come sit by my fire. For we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!" -- Shel Silverstein

Monday, February 26, 2007

More Divine Sandpaper . . .

Meet Daniel Hayden Martins, self-described 'Anglican' priest (but I believe was ordained in The Episcopal Church) rector of St. Johns, Stockton, CA, married man and father of three grown children.

He also has a Blog (I mean, doesn't everybody?), entitled, "Confessions of a Carioca." While Dan is far more articulate and theolgoical than most of the neo-Puritan, conservative, orthodox evangelical bloggers and therefore often more a 'steel hand in a velvet glove' in his approach, one would still be wise to "mind the gap" in charity whilst reading the comments section of this blog.


You may remember previous posts I've written which include a quote Dan made on the floor of General Convention 2006 which he really wishes I'd forget. I won't repeat it because he tells me it causes him pain, but it was absolutely unforgettable.

He also posted a question, which is often his way, on HOB/D this morning, in which he asked:

I would like to know where Scripture positively says that homosexual genital sex is approved. Obviously, I have missed it.


Well, and didn't a wee bit of Divine Sandpaper fall right down from the heavens once again? I had to respond:

Is there anywhere in Scripture that positively says that heterosexual genital sex is approved - other than that which ultimately leads to procreation?

It seems to me (but, again, I do not have a KJV of the bible, and no one from the Right to interpret it for me), that the only positive view Scripture has of heterosexual genital sex is for the reproduction of offspring.

Isn't this the basis, in fact, for the Roman Catholic theology of sexual activity and the sole idea for marriage? Isn't this why, theologically, there are no "reproductive rights" for Roman Catholics?

Careful here, Don, 'lest you inadvertently steer TEC (and, indeed, the Anglican Communion) closer yet across the Tiber and lead us to say that the only heterosexual genital sex allowed among "orthodox Anglicans" is that which leads to procreation.

Whatever will you and millions and billions and trillions and bazillions of Anglicans do except to pack your bags and leave straight away to hell for your eternal damnation?


Is my natural grain starting to show yet?

6 comments:

Bill said...

Does this mean that you are going to have to register your private parts? And then before we have sex we’ll have to pass a test and describe the exact passage in scripture that allows our particular kind of genital intimacy. That’s going to pour cold water on a lot of hot moments. And what if your dyslexic or a bad test taker, you may never be able to copulate. We’ll if that’s what it takes, I’m off to do some biblical research.

Jack said...

Nah...I think you were right to say it. You should be like me this lent. I "added" something rather than removed. For the lenten period, rather than hold my tongue with respect to GLBT issues : I am speaking out. In the past I have been to willing to "be nice" but the gloves are off and I am engaging people who challenge the full inclusion of GLBT folks.

Wayne said...

Bingo, E.

Bill -- check out that wacky law proposed in WA (State), requiring married couples, basically, to either breed or begone.

Bill said...

Hi Wayne,

WOW, required breeding! Now that's really going to get them the women's vote. The sheep will be safe at last.

Dermot said...

Dear Elizabeth

I stumbled on your blog today and hope I may be able to give an answer to your question: "Is there anywhere in Scripture that positively says that heterosexual genital sex is approved - other than that which ultimately leads to procreation?"

The answer is 'Yes' in both OT and NT.
The origin of sexual relations in Gen 2 is predicated on God’s observation that “it is not good for the man to be alone” (v18). It is remarkable that the purpose of sexual relationship is stated to be as a remedy for loneliness, not a means of procreation. The description of leaving/ cleaving/ becoming one flesh is predicated entirely on the relational aspect – the procreational is not even mentioned.

Then in the NT, Paul gives some sublime teaching on sexuality in
1 Cor 7:3ff. He says, “The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.” The mutuality and balance of the teaching are remarkable. Then he continues, “Do not deprive each other” [of sexual relations] except on three conditions:
(i) by mutual consent
(ii) for a limited time
(iii) for some higher purpose, such as devoting time to prayer.
”Then come together again ….”

Again there is no mention whatever of procreation. The language is of ‘deprivation’ from one of the privileges of marriage, if the sexual dimension is missing. The teaching is entirely relational, not procreational.

It is important to note that in both the OT and NT passages the context is between husband and wife.

Incidentally it distresses me (as a member of the Church of Ireland) to see the unChristian attitudes expressed on both sides of this debate. I hope you will accept my contribution as being offered in a spirit of love.

Dermot O'Callaghan

Paul (A.) said...

To answer Dan's question, it's the passage immediately following the one where God forbids same-sex marriages.