Pontificator's reply to my article on sexuality had more than 100 comments. It was a thoughtful and magnanimous critique of my understanding of sexuality. I have agreed, however, not to talk about sex, so I will refrain from mentioning sex itself. Instead, a few theological notes [another attempt at a prolegomena].
Pontificator says that I have discarded the Christian tradition, finding it has little to teach us about sexuality. His point is too strong. I think that historic Christianity, the church fathers, and Paul and Jesus have seeded a very unusual way of relating to people and institutions, both inside and outside the institution of marriage. Through the sacraments, through scripture, and through our church, the virtues offered by the church catholic have been good anchors for our love and freedom in Christ. I affirm that truth is one; and I affirm that the generals of catholic christianity are correct; the particulars are worked out in the life of the church.
The view towards the ancients is a bias, not a truth, just as the view towards the future is a bias as well. The liberal orthodox practice is one of critical engagement, not blind acceptance.
Liberals assume that there has been a severe rupture bewteen our contemporary culture and the culture assumed in scripture. God has given us tools to handle these changes - but they are tools that are rational and reasonable [Romans 12:1-2], human reflections of the divine, not divine laws. These changes have been caused by the growth of capitalism, abetted by technology, which has liberated desire in a multiplicity of forms. Liberals and conservatives can agree that actions have consequences. But actions in this age have different consequences than before.
Freedom for the Christian has never been a liberation of desire [as the epicureans or hedonists], nor a liberation from desire [as the buddhists or gnostics do]. Freedom has meant the integration of desire in a way that serves the church and God. This is exemplified by Paul's view of heterosexual marriage, food sacrificed to idols and his emphasis upon mutual submission.
Liberals draw limits by affirming that promises should be kept [otherwise, even the structure of language is undermined and talk and practice become impossible], and that property should be shared in such a way that all Israel [and the church] may enjoy the fruits and abundance of God's creation.
I also think that important acts - of any sort - communicate a variety of meanings. They do not, and cannot, communicate a single meaning. Thus, some acts communicate hostility and greed in one context; they communicate love and joy in another.
The catholic tradition exists, in part, to protect the souls of children and women in a world that can be very hostile toward the weak, the marginalized, and the principled.
Obedience to the Word of God may require contradicting the tradition used to interpret it.
The risks ECUSA takes can only be made with the Grace of God. Otherwise, it may be condemned.
Some Christians may have always believed ideas x,y and z, about the structure of the world; such beliefs may be no different than what a secularist, a pagan, or a muslim believes. But things x, y, and z may not be distinctive, or necessary, for Christianity to be true.
Baptized believers are called to assume the best intentions of each another.