Comments on: Conservatism and Sex

By: Patrik

Patrik — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:23:05 +0000

Well..

The fact of the matter is that the desert fathers say almost nothing on sex. What that say is more about marriage and family (something they would reject.

But we must be a bit more precise. I would argue that we in fact have little to learn form antiquity regarding sex – sex then was so different from now. To have sex then always ment risking her life (in childbirth). There would always be a bit of death in it. Can we grasp what this means?

However, I do think we have a lot to learn from their view of the body, and this of course is very important in order to create a sounder view of sexuality today.

By: d. stephen long

d. stephen long — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:03:19 +0000

I agree with Charlie Collier. I’m unsure the terms conservative/progressive do much, if anything, in our contemporary political situation. Take for example this statement pasted below from the “TEC Chicago Consultation,” which is basically the remnant of Seabury Western Seminary, dedicated to the full inclusion of GBLT and opposing the Anglican Covenant. Is this a ‘conservative’ or ‘progressive’ statement? I think it is both. It “conserves” the “progressive” orientation of the American experience that everything up to this present moment cannot serve us well and must be subject to critique, rethought and made relevant to the ‘modo’ the ‘just now,’ which is almost here but never quite arrives.

I also agree with the worry about ‘constantinianism’ amongst the Anglicans and the RO folk. It is one place I would differ significantly. In fact, I don’t think we should be surprised that a church that still practices investiture faces a significant crisis at the end of Christendom. That Milbank has now argued for an intrinsic connection between sex and reproduction is one of the most hopeful signs of overcoming this legacy. It was after all Adam Smith who said the rich get richer and the poor get children.

“The Episcopal Church was founded shortly after the American Revolution. In keeping with that democratic tradition, the Church’s constitution and canons and its historical polity provide us with both the strength and stability of the General Convention’s governing and legislative processes as well as the local ability for dioceses to discern and elect the bishops who can best serve them and make other decisions about their common life. We believe that these canons have served us well, are essential to the Church’s continued health and bind together the strongest elements of our common spiritual heritage and tradition of democracy.”

By: Charlie Collier

Charlie Collier — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:29:32 +0000

Milbank says he’s theologically conservative, and I doubt there’s a solid defense of some other position. “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you . . .” This is intrinsically conservative, no? Or should we defend handing on something other than the gospel? Of course, what was handed on to Paul was apocalyptic, so it’s no good to contrast theological conservatism with apocalyptic openness. What’s at stake here is the meaning of the gospel that is to be conserved, not labels. Politically, Milbank is certainly no conservative. Red Toryism is one political expression of radical orthodoxy—a oxymoronic descriptor meant to alert us to the fact that they want to change the terms of the debate. Moreover, I’m not sure Milbank self-identifies as a Red Tory. That’s Philip Blond’s thing. Lastly, I agree that Milbank is deeply Constantinian, but that hardly distinguishes contemporary conservatives, theological or political. The liberal Episcopalians who celebrate openness and diversity are, I suspect, every bit as Constantinian as Milbank; if not in the church-state sense, then certainly in the “my side needs to win and rule” sense.

By: dan

dan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:33:34 +0000

(Um, to be clear, I’ve wondered the same thing as you, Michael, and not the same thing as Hill’s objection to you.)

By: dan

dan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:32:45 +0000

I’ve wondered the same thing, Michael.

By: Hill

Hill — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:03:56 +0000

Because conservative sexual ethics and “Constantinianism” are part and parcel of the same thing? I’m sorry, but trying to paint Milbank as a run of the mill “conservative” is a heinously uncharitable reading of him.

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:28:09 +0000

mmmmm…

Not a lot of sex going on in the desert. Probably lots of fantasy in hairshirt…?

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:26:12 +0000

I’ll check with the Vatican and get back to you.

By: roger flyer

roger flyer — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:24:13 +0000

Aha…I think this gets to the root of a lot of this. We want to save ourselves by our good behavior, our good doctrine, our piety.

Homosexuality, grace, ‘openness to encounter’–these are all messy and scary deals–and screw up our program for salvation and justification.

By: Michael Westmoreland-White

Michael Westmoreland-White — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:52:09 +0000

I disagree with your main point. I detected Milbank’s conservatism from the get-go while folks like Hauerwas were gushing over him. Milbank’s conservatism is shown in his preference for Constantinian church-state arrangements, his defense of violence, his antipathy toward liberation movements (no matter if nonviolent), his belief that all interfaith dialogue is a path to syncretism and a surrender of the unique claims of the gospel, etc. His conservatism on sex is just the latest manifestation.

By: Doug Harink

Doug Harink — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:26:55 +0000

Kim, I recognize that they “do not wail in unison.” But your point about “the body [as] a contested site” is the one I want to make. They saw better than we do that sex and food and possessions are exactly those sites upon which the cosmic war between Flesh and Spirit is being engaged. Only in this light does a discussion of these matters become Christian — everything else is just Christian blather that makes no real difference (in discussions of sexuality) either to “traditional family values” or to the liberal sexual imperative. Further, if they enable us to see that these are sites of the cosmic war between Flesh and Spirit, then we are also able to see that you cannot talk about sex and food without talking about war, and vice versa. The notion (as Paul would have it, above) that we should stop talking about (relatively unimportant) things like sex, and get on with talking about the important things like torture and war, is ludicrous. The wars on the large scale simply mirror the wars within, and vice versa. The desert fathers and mothers knew that — as did Augustine.

By: JM

JM — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:18:37 +0000

So, if one wanted to get a grasp on sex in the desert, where would one go? Is there a monograph on the topic or where do I go in their writings, or both?

By: bruce hamill

bruce hamill — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 01:29:32 +0000

even the rhythm and meter of it was beautiful

By: Halden

Halden — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:39:49 +0000

Well, in that case…

By: Hill

Hill — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:31:36 +0000

It also includes references to The Dark Knight.