hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (05/06/91)
By now many of you know that the upcoming (June) General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is going receive a report from a special committee on human sexuality. I've already summarized the majority report in a comment I made on a posting yesterday. I'd like to make a couple of personal comments that are more appropriate under my own name than as moderator. First, Jennifer Irani seems to think that the GA is going to be asked to endorse liberal policies on sexuality. It is not. The majority report calls for three things: (1) a set of actions that are noncontroversial, at least within the PCUSA, (2) approval of the reports (majority and minority) for study by individual congregations and other groups, (3) a set of actions that are based on the report, which are being referred for action by the GA that meets in 1993, i.e. after the proposed study. So what the GA is actually being asked to do is primarily to get the churches to study the issues. I think this is the right thing to do. It's hard to predict what will happen. While the PCUSA is among the more "liberal" denominations, I believe there are things in the report that the church will find unacceptable. Indeed I know of one incident of negative personal consequences for one of the authors of the report, in a part of the country that is relatively liberal. (I am reluctant to be more specific, because I don't know whether the information is public. I will probably be in a position to be more specific in a week or so.) The PCUSA as an institution takes a somewhat "flexible" view of Scripture. We are willing to consider that Paul's advice to 1st Cent. churches may not apply to us. My own position is a fairly radical one: I believe that Christians are not under laws, either OT Law, or laws derived from Paul's advice. Thus I believe that Christian ethics must be constructed from Christian principles, such as love of our neighbor. The majority report is a very interesting attempt to do exactly this. They proceed from principles such as fidelity to commitments, and a justice based on mutual responsibility. Thus I start out being sympathetic to the way the committee proceeded. Indeed some of their detailed analysis is valuable. However I have some problems with the results. First, the results sound suspiciously like "situation ethics". This was an attempt to get rid of rules, saying that Christianity means to act in each situation as lovingly as possible. While this sounds good, there are some problems with it. Most seriously, it produces an ethics that fails to do one of the most important things ethics should do: provide guidelines that protect us against the tendency to rationalize things that we want to do. There are actions that seem very attractive, but which have bad long-run consequences. One of the purposes of ethics is to consider actions and their consequences in advance, and allow us to make judgements calmly, in advance of the situation and in conjunction with other people who have more experience. Reducing ethics to "do what looks loving" is an abdication of this responsibility to do careful ethical analysis. It also makes relationships based on long-term commitment impossible, since at any moment it may seem more loving to ignore the commitment. Now I don't believe the committee actually intended to recommend such an empty ethics. In some areas they did manage to produce solid ethical analysis. The best example was their analysis of the sexual responsibility of pastors and other leaders, e.g. whether it is appropriate to have sexual relations with a member of the congregation. (Their answer was: only with the most careful safeguards, and they gave some examples of what this means.) The problem is that they did not apply such careful analysis to every area, and they were apparently not sufficiently self-critical to realize this. Thus the report has the effect of demolishing traditional restrictions and not doing the work necessary to put something in their place. It may of course be that the committee and I simply disagree about what an adequate replacement for traditional restrictions would be. But I am simply not convinced that there is no difference in sexual expression appropriate within and without marriage. This gets to my second basic problem with the report. The report is based on the concept that all people are sexual beings, and have a right to express themselves sexually. Those who are not engaging in intercourse are assumed to express themselves sexually by masturbation. This approach is portrayed as a corrective for the tendency of Christians to consider sex as "dirty". I agree that Christians need to consider the positive value of sex, and that the Reformed tradition is correct in not limiting its purpose to procreation. However the idea that everyone is sexually active seems to me an unnecessarily narrow view of what it means to be sexual beings. Using the kind of analysis that the committee uses elsewhere, I believe it can be shown that there is a great danger that sex outside committed relationships such as marriage will turn out to be exploitative. I'm willing to consider that a proper analysis might identify situations outside of marriage where sexual relations are appropriate. But they have not done such an analysis. The most serious problem I see with the report is that it didn't deal adequately with the problem of homosexuals within the church. After all, this is the primary actual issue that the GA needs to deal with. There is certainly a section on homosexuality in the report. Some of what is says is useful, although I agree with the minority report that the analysis of Rom 1 that they quote from Robin Scroggs has its problems. (The minority report, on the other hand, blows the analysis of Gen 19.) But the big problem with the report is that it doesn't make any attempt to look in detail at homosexual relationships. What bothers me about the majority report is that it shows no signs of having looked at what kinds of relationships gay and lesbian Christians actually engage in. I would have expected the committee to make an effort at presenting statistical evidence, case studies, or something like that. Are people thinking only of the homosexual equivalent of marriage? Are we being asked to endorse gay sex clubs? What? It seems to me unreasonable for the committee to ask us to endorse a lifestyle without giving us some idea of what it is like and what its consequences are. I think for example that it would be easier to get the PCUSA to accept homosexual relationships that seem analogous to marriage than to give a broad endorsement that would seem to include promiscuous behavior of all kinds. Would the homosexuals within the PCUSA consider that a good stand for us to take? The report gives us no idea. Frankly I find some of the comments in the minority report both more realistic and more helpful. It's interesting that press attention has focused mostly on the majority report. What I find *really* interesting is how far the conservative minority was willing to go. I found their analysis of whether homosexuality is innate, and their summary of attempts at "converting" very useful. (In summary, they concluded that changing orientation is a long, painful process with a fairly low success rate, and there are some reasons to doubt how successful the "successes" are.) I'll end with a summary of the issue from the minority report. "One thing that seems clear to us, is that there is something in the human spirit that seems to work best in monogamous, covenantal relationships. Many people whose sexual orientation is toward those of the same gender are not promiscuous and are living together responsibly and faithfully -- and at least as permanently -- as many people who are living in a heterosexual marriage. Even though a majority of people within our church, and most people in society at large, do not seem ready to affirm homosexual marriages, still it is our opinion that monogamous, conventional [I think they mean covenantal --clh] relationships are better than the pitfalls of promiscuity and ought to be affirmed in some way. ... The entire special committee unanimously agrees that hatred, exploitation, violence and scorn directed against gay and lesbian persons, ... is sin. There needs to be a continuation of work and prayer for more understanding on all sides of this issue. We are united in affirming that our churches should welcome gay and lesbian persons into the membership of the church, providing a safe haven against bigotry, and offering ministries of love and nurture which take them seriously as persons. Some of us believe that one day, after we have done this, and when more of us have come to know some gay and lesbians as real persons, then the question of ordination will finally be settled, one way or the other, from the grass roots up, rather than from the General Asssembly down."
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (05/07/91)
In reading about the PCUSA report on human sexuality, I wonder if the most basic problem is a perceived societal unwillingness to use the religious "s" word -- sin. From day one, Christians have maintained that: (1) all of us are sinful, BUT (2) that sin is, thanks to Christ, FORGIVABLE. I've thought a lot about "how evil works" in this world, and one way, be it with, promiscuity, drugs or gangs, it seems like a "1-2" punch. First, one is seduced into believing that what one is going to do is "perfectly ok" certainly "not sinful" ... then after the trap has been set ... one is told that there is "no forgiveness" ... "you're evil ... you have to live with it." Both are completely against what Christianity is about. There is *always* the *possibility* of forgiveness. It is *not* automatic, but redemption is *always* possible to even the most despondant of sinners. I can't see how a church can tell a pair of teenagers that sex at their age can *ever* be "responsible" ... But I would hope that the various pastors/priests/and other ministers of the faith would make it clear that despite that, Christ will always love them, and (hopefully) the Church will always love them, and that the door will *always* be open should they want to *come back* dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu [No, the authors of the report are perfectly willing to use the term "sin". However they use it for different things than you do. They identify things as wrong when they involve exploitation, lack of responsible consent, violation of promises, and other criteria. Their claim is not that there is no sin. Rather they reject the traditional criteria the define it primarily by formal criteria such as whether people are married. Instead they want to look at whether the particular actions are responsible, with a definition of responsible that involves various considerations of mutuality, consent, etc. As you may know, I have some problems with their analysis, but it's an oversimplification to say that they are afraid to call things sinful. --clh]
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (05/07/91)
OFM gave us a fairly extensive meta-report. He also expressed disappointment over the lack of reporting upon homosexual relationships in the church. The UMC has also had a committee studying a church controversy. This study has been specifically on Homosexuality. No official report has been handed down, and no official vote has been taken, however a straw poll taken recently indicates that a majority of the committee will recommend that the denomination remove the ban against ordaining "self-professed practicing homosexuals". This would be an ammendment to "The Discipline" of the UMC, to remove wording that was added back in '72 as I recall. It would not take place until "General Conference" which will be in '92. Although everything is *very* unofficial at this point, a minor uproar is starting and will no doubt grow. (I'm looking forward to passionate debates at my Annual Conference again this year. (* Heavy Sigh *)) Already, protests have been lodged, and the AFA is lobbying delegates to Annual Conferences (such as myself), and possible delegates to General Conference to try and influence the election of delegates this year, and the vote next year. (Delegates are sent from each "Annual Conference" to "Jurisdictional Conferences" and to the "General Conference". It will be these delgates to GC that will decide whether or not to amend "The Discipline" and if so how. ("The Discipline" is not holy writ, it is a document governing the running of the denomination. Like, what is the responsibility of the trustees of the local congregation. And how are officers to be elected. And how are clergy to be ordained.)) It's my understanding that Roberts wrote his "Rules of Order" in an attempt to bring order to church meetings he had the misfortune to chair. The more church meetings I attend, the more I understand. In case anyone has any specific questions, I probably don't have any answers. (Well, maybe one or two, but you get the idea. I'm still pretty much in the dark in this one. This much I know, Once again [as in the PCUSA report] the minority opinion is surprising in its acceptance.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
randy@uutopia.dell.com (Randy Price) (05/07/91)
I have heard a variety of _opinions_ of what the PCUSA report says. Does anyone have an electronic copy or an inclination to input the whole report? The variety of opinion leads me to believe that the report is not clear cut. Randy -- ________________________________________________________ Randy Price randy@uutopia.dell.com The opinions are my own, not my employers, cognito. "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?" Thomas Jefferson [In answer to another request, I'm going to post information on where to get a copy. It's over 100 pages. I don't think that's appropriate for a posting... --clh]
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/10/91)
When Paul said that we were not under law, he did not tell us to "continue in sin that grace may abound." This saying "not under law" can be taken out of context (of the Torah.) In I Corinthians 9, Paul explained that when he was among them without law, he bacame as one without law, not as being without law to God, but under the Law of Christ.) James describes our law as the "law of liberty." But notice in the letter in Acts which explained that we were not under the Law, we are given certain commands. No idolatry, no fornication, no eating blood. We should keep ourselves from sexual immorality. Unfortunately, there were some in the early church who did not believe this. From what I have read, there was a group in the early church called the Nicolatians who as a take-off on Paul's preaching of liberty said that it was okay for Christians to worsip idols and commit fornication, because God would forgive it. They are mentioned in Scripture. Revelation 2:14-16 This is Jesus speaking, "Nevertheless, I have a few thinngs against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by commiting sexual immoralit. Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitians. Repent therefore! Otherwise I will son come to you and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." Jesus coming against them with the sword of his mouth. Why could he not do this today? Also read Peter's discussion of the "way of Balaam" In II PETER 2. Notice that it would have been better for those who turned from the gospel to these teachings to never have known the way of righteousness. It reminds me of the parable of the servant who knew the lord was returning and began to eat and dring with the drunken and beat his fellow servants. The servant who did not know was beaten with fewer stripes. I think we can conclude that the one who turns from the truth to following the way of Balaam will have a greater damnation than the one who never recieved the gospel. Think about it.
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) (05/10/91)
>understanding on all sides of this issue. We are united in affirming >that our churches should welcome gay and lesbian persons into the >membership of the church, providing a safe haven against bigotry, and >offering ministries of love and nurture which take them seriously as >persons. Some of us believe that one day, after we have done this, >and when more of us have come to know some gay and lesbians as real >persons, then the question of ordination will finally be settled, one >way or the other, from the grass roots up, rather than from the >General Asssembly down." There is a statement of Paul in I Corinthians 6 that is not a law. It is stated as a fact. Paul states that fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. This is not stated as a law for us to follow, but it is simply stated as a fact. It is clear that God condemns the acts of forniction, adultery, and homosexuality. In I Corinthians 5, Paul writes of a man who has his father's wife. Paul said to cut this person from fellowship and to "deliver him to Satan." In the Old Testament, sleeping with one's step-mother had the same pnalty as homosexuality.....death. Now let us look at verses 9-11. "I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexualy immoral people- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat." Should we allow homosexuals or fornicators or adulterers into the church? Certainly not! Should we ordain them? II Peter 2 goes into detail about teachers who teach others to live immorally. I think this would especially fit with one such person as these who teaches that his acts are okay. If we accept people into the church who live lives such as these, and openly admit it, we are profaning the name of Christ. We are dragging Christ through the mud. Thank you.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/10/91)
In article <May.7.00.25.55.1991.14554@athos.rutgers.edu> kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) writes:
+
+I can't see how a church can tell a pair of teenagers that sex at
+their age can *ever* be "responsible" ... But I would hope that the
As a matter of fact, this age seems to be the one at varience with
the past. In previous times 'teen-agers' were married and
contributing to the society. But now that is considered
inappropriate, but essentially left no alternative to the sexual
motivations in the young. As for family orientation, once a long
time ago I work on a youth hot line. It was constant source of
amazement to me to hear a young girl complaining that 1) she was
pregnant 2) the parents in a fit of self-righteousness told her to
leave("we don't want you to corrupt your sister"). I don't hear
parents saying much different today. You may 'encourage' the
behavior you want, but it seems when your efforts fail the angry is
all that remains.
It is no surpise to me that in this environment which emphasizes
'chasity' so much, and the consequences of not measuring up so
greate that 1) young woman want abortions 2) young men deny
culpability. The young women who have continued their pregnancy
inspite of social ostricism and get support from parents are often
not likely to repeat the process. The ones who get tossed, often end
up in the endless cycle of finding someone to take care of them, get
pregnant and tossed again.
Of course you may not see it since those who wind up in this state
usually do not go to church or school. So what you don't see is not
a problem. Every once in awhile your reminded by some sensationalist
new report, or some preacher trying to whip up support for why
everything is going to hell in a handbasket.
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
kane@buast7.bu.edu (Brian Kane) (05/13/91)
In article <May.10.03.24.07.1991.6718@athos.rutgers.edu> hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >There is a statement of Paul in I Corinthians 6 that is not a law. It >is stated as a fact. Paul states that fornicators, nor idolators, nor >adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, nor theives, nor ^^^^^^ Why just MALE prostitutes? Female prostitutes are redeemed? Oh by the way, the original Koine Greek of Paul has instead of "male prostitutes, nor homosexuals" the SINGLE WORD "arsenokoitai" which means "male prostitute". How did homosexuals get thrown in there, too? [There's a good deal of uncertainty about the precise meaning of some of the words in Paul's lists. The translation being used by Paul Hudson presumably translates malakoi as "male prostitutes" and arsenokoitai as "homosexuals". This is essentially what NRSV has. RSV tranlates both together (one assumes) simply as "sexual perverts". Gingrich connects both words with homosexuals. Unfortunately my best source on NT Greek (abridged Kittel) cleverly omits both words. (chicken!) I've also heard suggestions that the reference was to the active and passive partners in homosexual sex, as well as suggestions that neither word has anything to do with homosexuality. Only a very optimistic person would claim to know for certain what the meaning is. --clh]
TWPIERCE@amherst.bitnet (Tim Pierce) (05/17/91)
>I think for example that it would be >easier to get the PCUSA to accept homosexual relationships that seem >analogous to marriage than to give a broad endorsement that would seem >to include promiscuous behavior of all kinds. It probably would; however, in addressing this question, there is an implicit assumption that sexual or romantic relationships between people of the same sex are typically more promiscuous than those between people of opposite sex. To clarify that a little bit: suppose that the question was whether _heterosexual_ relationships should be accepted. (A completely imaginary situation.) If someone raised the question about whether "accepting" heterosexual relationships simply meant monogamous or marriage-oriented relationships, or any kind of casual sex, the answer of course would be only the monogamous ones. In fact, the question itself is ridiculous; why is there any reason to believe that "accepting" heterosexual relationships implies condoning any and all heterosexual activity? "The word is love"; what is at stake is whether it is a loving and caring relationship, and not the genders of the participants. Thank you for caring about this issue. -- ____ Tim Pierce / If this bothers you conceptually, \ / BITnet: twpierce@amherst / you are broken and need to be fixed. \/ Internet: twpierce@amherst.edu / -- Robert White (rwhite@jagat.uucp) Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with tapes. [I make no assumption about levels of promiscuity among homosexuals or hetersexuals. Indeed all of the homosexuals that I have known anything about (and it isn't a large number) were living in long-term monogamous relationships. I only point out that I think there's a lot of ignorance and stereotyping, and by not describing more specifically what they mean when they endorse homosexual activity, the authors run the risk of being understood as referring to a different class of activity than they actually intended. --clh]
gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (05/17/91)
The question has been asked, ``Why just MALE prostitutes?'' in I Cor.6. It is possible that Paul here is referring to the male cult prostitutes mentioned in the Old Testament. Unfortunately I can't find the references to them because apparently the King James version called them something else. Anyway this could have meant male religious prostitutes. -- -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) (05/19/91)
>[I make no assumption about levels of promiscuity among homosexuals or >hetersexuals. Indeed all of the homosexuals that I have known >anything about (and it isn't a large number) were living in long-term >monogamous relationships. I only point out that I think there's a lot >of ignorance and stereotyping, and by not describing more specifically >what they mean when they endorse homosexual activity, the authors run >the risk of being understood as referring to a different class of >activity than they actually intended. --clh] I appreciate your sensitivity to the risks of making assumptions, Chuck. About a year ago, I reviewed all 1360 records in my address file at the time, 342 (25%) of which are records of persons I know to be lesbians or gay males. Here's the breakdown, 16 Single & celibate or in hetero marriage; 95 Single with no commitment to celebacy 96 In a committed gay relationship 135 I don't know (mainly professional or organizational associates whom I do not know in a social setting) ===== 342 While I am not clear about the longevity of the relationships of all 96, I estimate 30-40 of those have been together at least 15 years. Over the last two decades I have visited in the home of close to three dozen lesgay couples, and at least of a third of those had been together your magical number of 10 years at the time I visited them; many others passed that number after I visited them. Louie Crew Founder of Integrity, the justice ministry of lesgay Episcopalians Member of the Council, Episcopal Diocese of Newark Editor of the book just out today, _A Book of Revelations: Lesbian and Gay Episcopalians Tell Their Own Stories_, with a foreword by George Hunt, the Bishop of Rhode Island (NYC: Integrity, Inc, 1991, 224 pp.) Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lcrew@draco.rutgers.edu Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147 Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5434 o Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5700 FAX Only a dead fish floats with the current.
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/19/91)
In article <May.17.02.33.48.1991.27786@athos.rutgers.edu> TWPIERCE@amherst.bitnet (Tim Pierce) writes: The moderator writes: +[I make no assumption about levels of promiscuity among homosexuals or +hetersexuals. Indeed all of the homosexuals that I have known +anything about (and it isn't a large number) were living in long-term +monogamous relationships. I only point out that I think there's a lot A book titled 'American Couples' circa 1982 lists average duration of relationship as( in approximate years): Heterosexual non-married 2-3 years Homosexual female 5-6 Homosexual male 7-8 Heterosexual married 15 I have not found another studie which is more recent and has the 'same' categories. I don't have the time to read several different studies and then correlate them with this study. It would seem from the above numbers that Heterosexula non-married is the most ephemeral. The book also noted that homosexual males were able to tolerate a high level of 'non-monogamy'. However the study was done before the AIDS epidemic became well known. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (05/22/91)
In article <May.18.22.54.51.1991.14156@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes:
A book titled 'American Couples' circa 1982 lists average duration of
relationship as( in approximate years):
Heterosexual non-married 2-3 years
Homosexual female 5-6
Homosexual male 7-8
Heterosexual married 15
I'm surprised that gay women had relationships shorter by two years
than gay men, because that doesn't match my experience. But then, who
knows?
The problem is that of the gay relationships cited, certainly some are
committed and supported similarly to the heterosexual marriages, and
some are certainly more akin to the heterosexual unmarried
relationships. We need a breakdown into level of commitment before we
can draw any conclusions. The numbers simply aren't parallel. They
allow us to conclude only that 1) gay relationships are more stable
than unmarried heterosexual ones, on average, and 2) gay relationships
are less stable that married heterosexual ones. But, those statements
are true, probably, of *all* relationships. The average relationship,
overall, is certainly inbetween the two pictures as well.
There *is* less regard for stable relationships in the gay community
(but not so little regard as the pundits on this list seem to think),
and that *is* a problem. But we will never solve it by excluding
them, for it is that exclusion that led to the situation as it is.
-mib
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (05/26/91)
In article <May.22.00.51.15.1991.1598@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes: >In article <May.18.22.54.51.1991.14156@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: + + ... Statistics on duration of relationships..... +Bushnell: +I'm surprised that gay women had relationships shorter by two years +than gay men, because that doesn't match my experience. But then, who +knows? The authors noted the discrepancy. As for my own experience with heterosexual marriages... my wife(marginally Christian) and I(non-Christian) have been married 12 years; her three sisters all divorced and Christian to various degrees. Conclusion, Christians have a greater divorce rate than me. My wife does wedding photos and again a number, (more than 5), were divorce within a few years all 'church' weddings with various degrees of religiousness. To further darken the waters I'm not a proponent of monogamy nor do I consider that only heterosexuals should be allowed to form legally recognized 'marital' bonds. My wife feels otherwise relative to monogamy. -- John Clark jclark@ucsd.edu
chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) (06/03/91)
In article <May.26.01.36.59.1991.13330@athos.rutgers.edu> jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >As for my own experience with >heterosexual marriages... my wife(marginally Christian) and >I(non-Christian) have been married 12 years; her three sisters all >divorced and Christian to various degrees. >Conclusion, Christians have a greater divorce rate than me. I believe that no appreciable difference has been found between the divorce rate for Christians and that for non-Christians. Of course, the people who gathered this information may very well have been using a rather loose definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily. GGC <><
jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.3.01.57.35.1991.2882@athos.rutgers.edu> chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) writes:
+definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce
+is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily.
Excuse me for not giving more information on my experience. My wife
reads the Bible once every 10 years for her health. I read the Bible
when I make some outrageous statement and either prove myself wrong
or prove I have recalled correctly.
Her sisters at the time were married to individuals who were in the
practice of daily reading from the Bible. Now, I cannot with
absolute verification state that they both, together, daily read the
Bible. But say for the sake of arguement they did. This would give
you a 'hearing of' for which you have not found else where.
On the other hand, what if, for one of the sisters, the sister
did not 'read the Bible' daily with her husband. Does that necessarily
imply that the husband was correct in proceding the divorce.
Or to put it another way, there is a phrase which is to the effect
of "not being un-equally yoked" as in don't be married to a
non-believer. Does this provide a basis for a Christian to divorce a
spouse? And how much Bible thumbing must one do to 'prove' that one
believes if one is accused of not believing?
--
John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (06/05/91)
In article <Jun.3.01.57.35.1991.2882@athos.rutgers.edu>, chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) writes: |>I believe that no appreciable difference has been found between the divorce |>rate for Christians and that for non-Christians. Of course, the people who |>gathered this information may very well have been using a rather loose |>definition of "Christian". It is interesting to note, however, that divorce |>is apparently nearly unknown among Christians who read the Bible daily. An article appeared recently in _The United Methodist Review_ on a survey of 113,000 adults performed by sociologists at CUNY. People were simply asked "What is you religion?", their answer to this question was then compared with their answers to a number of other questions. (The researchers were interested in how the participants perceived their religious identity.) While I don't see any specific results dealing with comparitive divorce rates of Christians and Non-Christians, there is some similar data. "Greater percentages of people with no religion stay single. Greek Orthodox have the lowest rate of divorce, Unitarians the highest. Roman Catholics run about even with mainstream Protestants." Some other interesting findings: "Hindus and Jews, in that order, have the highest percentage of college graduates. Jehovah's Witnesses, Baptists and Pentecostals have the lowest." "Jews and Baptists are the most likely to be Democrats. Jews are the most urban-based group, while Baptists are more rural than any other religious group." "Half of the 1.5 million Arab-Americans are Christian, including most of those of Lebanese and Iraqi descent. Most Asian-Americans are not Buddhist, Hindu or Muslim - They're Christian, especially Catholic and Baptist." "The average age of a Presbyterian is 48.2 years, followed by Methodists at 48. Of the major denominational families, Pentecostals are the youngest, just under 40." "Presbyterians (2.6), Methodists and Jews (2.7) have the lowest average size households." Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton