So a few days a go I posted a quote from private correspondance by Rich Bledsoe concerning the connection between liturgical worship and homosexuals. His thoughts came in response to some recent posts like this and this.
For what it’s worth, the broader context of his comments actually included the point that the Orthodox Church is finally coming out into the open, coming out of the various cultural ghettos she has tended to hide away in for centuries. And part of coming out into the mainstream of western culture means dealing with all the same sins that all the rest of us have been dealing with already. Part of the “pristine” reputation of EO is bound up in the fact that lots of their churches spoke Russian and Ethiopian and worked (in some measure) to stay separated from mainstream American culture. The point wasn’t to point at EO and laugh, the point was in part to say, “hey, look who decided to show up to the party.” Now you get to fight along side the rest of us Bible believing Christians. So in one sense, you could take the whole comment as a compliment.
But the point I zeroed in on was relative to liturgy, glory, and homosexuality. Now here’s the argument, and I really would like to hear honest feedback. I thought the argument made good sense.
We know from Scripture that the woman is the glory of man. She is his crown. In fact, in the Hebrew this is underlined. The man is called “dirt” because he was taken out of the ground, and then God rips a rib out of his side and “builds” the woman. Literally, God builds a “fire” (Ishshah), and then (and only then) the man is called a “fire” (Ish). In other words, man becomes glorious when he has a woman at his side. He becomes a fire, when the fire-babe becomes his crown. The woman is the glory of the man. We might wonder what it is about a woman that is glorious: Paul points to her hair (1 Cor. 11), Solomon says it’s her wisdom (Proverbs), and elsewhere we gather that she is created to be beautiful physically and make and do beautiful things (like magically making babies inside of her).
Ok, here’s the thing: homosexuality is an attempt to thwart God’s intentions. It’s like trying to reverse gravity, but liars gonna lie. So here we are.
Particularly in the case of male homosexuality, you’ve got one of the guys (or maybe both) trying to make up for the woman’s glory. Like it or not, God made the world like this, and so somebody’s got to try to make this look good. God created the world such that husbands are crowned with a wife, but when you ditch this plan, you’ve got to try to duck tape together something else to make a crown out of. And so men go domestic and delicate and nurturing in various ways. And the tricky thing here is that everybody’s watching and waiting for you to say something specific like men who are into cooking must be gay or men who wear pink sweater vests must be gay or guys who stay home filing their nails, mincing about in curlers, and cooing in alto tones while cooking and cleaning, leaving their wives to climb the corporate ladder in power skirts… yeah, well, actually that is gay.
Of course many people can point to all kinds of exceptional cases. And praise God for the odd cases. Sometimes dad gets sick and mom has to support the family. Some of the most exceptional chefs in the world are men. Thank God. And sometimes good, masculine men run strategic aspects of ministries and industries that are primarily for women. My point isn’t about the exceptions. My point is that we can’t allow the exceptions to become our excuse for laziness. Just because there were three or four good soldiers in Hitler’s army isn’t a good reason to stop saying Nazis were bad guys.
So here’s the deal: God created woman to be the glory of man, his crown and beauty, and when a couple of guys start pretending to have that kind of love, that kind of union, one or both of them have got to try to make up for the lack of real glory in their DNA. So one or both try to be girls in some fashion. They aren’t actually girls, and so there’s a problem. But that doesn’t stop them from trying. Sodomy is the ultimate physical attempt to turn a man into a woman, but just because you wished upon a star doesn’t mean you can unmake God’s Word.
And here’s the liturgical connection: Liturgy is glory. This is because worship is glory. Going back to the tabernacle, God covenanted with Israel to be their God, and this included coming down in glory to rest in and with the people of Israel. Peter Leithart has pointed out that the covenant at Sinai resembles a wedding with Moses acting as the officiant. God is marrying His bride, Israel, and then He gives instructions for building their house together. God is teaching His wife how to become His glory and crown. And so the tabernacle, where worship occurred night and day, was full of gold and bronze and beautiful colors and candles and incense. The priest’s garments were for “glory and beauty,” and were an embodied tabernacle with Israel’s names engraved on the priest’s armor. The temple only increases that glory, and the psalms are full of this recognition:
“Give unto the Lord the glory due to His name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.” (Ps. 29:2)
“So I have looked for You in the sanctuary, to see Your power and Your glory.” (Ps. 63:2)
“Let the saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud on their beds.” (Ps. 149:5)
Likewise in the New Testament:
“Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory.” (1 Pet. 1:8)
And the entire book of Revelation can be read as a long, heavenly worship service where the glory of God is erupting like an ever expanding volcano dealing justice, bringing salvation, all through the songs and prayers and praises of the Lamb on the throne.
But this worship is not something that men think up for themselves. It’s not a self-evident math problem, a simple plug the numbers in here and watch this worship flow out. It’s not good enough that you’re using the Westminster Directory of Worship or Jeff Meyer’s The Lord’s Service or St. Chrysostom’s Hand-Dandy Book of Praise. In its most fundamental sense, worship is actually joining the eternal communion of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This is why Jesus says that worshippers must worship in Spirit and in Truth. There really is no other kind of true worship. There is only worship that is offered in the name and blood of Jesus (who is the Truth) and by the power and intersession of the Spirit. That’s the only kind of worship the Father receives. Everything else is empty words, goofy gestures, and a lot of hot bother.
So worship and liturgy when empowered by the Holy Spirit and done in truth faith in Jesus, crucified for our sins, raised for our salvation, that kind of worship, that kind of liturgy thoughtfully and prayerfully embodied within the freedom of Scripture is glorious, wonderful, lovely, and awful. But throughout the Bible we see that the sinful heart of man is on a constant search for cheap glory. Man started grasping for glory in the garden and we’re all like our father, Adam. Men want easy glory, cheap glory, all the glory and none of the pain, sweat, blood, or tears. And at it’s core, that’s homosexual. That’s gay.
So, Rich Bledsoe nodded at the Eastern Orthodox and suggested they need to watch out for homos cause they got all the smells and bells. But he didn’t say any other churches don’t have to, just that if you’re self-consciously interested in recovering real, God-given glory, you’re going to attract fakers, posers, and men in skinny jeans and penny loafers.
And all of this is why I have previously likened praying to icons to masturbating while looking at porn. Jamey Bennett (who I don’t know and don’t mean to pick a fight with!) in the comments of the previous post thanks me for backing away from this, but I haven’t. Look, I can kind of, sort of squint and imagine some faithful EO Joe who grew up in the Orthodox Church, whose great-great-great Grandpa was a Bible-thumping, bearded Priest Dude, and this guy loves Jesus, gets the gospel in his heart, and goes along with the normal EO practices. But the Reformed and evangelical blowhards who are currently riding ideological camels to the Bosporus shouldn’t be good news to you. Maybe Joe EO shrugs his shoulders and wants to know what the big idea is. Well, that’s the thing. These guys are in it for self-stimulating ideological orgasm. That’s what. They are men in search of easy glory, cheap respect, and faux honor. They want people to look up to them, praise them, and link to their latest blog entry full of theological profundity. And to their credit, God has placed this longing for glory in the heart of every man. But there’s only one true glory, and that’s through the cross of Jesus. Glory comes through the blood of Christ. That means confessing sins; it means hard, faithful labor vocationally; it means gracious, gentle leadership of a wife and children over the long haul.
But many men latching on to EO and RC in recent years are looking for cheap glory. They find the cheers of the EO and RC priests an easy way to get the respect and adulation they would have to work decades for, remaining where God planted them.
I think the argument holds. If you want glory, you’re gonna get fakers. And Reformed and Evangelical churches are not exempt from this danger. Truth always attracts liars in a strange and ironic twist. And homosexuality is just the bottom of the barrel of embracing hypocrisy. And in that sense, it’s just normal run of the mill sin: sin Jesus died to free us all from.
And any RCs or EOs reading who really love Jesus should be glad to hear a friendly warning like this. But don’t pull a Rachel Evans, emotional, defensive response because, dude, that’s totally gay and your beard’s not burly enough to make up for it.
C. Frank Bernard says
“Paul points to her hair (1 Cor. 11)”
Especially compared to her husband’s hair (bearded but nearly bald, as a hypothetical example).
Though a woman isn’t the image/authority/eikon of God, she is/has the glory of man in evident abundance (beautiful/graceful/etcetera).
As his glory specialist, she can best pick/design a fitting symbol of authority for her head.
She should be glad to cover/coronate her master. “I want you to understand […] the head of a wife is her husband” [1 Cor 11:3] “a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head” [1 Cor 11:10]
“Prize her highly, and she will exalt you; she will honor you if you embrace her. She will place on your head a graceful garland; she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.” [Prov 4:8-9]
“He becomes a fire, when the fire-babe becomes [ditto bequeaths/bestows] his crown.”
Why settle for only a crown-ring of glory that fits around your finger?
sc says
I would like to understand you argument better however I believe you are not addressing a very fundamental issue.
Your claim, correct me if I am wrong, is that RC and OX are trying to create that which has not yet been manifest, the glory of the kingdom of God. So they counterfeit a faux glory to attach to in their immaturity and disbelief ( lack of faith?).
However what seems to be missing as I follow your argument is the RC and OX view of the Eucharist. It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening in the mass. Heaven and earth meet, time bends, the sacrifice on Calvary is re-presented to the Father and the bread and wine is transformed into the resurrected body and blood of Christ; the true manna, the bread of the presence.
So the “smells and bells” are not for their own sake or a faux glory but for the same reason the tabernacle in the tent of meeting was glorious; to come into the real presence of the living God.
You may not agree with this understanding of the Eucharist (which I would direct you to the early church fathers), but to say that the “glory” exists for its own sake to be a counterfeit is really just fundamentally wrong. This was well understood for 1500 years by the church universal.
Toby says
Actually, I think you misunderstand what I’m saying. This post isn’t primarily a critique of EO or RC worship (e.g. smells and bells). I do have qualms, but that’s not the main point of this post.
My main point is that when you care about glory and beauty in worship (as all Christians should) then you’re going to attract some fakers. Some people are fakers because they just use the liturgy to check a box on Easter and Christmas and carry on in their sin. Others are legalistic pharisees who can quote the catechisms word-for-word and explain the ins and outs of the Eucharist but don’t actually know Jesus, as evidenced by the lack of the fruit of the Spirit in their lives.
The main point is just that homosexuality is a lifestyle of “pretending” / “faking” / “posing”… and well, a faking of glory, ie. guys pretending to be girls. And in every church there is a “liturgy” that either embodies real, genuine faith in Jesus or becomes the fake glory shell to hide death inside of.
Matthew N. Petersen says
Like I said before, it’s worth pointing out that in Catholic churches the opposite is true, at least about open homosexuality. You are very unlikely to find an open homosexual at a Tridintine Mass. But you are not terribly unlikely to find an open homosexual at an ugly low mass. (As opposed to a beautiful low mass, which probably stands somewhere in the middle.)
But second, you say: “These guys are in it for self-stimulating ideological orgasm. That’s what. They are men in search of easy glory, cheap respect, and faux honor.” that may well be true of some converts. But you seem to be saying that converting as such has that problem. But most converts I know are not in search of easy cheap respect. That’s simply a false accusation that is not backed up by facts. Your charge only works if conversion in itself is a search for faux honor. But your logic does not argue that conversion in itself is a search for faux honor.
But second, you want to talk about “growing where you’re planted” but you’re in favor of people converting from Orthodoxy and Rome to Protestantism. And so “grow where you’re planted” just doesn’t work.
Matthew N. Petersen says
Also, you say
There’s a reason it seems that you’re being way less catholic than Dr. Leithart. He says that he has a deep appreciation of Orthodoxy, while rejecting some of their practices, comparing them to Uzziah.
I really don’t see how “Maybe if an Orthodox is really a Protestant Bible-thumper, and goes along with the terrible awful no good very bad things in Orthodoxy because it’s all he knows, he can be a good guy” can be reconciled with “Though there are significant errors in Orthodoxy, they are errors that in no way preclude the Orthodox from being faithful–from walking faithfully before God all the days of their lives. Orthodox and Catholics are, at their best, like Uzziah or Asa.”
Finally, “These guys are in it for self-stimulating ideological orgasm.”
I also have no idea why you think you can read the hearts of converts. If you cannot, stop claiming to. If you think you can, repent, for only Christ knows the hearts. You know why they have converted? That’s just nonsense.
C. Frank Bernard says
What/which are the worst high places?
Which should be removed first?
What should such theologians do toward that goal beyond explaining to the proper people to permit/initiate removal?
Thanks,
Frank
Matthew N. Petersen says
Just for clarification on that last comment: Somehow the html tags didn’t work out. The first paragraph and third paragraphs are supposed to be quotes.
Fr. Jonathan says
So, um, who cares?
That sounds like a flip question, but I really mean it. I hear what you’re saying, that the noble, true, godly beauty of worship will attract those who want to step into that beauty, to drink of that truth, but who want to do so from a place of self indulgence rather than humble discipleship. And that is certainly frustrating, especially for pastors. But does it really matter?
Some of this may just be a uniquely Calvinist concern. Coming from an Anglican perspective, the sacramental character of worship is objective and true, regardless of what’s going on in the minds of those present. Certainly, as a pastor, I care about what’s happening in my parishioners’ hearts and minds, but I don’t think that changes the heart of worship itself, even if two thirds of the room is “faking it,” since the heart of worship is the Church herself being claimed by Christ through His action.
Maybe I’m just not getting something here. What is it that you would have those of us in more sacramental/catholic traditions do differently?
Toby says
Jonathan,
Thanks for the comment and question. I hear you, and as somebody in the Reformed/Calvinistic stream of the Church trying to recover a more biblical/catholic sacramental/liturgical culture in the church, I need to be able to answer this question too. A couple of thoughts off the cuff:
First, I think preaching/teaching needs to be saturated in the full spectrum of biblical rhetoric. My guess is that most sacramental/catholic traditions that attract fakers will do so because the guy up front doesn’t get his sledgehammer out most Sundays and kick the crap out of sin. Obviously there are other modes of discourse then “hell-fire & damnation” preaching, but preaching on sin specifically, taking aim at enemies within and outside the church, etc. would be a good start. And that’s not opposed to the liturgical, sacramental life of the church because done with true love for Jesus and His Kingdom, it ought to make those aspects deeper and richer.
Second, as a Reformed dude, I want to stick close to the Biblical text. I want to love, honor, and cherish the traditions of the Church, but I also want to be willing to follow the lead of the Spirit in reforming/ditching extra-biblical forms where needed. Where Jesus has commanded us, we obey and believe His word and trust Him to be present (baptism, eucharist), but if Jesus didn’t command candles or incense, we’re free to use them or not use them using the wisdom of the Spirit to guide our decisions. Maybe some folks need to grow up into Jesus and need a pastor who insists on candles in the sanctuary, but I could also imagine a church (many in fact) where the prissy fakers need their sensibilities ruffled by a Boniface Pastor who knocks over the idols cluttering up the sanctuary.
I hope that helps a little!
Toby
Fr. Jonathan says
Thanks, Toby. That actually helps a lot. I would agree with all of that.