A worthy article.  Has me thinking on several different points.  Thank you Kendall for posting this.

I have found this article extremely helpful, especially as this is an issue that has caused great stress in our wider family.

Wow.  That was powerful.  And the author’s wife is a remarkable woman.  Thank you for passing this one along.

Brilliant piece.  Thanks for posting. 
Ito states eloquently what I feel needs to be reiterated constantly until compassionate, gentle, kind treatment of gays by all orthodox Christians (who, by definition, regard same-sex activity as contrary to God’s will) is as natural as breathing.  (Happily, I haven’t seen unkindness or hatred towards gays by posters on this blog.)  I recall a conversation w/ a couple in an Episcopal parish which went something like this: “All you have to do is get to know the gays in our parish to realize how good and kind they are.”  How likely is it that gays can say something similar about orthodox Christians?
All of this said, however, I have looked at Corvino’s website and find some of his arguments to be unkind and intellectually sloppy caricatures of the Christian view.

Boy.

While it’s certainly always nice to be kind to people . . . and that’s a nice point . . . I found the author’s main point—hidden within the article—to be quite faulty, and much of his assumptions incredibly naive.

First, it’s not important whether Handel experienced same sex attractions nor is it possible to prove it in any way at all. 

Second, those who purport to do so are merely peddling the same laughably politicized and faulty histories as all the “Lincoln/et al was gay” memes that have cluttered the agenda-riven landscape of the past half century or more.  Poor scholarship.  Specious “reasoning” [sic].  And again, a transparently obvious agenda based on deconstructionist “history” [sic again].

So all of that part of the article—other than the depressing and condescending idea of throwing gays a bone in poor Handel—is basically shredded and pointless filler.

Moving on to the author’s main point . . . I think the past two years if anything have demonstrated that the people who have the image problem are in fact the gay activists who are attempting to force on a now-proven very very unwilling society some sort of pretense of approval of their actions.

So the chunk of the essay that deals again with the author’s primary thesis is also riven with inconsistencies and problems.

RE: “Where I now live, in a moderately sized city in Wisconsin, I know people who seem to think that societal acceptance of homosexuality is a trend that can be stopped, slowed, or even reversed.”

Of course, the author begs the question here.  He speaks of “societal acceptance of homosexuality” and then proceeds to expand it into “society accepts gay marriage.”  But that, as we have seen, is actually declining, if the results of the recent state referendums are to be believed.  Far from society growing in “acceptance” of gay marriage, society is becoming more disapproving of it.  That is, of course, a far different thing from society accepting *those who experience same-sex attraction* which the author has nicely conflated.

RE: “Young people come to major cities at formative stages in their lives for education and professional development, and wherever they settle they are marked by the cosmopolitan culture of “the city,” whichever the referent of the ubiquitous definite article.”

The author has the foolishness to base his argument about society’s increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage [for that is how I will define his “societal acceptance of homosexuality”] on young people.  But of course, young people have a way of growing up.  And becoming astoundingly conservative in the process.

The person who ran our own diocesan survey took particular pains with the results from the larger parish in the diocese and found to his surprise that the *most conservative people in the parish were the age slot of 35-55—which encompasses much of Gen-Y, a chunk of Gen-X, and some young Baby Boomers.  Why?  Well . . . the correlation with *children* was a striking one.  It was that segment that had the largest percentage of active children in the parish.  And the age was a strikingly conservative age.

No surprise at all, for those who are watching demographic trends.

RE: “In an increasingly mobile society, the same trends that have given me two excellent local sources of imported cheese will also make the prevalent attitudes about homosexuality that my children grow up with very different from those I knew as a child.”

Again, another question begging assertion.  Loving gays is not at all the same thing as “we approve of same sex marriage.”  And again, as American society has grown more accepting of those with SSA, it appears to be tightening back up on its definitions of marriage.

RE: “This will, of course, contribute to the image problem—there will be much less cultural space for an evangelicalism perceived as anti-gay than for one perceived as having a more nuanced relationship with issues of homosexuality.”

Nonsense.  Again, evangelical attitudes are, as has now been thoroughly demonstrated, quite mainstream regarding gay marriage.  We cannot accuse the recent majority votes regarding gay marriage as “evangelical votes”—they are, in fact, American votes.  It’s what, in fact, Americans believe.

RE: “So far the Christians who fully approve of monogamous homosexual relationships have tended to be theological liberals. Thus in the Episcopal Church, it is possible to frame the current controversy as being first and foremost about the nature of God, salvation, and Scripture, homosexuality being secondary. But this simple identification of Christian proponents of homosexuality with theological liberalism is clearly beginning to change, and this change will only pick up speed.”

No, actually, it’s no at all beginning to change.

Certainly there will be people who *claim* to be “evangelicals*—particularly since evangelicalism is becoming, contrary to the author’s thesis, more and not less popular.  But theological liberalism will always be the undercurrent and foundation of approving of same-gender sexual relationships.

RE: “Increasingly, believers both gay and straight who with respect to doctrine and forms of piety would be described as evangelical will accept monogamous homosexual relationships.”

Nope—I’m afraid not.  Let’s rephrase that in order to be accurate.  “Increasingly, [liberal persons] both gay and straight who with respect to doctrine and forms of piety would [like to] be described as evangelical will [proclaim their acceptance of] monogamous homosexual relationships.”

RE: “This is particularly visible among young people—there is clearly more diversity of belief on this issue among college-age Christians than there was 15 years ago, when I was an undergraduate.”

Again—the dependence on young people.  But truth to tell, the more young people grow up, the more conservative they become.  Indeed, the age group of the 30s onward is *more conservative* than the same age group of 30 years ago.  The author is completely missing American social demographic trends that are quite intriguing to those in marketing and other vocations that depend on their study.

RE: “I’d rather see a theologically united church that was consistently welcoming and loving to gays and lesbians while holding to the traditionally orthodox view on homosexual activity.”

Well obviously that won’t happen—but then we already knew that.  Their will be liberal progressive heretical “churches” and those which are not.  But that’s not particularly problematic as long as their is church discipline that carefully distinguishes the two bodies, one from the other.

RE: “From my perspective, segments of the evangelical church blessing same-sex unions (in the stamp-of-approval sense) is not a positive development, but it’s also inevitable . . . “

No again—let’s rephrase in order to be accurate.  From my perspective, [liberal churches which wish to attach the name “evangelical” to themselves] blessing same-sex unions (in the stamp-of-approval sense) is not a positive development, but it’s also inevitable . . . “

And of course it’s “inevitable”—as the author points out it’s already happening with various liberal churches like TEC.  But one can hardly describe the institution known as TEC as “church” anyway, so it’s moot.

All in all a deeply disappointing, poorly reasoned, ill-defined, and ill-researched article.

One can only wonder, at this point, whether such poverty of reason is deliberate—and thus politically shaped—or simply ignorant.

As a musicologist (though not a Handelian) I find this article rather interesting.

I was once in a seminar led by a leading Handel expert, who explained to the group that he had been asked to write a short biography of the composer for inclusion in a music encyclopaedia. Told that it would ‘need to discuss the issue of whether Handel might have been gay,’ he turned the job down. He went on, he said, to regret it, and to realize it was an important issue, even though (as Ito, as well as Sarah, as well as the original questioner - Phillip Brett - concede) the evidence is sketchy either way.

‘Why?’ someone in our seminar piped up. ‘Why should it matter to us whether Handel was gay?’

Without missing a beat, the professor responded, ‘Because presumably it mattered to Handel.’

I liked that.

Perhaps incidentally, to T19, at least, but interestingly, nevertheless: the sort of intersection between musicology and ethics that Ito addresses crops up only rarely in academic discourse. When it does - and I’ve no conclusions as to why this might be the case - it usually relates somehow to sexuality discourses.

What Sarah said.  Perhaps his article is well meaning (perhaps not) but it’s poor stuff.

Sarah (#5),

Assuming you (or your demographic information) to be correct in claiming that most 35-55 year-olds both in your parish and probably in the country are “conservative,” what exactly does “conservative” mean?  It’s my understanding the Gen-X and Gen-Y types resist cohesive ideological stands.  So, many of them, for instance, might be “conservative” in wanting to have a “traditional family” for themselves and even in resisting the institution of “gay marriage” whilst being comfortable with registered civil partnerships.  I know some people of this view, so they do exist (whether as a majority or a minority, I do not presume to say).

As for equating the author’s statements about an increasing acceptance of homosexuality with an alleged increase in acceptance of same-sex marriage, I’m not sure that’s in the text of the article (though I’d have to re-read it to make sure).  Those are two separate issues, properly speaking.  And I’d even have difficulty determining what ‘an increasing acceptance of homosexuality’ means.  Given the fact that the author teaches at a university, I suspect he’s referring to the fact that gay couples on college campuses not only exist but do so openly, are not regarded as outlandish, are included in parties, dances, conversations, close friendships, etc., and that (again) many young people don’t maintain razor-sharp ideological boundaries, so being at least civil if not chummy if not best friends with gays on campuses is a normal part of college life these days.

If I correctly understand your idea of what the main point of the author is, it varies from the main point I got from his article.  I think what he’s suggesting is that conversion is more likely to happen if we relate to gays as people who have lives rather than represent lifestyles.  Neither the archetypal liberal, who says ‘live and let live,’ nor the archetypal conservative, whose initial message is ‘repent!’, is making present the same Christ who somehow made the prostitutes and tax collectors feel comfortable enough to sit down and dine with him whilst considering the possibility of turning their lives around.  And I rather suspect it happened without much – if anything – being said about sin.  If they had even a glimpse of selfless love it would have been enough, in many cases, to make certain lifestyle choices seem pointless.  I don’t think Ito is talking about kindness.  I think he’s referring to love, which is much more challenging than being either wishy-washy or censorious and preachy.

#6

the sort of intersection between musicology and ethics that Ito addresses crops up only rarely in academic discourse.

Rarely, that is, unless you listen to the public radio station run by the University of Southern California, where evening host Jim Sveda offers his always-erudite and often-amusing sidebars to the classical music that is the sole fare of KUSC. Over the course of years I noticed that Mr. Sveda never failed to bring up the homosexual connection, whether alleged or proven, whenever he could. I am sure that I have received a full (although one-sided) education in the intersection of sexual ethics and classical musicology.

#9: I can’t say I’ve caught Mr Svejda, on the grounds that I’m in the UK. There has been a sort of faddish trend to over-sexualize a good deal of musical thinking in the last twenty years or so, related to a more general trend in musicology to think less about music as mental exercise and more as performative, bodily activity and response. But the better work on sexual ethics and musicology (try, for example, Suzanne Cusick) is, in my view, very important.

I am, in any case, not really sure whether I’d call Mr Svejda a musicologist, on the basis of his Wikipedia page, but perhaps that’s just me being a musicological snob. It sounds from what you say as if his contribution to the discussion on sexual politics in music is more designed to boost ratings than to raise sensible musicological questions.

heh
“Neither the archetypal liberal, who says ‘live and let live,’ nor the archetypal conservative, whose initial message is ‘repent!’, is making present the same Christ who somehow made the prostitutes and tax collectors feel comfortable enough to sit down and dine with him whilst considering the possibility of turning their lives around.  And I rather suspect it happened without much – if anything – being said about sin.”

Nice of you to share your imagination.

Here’s what Jesus actually did:

“Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt 4:17)

Apparently Jesus was an “archetypal conservative” who obviously needs to be schooled by Monksgate et al in his evangelistic methodology

P Gilday, I also am remote from Los Angeles (e.g. Pennsylvania) these last 4 years, although I sometimes still listen to the station via kusc.org. Mr. Svejda is on from 7-12pm PST, where you can listen to him yourself. I wouldn’t know a real musicologist from a pretender, myself; I was just impressed with the depth of his knowledge of the life and times of the various composers, bespeaking an investigation that goes well beyond liner notes. 

My impression is that his contribution to the discussion is primarily designed to amuse himself.

Matt (#11),

The difference is that none of us are Perfect Man and Perfect God. Everything we do and say is refracted through our fallen humanity and even our sincere calls to others to repent may have multiple motivations. Our Lord didn’t have that problem.

Matt (#11),

Excellent job to proof-texting!  And I’m not being sarcastic.  It truly is spot-on.  The Gospel according to Matthew says that the beginning of Jesus’s preaching, i.e., his ‘initial’ (the word I used) message was ‘repent’.  Congratulations.  You nailed it.
 
But wouldn’t you say there’s a difference between preaching to a crowd and conversation with one or two people over dinner?  After all, I drew from the examples of Jesus being criticized for dining w/ prostitutes and tax-collectors.  A more apt text to show Jesus’ ‘initial’ communication with an individual w/ whom he proposes to dine might be Luke 19:5.  In that instance, Jesus didn’t say, ‘Zacchaeus, repent!’  He said (to paraphrase into modern parlance), ‘Let’s have dinner’.  The former says ‘You’re a sinner and I have a right to judge you’ – which Jesus had every right to say but curiously didn’t.  The latter says ‘You’re worth spending time with rather than being written off as a nameless publican.’

In the case of Corvino, Ito and Ito’s wife, given the context, I’m certain Corvino (a perceptive, astute philosopher who had tried his vocation as a religious) was fully aware that ‘repent’ and ‘homosexual activity is not God’s will’ were in the minds and vocabulary of Ito and his wife.  But they treated him as a friend, and it obviously made such an impression that he mentioned them in an article.  Had they started the conversation with ‘Repent!’, I’m sure it would have ended the conversation.  And Ito and his wife would have been, to Corvino, nothing more than nameless ‘homophobes’.

Excellent job, Matt, dealing with the incoherence and inconsistency of Monksgate’s initial assertion.  So much so that Monksgate now has to try to pawn the response off as prooftexting . . . ; > )

Nice work.

Jeremy Bonner

“The difference is that none of us are Perfect Man and Perfect God.”

Exactly. And yet thanks be to God that he has revealed himself and his will to us, purposefully and perspicuitously, in his Word written.

“Everything we do and say is refracted through our fallen humanity and even our sincere calls to others to repent may have multiple motivations.”

No doubt all of our works and words are motivated either wholly or in part by sin. Which is why scripture is so valuable. We do not need to navel gaze and cast about and wonder and worry about whether or not, say, murdering babies or having sex with someone to whom we are not wedded, or having sex with someone of the same sex, or taking other people’s things by force is wrong. We do not, thanks be to God, need to make our own judgments about such things. God has revealed his judgment already.

Isn’t that fantastic? So if I decide that I am going to rip off a convenience store and a pastor tells me aftewards that I should repent, I don’t have to worry about his motives. He can show me in the scriptures that the call to repent for such things is not his own, but he is merely acting as a herald and ambassador for God. How wonderful!

God has already revealed his judgment to us!

What is surprising however is that so many purporting to be evangelicals are willing to plead ignorance of God’s clear judgments about such things in order to preen and strutt about before the world, and most importantly, heretical clergy, so that all may see how very “humble” they are…while in the very same breath they cast doubt and suspicion on God’s word and judgments.

Hubris disguised as humility.

Sarah (#15),

I assume by my ‘initial assertion’ you mean #8?  Let me see if I can make it a bit more coherent. 

How do you justify conflating Ito’s ‘societal acceptance of homosexuality’ with ‘increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage’?  They’re two different issues.

How do you define ‘conservative’ as it applies to the 35-55 slot in your parish, especially when sociologists tell us that a fair amount of the people in this age-group defy such conventional labels?

And how did you leap from a group of young people who have grown into 35-55 year-old ‘conservatives’ in your parish into a pattern that applies to the entire country?

In comparing Ito’s piece w/ your comments, I suspect that what’s truly happening is that since neither Ito nor you have supplied solid statistical evidence (though I don’t believe his piece really called for it), you’re both projecting your views onto the demographics under discussion.  If so, I’d rather err on Ito’s side which says a lot more about not judging (another statement Jesus made) and taking people where they are.  I realize this sounds very like the language many relativists use to justify whittling away at the Gospel.  But imo following the Gospel isn’t about taking the easy way.  It means genuinely loving those who do wrong – loving them enough to hopefully show them that they matter infinitely more than their bad judgements and mistakes.  I hope that’s not what you mean by my incoherence.

As for Matt’s response, I chose to read it as a helpful invitation for me to clarify my meaning, which will be offered in any respectful dialogue, not as a pointless game of one-upmanship.  I hope you read it in the same way and that your use of language such as ‘dealing with’ my ‘incoherence and inconsistency’ is likewise an invitation for me to clarify where I’m able.  So can you specify what the incoherence and inconsistency in #8 might be?

C. S. Lewis once said something to the effect that the Gospel is “good news” only to those who are convinced of their own sinfulness and have despaired of finding a way to be free of it.

To those who have no knowledge of their own sin, one must first convince them of it—which is bad news—and only then can one present the Gospel as good news.

This might, perhaps, be the difference between the “Repent!” approach and the “Come sit at the table” approach.

Thanks Ross (#18).  It’s a curious kind of evangelism that is un-interested in whether someone is disposed to hear the good news or even the ‘bad news,’ as it were.  To my mind, Ito’s main point is: take time to know and understand and care about the other person before sharing the good or ‘bad’ news, hence Luke 19:5.

Matt (#16)

Life is an absolute but you meet the woman who’s had an abortion where she is. At the Pittsburgh ACNA convention, Becky Spanos - than whom there has been no one more dogged in critiquing the prevailing abortion culture - stated that Anglicans for Life doesn’t judge the women it counsels, or words to that effect. Is that a betrayal of the principle of condemning the sin? 

Similarly Christian marriage is an absolute, but you still have to deal with the consequences of failure and as Monksgate - and Ito - point out you have to make a prayerful judgment as to what you’re being called to do.

I still recall a thread way back on Stand Firm where you talked about how you counseled cohabiting couples who came to you to be married, requiring them to separate if possible or, at any rate, to abstain from sexual activity and was generally approving (not, I appreciate, that you care whether I approve or not). Then I came to the section where you talked about the expectation of procreation in marriage and added - almost as an aside - that, of course, those who are infertile can adopt. It wasn’t your main point, more an addendum, but it hit home because it seemed to take so little account of the pain that goes with infertility; it’s all too easy to believe that God is judging you when that happens.

So what you say can be absolutely right and the way you say it absolutely wrong, at least so I believe. Which gets us back to Ito, I suppose.

How many times is it recorded that Jesus said, “Repent and believe the good news.”  Only two come to mind: Mark 1:15 and the Matthean parallel.  It’s central to Jesus’ message, of course, but you don’t seem to encounter it in his discourse with individuals.  I’m in Monksgate’s corner on this one.

I think we also need to be clear about what Jesus meant by repent.  The Bishop of Durham sheds some light on it I believe.  In Mark for Everyone he writes:

If you walk down the down the street of any village or town with any Christian background and were to call out ‘Repent and believe the gospel’, people would think they knew what you meant: ‘Give up your sins and become a Christian.’  Of course, Jesus wanted people to stop sinning, but ‘repentance’ for him meant two rather different things as well.  First, it meant turning away from the social and political agendas which were driving Israel into a crazy, ruinous war….Second, it meant calling Israel to turn back to true loyalty to YHWH, their God.  And, as anyone with a smattering of knowledge of the Bible would recognize, this was what had to happen before God would redeem Israel at last.  The call to repent is part of the announcement that this is the time for the great moment of freedom, of God’s rescue.

RE: “I assume by my ‘initial assertion’ you mean #8?”

You assume wrong.  Matt was responding to this statement right here—

“Neither the archetypal liberal, who says ‘live and let live,’ nor the archetypal conservative, whose initial message is ‘repent!’, is making present the same Christ who somehow made the prostitutes and tax collectors feel comfortable enough to sit down and dine with him whilst considering the possibility of turning their lives around.  And I rather suspect it happened without much – if anything – being said about sin.”

—which was incoherent and irrational and which he pointed out, and to which you responded with a cry of “prooftext.”  ; > )

It was, of course, quite clear to what statement he was responding.

As to the rest of your assertions:

RE: “How do you justify conflating Ito’s ‘societal acceptance of homosexuality’ with ‘increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage’?  They’re two different issues.”

No—it was Ito who attempted to blur the distinction between those two—I merely pointed that out and then chose to point out further that contrary to what he and others are asserting, people in America aren’t at all “moving progressively” towards affirming gay marriage, but quite the contrary.

RE: “How do you define ‘conservative’ as it applies to the 35-55 slot in your parish, especially when sociologists tell us that a fair amount of the people in this age-group defy such conventional labels?”

The context was quite clear but to spell it out for others, the 35-55 slot was *overwhelmingly* opposed to affirming same-gender sexual relationships.

Overwhelmingly.

RE: “And how did you leap from a group of young people who have grown into 35-55 year-old ‘conservatives’ in your parish into a pattern that applies to the entire country?”

Maybe you’re not familiar with the demographic studies in the US regarding 1) aging and 2) the Gen-X and early Baby Boomers.  That’s fine.  I merely assert that they exist and that they demonstrate that the vastly more liberal segments in our society are the aging Baby Boomers and the 30 and unders—and the 30 and unders *develop* into more conservative human beings as they mature and develop families.  You’re welcome to dispute that, of course—not really important to me if you do since I’m not trying to convince you of anything.

RE: “It means genuinely loving those who do wrong – loving them enough to hopefully show them that they matter infinitely more than their bad judgements and mistakes.”

That’s very nice, but the Ito piece was not, essentially, about loving people—that was mere initial filler.  The thesis of his essay was as I pointed out above—that evangelicals have an image problem, that societal acceptance of same sex marriages is inevitable, and that otherwise orthodox churches were going to go ahead and affirm same-sex behavior and we should accept that.

I assert that none of those three things is true—in fact, quite the opposite. 

So again, it’s a nice try to try to change the subject to loving people—but that wasn’t what the article was about.  And neither incidentally was Matt’s response about loving people or even pastoral response to individuals.  He was merely responding to your faulty and incoherent and easily disprovable assertion.

RE: “not as a pointless game of one-upmanship.”

Yes, that’s probably best for you to see it that way.  ; > )

RE: “your use of language such as ‘dealing with’ my ‘incoherence and inconsistency’ is likewise an invitation for me to clarify where I’m able. . . . “

Not at all.  There is no such invitation, as you and I do not share the same foundational worldview to have such a dialogue.

My language was merely to point out to readers how defensive and immediately self-serving your use of the word “proof texting” was when faced with a balloon-puncturing rhetorical blow from Matt’s rejoinder which revealed the emptiness of your own words.

And I’m satisfied that I have done so.

Sarah,
My ‘initial assertion’ is #4, actually.  So I wanted to be sure that when you referred to my ‘initial assertion’, you actually meant my second assertion (#8).
In any case, you’ve not established why my second assertion is ‘incoherent and irrational’.  You’ve said that it is, but not why it is.  I certainly could have worded it better.  Let me try it this way.  If I were a prostitute and a live-and-let-live liberal invited me to dinner, I’d feel comfortable at the occasion but my host wouldn’t very likely give me a reason to consider repenting.  If I were a prostitute and an evangelical of a certain type were to walk up to me and say, ‘Repent!’, I’d either ignore him or tell him in no uncertain terms what he can do w/ his supposed interest in me.  If I were a prostitute approached by a Gladstone type, who invited prostitutes home to give them a bowl of soup and a bit of company with him and his wife (and perhaps the money they would have otherwise made?) it just might dawn on me that here are people who care about me, not as a conquest whether sexually or for the sake of adding up numbers for the ASA and the collection plates.  (I do not suggest the overzealous evangelist actually sees things that way, but that the prostitute very well may.)  That realization could prove to be life-changing.
You may be correct about Ito’s conflating the two issues (accepting gay ‘marriage’ and accepting homosexuality).  I’ve not gone back over Ito’s article and I did acknowledge my uncertainty over that issue in my #8.  So even though you’re not interested in one-upmanship or in persuading me (though you graciously write a long and interesting response for the sake of not persuading me), you nonetheless earn that point and I am persuaded that your reading of Ito on this issue was probably more accurate than mine.
Your clarification concerning the ‘conservative’ view of the 35-55 slot in your parish is helpful.  I would still insist that ‘conservative’ as a general term in relation to that age group is a bit dodgy.  But if the poll-taker focused on a specific issue, I think that presents an entirely different picture.
As for the demographic studies, I am familiar with them.  Moreover, the observation that people tend to grow more ‘conservative’ as they settle down into steady jobs and raising families is, I think, non-controversial.  But I’m not as convinced as you are that the term ‘conservative’ means all you seem to believe it means.  For instance, it is arguable that the 31 states of the U.S. (I believe that’s the number) who have voted to insist that marriage be defined as the union of a single man and a single woman suggests a ‘conservative’ consensus on the gay ‘marriage’ issue but not necessarily on tolerance towards homosexual couples, civil partnerships, gay adoptions, etc.  It could be that most people between 35 and 55 who describe themselves as ‘conservative’ on one of these issues are ‘of a piece’ with the others.  But I know people who do not fit into this profile.  Not that my anecdotal evidence proves anything, but it is supported by sociological observations about the ideological stances of Gen Xers and Gen-Yers.
I agree that Ito contends that evangelicals have an image problem on any of the issues related to homosexuality.  I also believe his statement is correct.  We will have to agree to disagree on this, apparently.
As for your assertion that Ito claims “otherwise orthodox churches [are] going to go ahead and affirm same-sex behavior and we should accept that,” it might be helpful to return to his actual words.  “From my perspective, segments of the evangelical church blessing same-sex unions (in the stamp-of-approval sense) is not a positive development, but it’s also inevitable.”  That is language of inevitability but not of acceptance.  And as for the segments of the evangelical church that Ito mentions, you might simply refuse to call those segments evangelicals and you might insist that the studies that show young evangelicals are more accepting of homosexuality (and such studies exist) are nonetheless recording a phase in their lives that they will outgrow.  But here again, you do not persuade.  I’m not sure that the homosexualist agenda has ever, in human history, made as much of an impact on an entire generation as we are witnessing in our day.  I join you in believing that – and these are my words – the pendulum will eventually swing.  But I know Anglican evangelicals (or so-called evangelicals as you might prefer to call them) in the U.K. who are already fully in support of what Ito sees as inevitable.  And the government seems more than happy to help this along.
My understanding of the term “proof text” is to use only one or a small number of passages to ‘prove’ a point.  Moreover, I consider this a fair thing to do in a respectful discussion.  (It wouldn’t be defensible in a scholarly paper, but we’re not dealing w/ that genre.)  In an open, respectful discussion, one person’s citation of a text can lead to a response of, ‘but have you considered this other text,’ and so on.  So I am at a complete loss to understand why you saw Matt and I as exchanging ‘rhetorical blows’.  I am equally unable to understand why Jesus’ words and examples in Matthew 4:17 somehow deal a balloon-puncturing rhetorical blow to his words and example in Luke 19:5.
If you’re so inclined, might I suggest an Ignatian-type exercise?  Imagine yourself to be in the scene described in Luke 19, only it is you rather than Jesus.  And rather than Zacchaeus in the tree, it is a gay couple.  Are you going to invite them to join you for dinner?  And if you do, what will they likely say to each other about the evening as they leave?  Or are you going to see them in the tree and call to them to repent?  And if so, will Matt have good cause to ask why you question Jesus’ evangelistic methodology?  Or will you, as you claim you have done to me (though you actually haven’t since you graciously devoted the time and attention to so lengthy a response), refuse to have a dialogue with them at all since, in your words, you and they ‘do not share the same foundational worldview’?

I haven’t had a chance to follow up this thread all day—intriguing to do so now.  I appreciate Sarah’s critique of the Ito article: 
“The thesis of his essay was as I pointed out above—that evangelicals have an image problem, that societal acceptance of same sex marriages is inevitable, and that otherwise orthodox churches were going to go ahead and affirm same-sex behavior and we should accept that.”  I do not agree that the opening portion of the article was however “filler”.

What I found worthy about the article was that it appears to be a genuine attempt to wrestle with motivations, attitudes, and convictions.  Do I end up in the same place as Ito?  No.  But I appreciate his effort to communicate his attempt at reconciling tensions within his theology, politics and experiences.

Near the end of his article he affirms that he tried to present himself as “basically sympathetic” to Corvino.  Certainly, in order to have a conversation there must be a point of contact, wherein the two participants can sympathize and/or respect each other.  It appears to me that Ito has seen the power of his wife’s connecting with Corvino—but has given away that power by trying too hard to be sympathetic in making his case after the fact.

Can’t we respect the human person, who has been created in the image of God, without giving away our position?  Whilst living overseas, I found it refreshing that the Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims of that city did not pretend we were all the same thing.  We knew that each group stood for something different—and when their spokespersons did not, those spokespersons were shunned.  I do not so much need to make myself a sympathetic character, as to show respect for those with whom I disagree.

Jesus did set the example when he said, “Repent the kingdom of God is near!”  The word repent is explicitly connected to the coming of the kingdom—the kingdom was a promise to redeem, heal, restore, and yes forgive, the broken,  the oppressed, the down-trodden, and the sinner.  Of course, those who were abusing their authority, their wealth, their status, etc, would lose it all when God’s King took his place on the throne.  The kingdom of God would straighten things out—lifting up the downcast and bringing down the proud.

It may be helpful to avoid being a rude person; it may be more helpful to show respect for another person; but certainly we want to make certain that we have a message that communicates hope in the promises of God and the power of God to turn things right side up.  Repent:  Get ready.  The Kingdom is at hand—God is coming with power, righteousness, and grace.

Thank you, +Loren, for yours in #24.  Your discussion of repentance as part and parcel of Jesus’ proclamation of the coming of the kingdom sets me wondering whether anyone has interpreted my comments as saying repentance should not be preached.  I believe it should be, but the question is how, when, with what motivations, and so on.

I do disagree w/ Ito’s acceptance of gay ‘marriage’ and believe that his stance on this issue is a dead end from which our culture must inevitably turn away (repent).  But I agree with him that there seems to be an inevitability about “some segments” of the evangelical church becoming more accepting of homosexuality in general.  (Whether these segments cease to be in any way, shape or form evangelical to the extent that they are open to homosexuality, as apparently Sarah would argue, is a matter I leave to others to decide.)

Something tells me Ito has received a significant amount of criticism over his piece and that it has been criticism more harsh than constructive.  I think this is most unfortunate since he and his wife were apparently able to influence Corvino (a gay apologist who tours nationally) to re-think part of his presentation.  As I noted in #4, some of what I’ve listened to on Corvino’s website is a caricature of Christian teaching.  If even that can be modified so that Corvino’s audiences hear something closer to the truth, it’s progress.  And it’s stunning progress when contrasted with the position that refuses to dialogue with those whose foundational worldviews are different.  It’s my understanding that evangelism means a respectful sharing of the real possibility that a person’s foundational worldview is worth giving up for the one the Gospel presents.

RE: “In any case, you’ve not established why my second assertion is ‘incoherent and irrational’.”

No, Matt did, by simply pointing out that by your definition Jesus was an “archetypal conservative” whose initial message was ‘repent!’

But certainly you’re free to assert that he did not, and people may make up their own minds.

RE: “though you graciously write a long and interesting response for the sake of not persuading me . . . “

Not at all—I prefer to respond to revisionists on occasion merely to point out their errors to the blog and myself publicly rather than simply note them privately.  In truth many readers do so privately but sometimes it’s good to go ahead and assert it aloud.  Courage breeds courage, and a public voice—as dear Rush Limbaugh has so demonstrated—gives courage to those who believe and think precisely the same things but wondered if they were alone.  As we have seen through this blog and others—traditional Anglicans and Episcopalians are not nearly as much a minority as perhaps they had thought themselves before.  ; > )

RE: “And as for the segments of the evangelical church that Ito mentions, you might simply refuse to call those segments evangelicals . . . “

Yup—certainly they will *wish* others to think them evangelical.  But it’s merely the same old divide between revisionists and traditionalists in TEC and nothing particularly new.

RE: “But here again, you do not persuade.”

I’m sure I do not persuade you. 

RE: “But I know Anglican evangelicals (or so-called evangelicals as you might prefer to call them) in the U.K. who are already fully in support of what Ito sees as inevitable.”

I am sure that you do know Anglicans who call themselves evangelicals who believe as TEC revisionists do.  Evangelical has become a rather popular word lately.  ; > )

RE: “If you’re so inclined, might I suggest an Ignatian-type exercise?”

You might suggest anything you like, but as I’ve experienced similar such things in real life, I have no interest in the exercise.

As I find the time I’ll occasionally point out your flaws in logic and coherence, as I occasionally do with other revisionists on this blog.  You’re certainly welcome to firmly believe it’s all for you.  ; > )

[Comment deleted by Elf - off topic and ad hominem]

A remarkable post that spawned a very strong thread of comments.  Ito writes clearly and shares with us the gnarliness of how one deals with the issue of Christian response to sin.  I have always assumed that homosexuality is not the problem from a Christian standpoint.  It is acting on that disposition, not having it.  Just as acting on heterosexual urges outside of matrimony is the problem, not having the predilection toward non-marital desire.

Certain comments in the thread also highlight what for me is a completely useless and misleading taxonomy of “liberal” versus “conservative”  approaches to this issue.  The terms often appear to me to have been imported thoughtlessly from contemporary American political parlance (where they are also much abused).  I sometimes get the impression that there are folks who believe “conservative” and “liberal” are accurate descriptors of an inventory of single issue beliefs that define individuals across both secular and religious issues.  Ito himself is an indicator that we need not consign ourselves to that sort of arid existence.

[Edited by Elf]

RE: “Certain comments in the thread also highlight what for me is a completely useless and misleading taxonomy of “liberal” versus “conservative”  approaches to this issue.”

Hmmm—I didn’t think Ito’s use of the words “conservative” and “liberal” at all misleading—we all knew exactly what he meant in the context of his article.

Of course, he could have used the words “reasserter” and “reappraiser” or “revisionist” and “traditionalist” . . . and we all would have known exactly what he meant with those words as well.  The communication was perfectly clear, and the comments in this thread responding to Ito’s article merely used the same words in the same context, and thus continued to be perfectly clear.

RE: “I have always assumed that homosexuality is not the problem from a Christian standpoint.  It is acting on that disposition, not having it.”

I agree.