I’m sure it comes as no surprise that the Diocese of Montreal was well represented in the Montreal Pride parade:
The priest in the photo is Rev. Donald Boisvert whose book, “Out on Holy Ground” includes this gem on phallic worship and the holiness of gay sex. I note with interest that the usual reference to stable, long–term, committed relationships has been supplanted by the more accurate if less edifying, unknowable anonymity:
As the dominant masculine symbol, the phallus acquires many characteristics of the holy. This is not a particularly modern interpretation. Phallic worship is as old as human civilization, and perhaps as controversial today as it was in the past. It has always been transgressive, associated with disorder and excess, with riotous freedom and wanton sex. …. I call gay sex “holy sex” because it is centred on one of the primal symbols of the natural world, that of male regenerative power. The rites of gay sex call forth and celebrate this power, particularly in its unknown and unknowable anonymity. Gay men are the worshippers paying homage to the god who stands erect and omnific, ever silent and distant.
A paradigm of contemporary Western Anglicanism.
Just further proof that the ACoC now worships a god but NOT the GOD of the Scriptures. Despite this we do not see any action by the so-called bishop and primate to deal with this apostasy. Scripture obviously means nothing and the Word of the Lord has been exchanged for that deceptive term “political correctness”.
You’re recyling your material, you’ve done that one before. I think you like it a bit.
Few things.
Donald is _one_ of the priests in that picture.
I wish you could meet Donald. He’s a fine priest and an extremely learned man who could play swap-the-Biblical-quote with you until your eyes crossed.
Also, that quote’s actually a pretty solid bit of writing.
I’m not a cradle Anglican, indeed I had a conversion experience comparatively recently, so I guess I don’t have the visceral reactions you have to, well, most things apparently. I can’t imagine being that upset at that quote. I don’t see it.
I do think, however, that a strong focus on specific, detail-laden beliefs makes one a cultural artefact rather than a Christian. Which is a bit funny considering that’s the accusation flung with the most abandon here.
Real, honest query: what is the difference between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church? Is there the least difference in specific beliefs? Because if there is, the entire foundation behind most of your posts — “This is what Christianity means, has always meant and will always mean” — kind of crumbles, seems to me. And there are over 40 _thousand_ Christian denominations. All disagreeing with one another in some way. Who decides which difference doesn’t matter, and which one does? St. Peter really thought that Christian men needed to be circumcised. Was the Pauline view right because Paul won?
The smaller the granularity of your beliefs, and the stronger you hold them, the more you miss the point of what makes religion endure. It certainly isn’t doctrinal unity.
Vincent,
Your point seems to be that because it is sometimes difficult to decide which doctrinal disagreements are important and which are not, then none of them are important. If that is true then Christianity becomes meaningless. As William F Buckley observed: “one way to ignore religion is to deprive it of singular meaning”.
If you think some disagreements really are important (you must think that at least this one is), then to throw your hands up and say, “who decides” is sheer laziness. We have, after all, 2000 years of theological thought upon which to draw to form our conclusions: you decide.
Well, we have. 🙂
And so have you.
But I don’t have a post-a-pic-and-sneer blog about it.
But I have never said doctrinal differences are not important.
They clearly are of paramount importance, but to a _specific_ group of people. _That’s_ how you get thousands of different denominations.
I may well be recycling my material but that is due to the fact that the leadership in the ACoC continues in its rapid descent into apostasy. The church is supposed to witness to society – bringing them truth in the Scriptures – NOT to fall in line with the view of many in society. The word “gay” used to have a very positive meaning but it has been hijacked by what is called the gay and lesbian community and the general public has fallen into line with that deception.
I was saying that David is recycling his material. He’s posted that quote from Donald’s book before.
The word “gay” still has a very positive meaning.
There was another “fine priest”, by all purple-clad appearances, inclined to “swap-the -Biblical quote” with The Living WORD – “the fine priest” quoting Holy Writ by half + Matthew 4:1-11. By whole The Living WORD still upholds Himself + Leviticus 18:22;+ Luke 17:32; for what is written remains “It is written”.
If I can’t write a halfway decent song with that post of yours, abigail, I’m not the man I was.
😉
He may have “recycled” that particular passage from the book, but obviously it has great impact and provides insight into the author’s thinking. The author, in this case, is a supposed Christian priest. I’m not sure whether to put quotations around the “Christian” or the “priest”. Hehehe.
Don the Priest has an obvious talent for pagan liturgies and would be a star in a Wicca setting. On the other hand, its just pretentious rubbish from a Christian standpoint.
Shouldn’t that be “generative” power, not “regenerative power”? You’re creating something/someone, not bringing it back to a former/healthier state.
I haven’t seen that quote before, so thanks David for posting it… I guess. As Boisvert admits, he is describing views that are “as old as civilization.” Such primitive views of sex and selfish power are familiar to Christians and Jews from the pagan tribes that have surrounded us at many stages of our history. The focus on my power rather than God’s power is certainly a very familiar meme.
I would assert, however, that this view (this religion) is much older than civilization – you can see it in bulls and colobus monkeys just to name two examples. One of the treasures God gave to the Jews, and through them to the Christians, was the elevation of sex to a spiritual level. Sex is now a reflection of God’s relationship to the church rather than an animal instinct.
I feel sorry that Boisvert cannot see it so elevated. I feel sorry that sex for him is so paltry.
Hmm. The book came out in 2000. Back when Donald was not a priest. I’m not actually sure he was even an Anglican at the time. I don’t know how much of the book he still endorses and I wouldn’t have a problem with him endorsing it today, but to quote the bit that’ll make your own fans freak out and then conclude: “A paradigm of contemporary Western Anglicanism.” seems at best lazy.
Whatever happened to “flee fornication” and “abstain from fleshly lusts that war against the soul”?