Announcement: A New Blog For Your Pleasure -- I Hope

I would like to take this moment to introduce to you a new blog I began a few months ago. It remains very much a project under construction. The cool thing is that I am not the only one doing the heavy lifting (due, in part, to the fact that it is rather light lifting.). For I have teamed up -- thus far -- with Mike the Eye Guy, Honora, and KathrynTherese. I am also eager to have more folks join our team.

You see, I began the new blog, Peace&Mirth, as an anonymous outlet for me. I did this merely because I have no anonymity, most of the time, and it just seemed right to do. But I am not the kind of guy who can hide behind a pseudonym, so I have come forward, with a few friends at my side, to let you all know that there is another place to go.

Perhaps my very first Peace&Mirth post will sufficiently convey to you the goal toward which we are striving. I wrote the piece under the name, Gimli's Friend, in part because of Mike The Eye Guy's description of me as Gimli (a J. R. R. Tolkien character). But I also chose the name because I believe Gimli's true friend is joy.

Here is the inaugural post:

Gambolling, At First, Through Middle Mirth

As Gimli, child of Glee, I am glad to announce this little blog devoted to the fine things that make us merry. Not Merry, or even Pippin, mind you. I am talking about merry, mirth, mirthfulness. I am talking about the bubbly buoyancy of simple living. I am talking about a child with a puppy, perhaps even a pretend puppy. I am talking about walking across a narrow log over a rushing stream, and then falling in. I am talking about giggling in church, milk through the nose, snow days. I am talking about finding awe in one's breath, even if it's rather bad breath. I am talking of shadow puppets and campfires and even sundry adventures, with perhaps no adventure more sundry (or adventurous) than feeling morning dew between one's shrivelling toes.

Of course I am talking about peace and mirth, the mysteries of birth.

In short, it's all about glee. The great news is that glee is free. Call it the gospel of Glee.

Blessings, and welcome.

We hope you find at Peace&Mirth what we hope you'll find: Peace, Mirth, Glee, Grace, and other hints of ineffable Joy. And a little bit of beauty thrown in. Consider it an elfish/dwarfish way station along life's hectic avenues. Actually, consider it anything you want. We simply hope it gives you rest -- and, if but for a moment, a smile.

Peace.

Bill Gnade

Some Truly Stupid Thoughts

I watched "Meet The Press" yesterday morning and I had the honor to listen to the great Thomas Friedman, the Pulitzer Prize-winning and peripatetic columnist for The New York Times. I say it was an honor because I believe there are many people who believe it is an honor to listen to the man. Who am I, a mere mortal, to disagree with the immortals of the world's city?

Well, it surely was quite an honor to hear this:

Foreigners love to make fun of Americans. Our naivete, our crazy thought that every problem has a solution, that silly American notion, that silly American optimism. But you know what, Tim? Deep down, the world really envies that American optimism and naivete. And the world needs that American optimism and naivete.

And so when we go from a country that, historically, has always exported hope to a country that always exports fear, what we do, and what this administration has done, is actually stolen something from people. Whether it’s an African or a European or an Arab or Israeli, it’s that idea of an optimistic America out there. People really need that idea, and the sort of dark nature of the Cheneys and the Bushes and the Rices, this, this sort of relentless pessimism about the world, this exporting of fear, not hope, has really left people feeling that the idea of America has been stolen from them. And I would argue that that is the animating force behind so much of the animus directed at George Bush.

It is a great honor -- no? -- to witness such a jet-lagged bit of foolishness on television touted as something erudite and incisive: it is an honor if you honor the absurd.

Need I even point out why Mr. Friedman is playing the fool here?

Let me put it plainly: George W. Bush and his administration have been berated every minute since his first inauguration for being naive and foolishly optimistic. Bush has not been too negative about the Middle East (for example), he's been too positive. Don't you see -- or so Friedman's allies and colleagues have repeatedly pronounced -- how foolish Bush has been thinking he can apply a solution to the great problem of the Middle East? Do you not know how "cowboyish", how "Texan", how grossly American Bush and Powell and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rice have been, believing, as they do, in the power of democracy; of Arabian freedom; of a real resolution to Mid-East injustices and tyranny? Come now. Surely you know that Bush is naive to think that Iraq will ever be a success, even a successful democracy? How silly, how utterly fatuous is that little man, thinking he can bring peace to a region that is entrenched in conflicts thousands of years old. How foolish and naive, even arrogant, of Bush to fight for change within tribes ancient and recalcitrant. How foolish to think the Iraqis could ever govern themselves, or that they could ever handle "Western-style" democracy! How silly that Bush thinks he has an answer, ANY answer, to such problems. And how crude, how childishly crude, to think America -- unilaterally, without a consortium of ideologues from all walks of life -- could offer on its own some sort of solution! As if things were so simple!

You get the picture, and I know it makes you sick. And if you are not sick, then surely you don't get the picture. Thomas Friedman has been out of the country so often he does not know what the leftist critics of the Bush Administration have been saying since November 2000. Friedman thinks Bush and Cheney and Rice are bleak pessimists? Holy Bat Scat, Batman! Things are inverted in Gotham City! Talk about naïveté!

Just remember that I have quoted the lauded columnist of The New York Times. Have these people no "intellectual curiosity"; do they not seek outside opinions at all?

Indeed it is an honor to look at such people living in that tiny New York bubble, knowing that they are the true optimists exporting hope to the world. I wish them well.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Contra Retraction

[Don't forget to drop in on our on-going discussion about the greatest rock song in history. Please, let us know what you think is the best tune of all time (thus far, of course).]

Last night I made the rather rare decision to delete a post I wrote yesterday regarding the arrest of Mel Gibson. My essay was replete with problems; I misspoke; haste made for waste. I am not suggesting that Mr. Gibson should be lynched (in the metaphorical sense) for his tequila-soaked anti-semitic outbursts; nor do I think such speech should be applauded or even defended (except as free speech, perhaps). My issue is with what I called (yesterday) Red Herring reportage: journalism fixed upon what a drunk man said in an extremely vulnerable and poisoned state, and not on what he did, which was to drive drunk at high speeds on a dark roadway in Malibu, California. For this is the only thing for which he is charged; it will be the only thing for which he is convicted.

I visited a website yesterday wherein the writer wrote this marvel about Mel Gibson:

The thing is, when he made this tirade, Gibson was rip-roaring drunk. In other words, remove the mask of civility that maturity and social constraints impose, and you discover that Mel Gibson is, in fact, the anti-Semite everyone thinks he is. However, that’s not where Mel Gibson wants to be in the public eye, either because he’s embarrassed by his deepest, darkest thoughts or (more likely, I think) because harboring those thoughts will affect his bottom line. [emphasis added]

My two responses to this statement can be found at the link above. But I will at least say this: do we all not have our demons? If so, how do we know that alcohol does not reveal the demon, blocking out our true selves? Why this cynical belief that the heart is revealed when a man is drunk?

Jesus Christ said, or so it is reported, "It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man; it is what comes out of him that defiles him." Powerful stuff. But surely Mr. Gibson was defiled by what went into him and what came out. But that does not mean what came out of him is the voice of Mr. Gibson. Moreover, Jesus' words are tough to unravel: Is it defiling for a man to stare at pornography, since that is merely something which goes into him? Is it defiling to inject heroin into the body; is it defiling to attend a hate rally? I will not answer these questions. I merely ask them so as to direct us to the possibility that Jesus' words are more complex than meets the eye.

Peace.

[Special thanks to Contratimes reader R. Sherman, who sent me the following comment yesterday about my now-deleted post. His words opened my rather narrowed vision, made so by the "dim" light of early morning posting. I share it merely so I may give him proper credit:

From a different perspective, let me say, I've seen DWI reports in Missouri, both as a prosecutor and defense counsel. Our state law mandates certain things be included in the reports and the total number of pages usually are 15 - 20.

Of course, I don't know about California law, and you are correct vis a vis defendant's statements not being a part of the corpus delecti of the crime.

Nonetheless, everything normally makes it into the report, if for no other reason than to allow the officer to remember and identify the defendant if the case goes to trial.

Cheers.

P.S. I like Mel Gibson.

Thanks for the help, R!]

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Mel Gibson, DUI, drunk driving, Anti-Semitism

Exploiting Mel Gibson's Great Sin

I have withdrawn this post for further review. You may find a related post here. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Peace. BG

(Romantic) Thoughts About Great Rock And Roll

Because it is summer; because it is the middle of the year, a time when life trills in the evening trees with a sleepy vibrancy, I continue to think about rock and roll (and what is the best rock song ever). But now I turn to rock and roll that is purely romantic, that makes me want to be a lover, a lover of life and the noble embrace. I want to think of those artists that make me want to kiss my wife, to hold her and never let her go. I want to think of those artists who capture lost love; who write and sing of broken dreams, or the great distance between lovers that lovers cannot avoid. I want to think of marriage, of holding hands; of the warm and wet kiss in the dark.

There are many artists, of course, who speak to this deep longing for love, for reconciliation, for reunion. U2's "With or Without You" brings to mind that woman I thought I could not live without; nor could I live with her, as she so painfully made clear. The Scorpions' hard rock ballad, "Still Loving You", still rings with all the passion I have felt for a woman who could wring no passion from her cooling heart. And Bruce Cockburn's "Lovers in a Dangerous Time" prompts me to think of the vortex of hate and infidelity that swirls around two hearts duly betrothed, tempting them to disdain their vows, their love.

Perhaps no single artist is more romantic (in my musical history) than Dan Fogelberg. At times, he was even too romantic. That the guy could rock is clear; his "Face the Fire", an anthem rallying resistance to nuclear power, is a crankingly good tune. But his love songs, like "Dancing Shoes", "Sketches", or "Souvenirs" are so good as to be painful. The beauty, the pathos, the simplicity. Ahh. I am reeling even now. And the absolutely crushing theme of "Auld Lang Syne" -- with his "just for a moment, I was back at school" closing the song, as the "snow turned into rain" -- has caused some part of me to cry ceaselessly for the past 23 years.

There is a moment in Journey's lovely "Faithfully", when Steve Perry simply sings "Oh" three times with such melodic beauty the pain and longing are palpable, and I am transported to the very breast of Venus, where I weep.

Indeed, there are too many such songs to number; too many hearts have known broken love or love's failure. Too many souls have felt the abandonment, the pain of rejection, associated with love's unavoidable risks. Artists abundant have spoken to this with such accuracy, with such poignancy, it would be foolish to think that the love song is not the essential song of humanity. We cry for love; we yearn for it like a sunset seeks a dawn: we want to know love over and over again.

Tonight, right now, I listen to James Blunt's "High". Right now, it is the most beautiful love song I've ever heard. Oh, yes, there are others who have reached such heights. But tonight, James Blunt sends me running for cover; and he sends me to those places where everything else strips away as so much nonsense. Poetry and prayer, priest and president, seem inconsequential. There is love; there is sharing the dawn with the woman this man was meant to meet, through fire and rain and splitting skies and the fiery darts of sin; through sickness and even through the very gates of death.

And yet I only touch the hem of romance.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Poetry For A Summer Fair

[It's diversion time at Contratimes, and thus I offer to you this poem. Ahh, to remember the days of youth, of fancy; when pretend was all that mattered; when pretend was more real than real. Also, don't forget our on-going discussion. We need to hear from you.]

Cannon In Ursa Major

We were fifth graders
romping home from school
on a perfect September day
when we stopped
at Phelans’ house with
Paul and Michael
their eldest boys
two of eight children
named for saints.
Mrs. Phelan
(St. Catherine, I believe)
announced
that the family car
had been stolen
an hour before our arrival
and the police
come and gone
were statewide looking
for two daring perpetrators
who made off
with the failing
Ford Galaxy
muted gold
crumbs on vinyl seats.
Wildly excited by this
improbable disturbance
in Dublin’s
coveted solace
we burst into the yard
eager for clues.
Instantly we caught sight
of car tracks
in grass
in the backyard
and a broken rope
frayed at one end
limply connected
to the house
at the other.
St. Paul shouted,
“They must have cut
the clothesline before
they took the car!”
With Sherlock Holmes' tenacity
we followed the car-prints
as they led down
a sloping lawn toward
the overgrown meadow
at the far edge of the lot.
Without a word
we were off
sprinting
intent on
catching crooks
who had the misfortune
of driving a stolen car
into brambles
which would be
no smart get-away.
Our hopes for a speedy arrest
were soon dashed
so too our quest for reward
when the tracks
were lost and the car
undiscovered,
sleuths thwarted
in making headlines.
“Look!” yelled St. Michael.
“That way!” chimed St. Mary.
They spotted our egregious error:
we had been too hasty.
The car had not
continued straight;
its tracks made a slippery
wheel-spinning arc
through the yard.
It had not merely rolled
through a meadow
the victim of careless
gear engagement
mere neutrality
it had peeled out
of the drive
willfully;
it had raced across the lawn
ripped down the clothesline
fish-tailed in panic
around blind bushes
and scrub trees
(the only witnesses)
and zoomed back
up the drive
burning rubber
due west toward
freedom.
There was a jealous silence:
we all wanted to fish-tail.

Later
the bad guys would be caught
near Vermont
two fugitives with a gun
(a hand-cannon, as dad called it)
the car returned
no worse
though surely charmed
in our eyes.
For days and days
we’d sit in that parked
car and recall
dashing youth
hunting for clues
just out of reach
as a police car
lights ablaze
sirens calling
chases two young men
fleeing across
tempestuous stars
shooting comets
laughing
fish-tailing
in a stolen Galaxy.

©Bill Gnade 1998/2006 - All Rights Reserved.

A Diversion From Middle Earth

[Though the discussion began here the bulk of it is to be found at this fine link. Please note that the discussion -- about what is the single greatest rock song of all time -- is still open. Note, too, that, if you've already made a suggestion you are not thus excluded from making several more. Heaven knows such a challenge as crowning one rock song the very best is not an easy one.

Nominations thus far include works by U2, The Police, Kansas, Warren Zevon, Radiohead, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Bruce Springsteen, The Sex Pistols, The Rolling Stones, Captain Beefheart, and a few others. What do YOU think?

As I promised already, I will name (and defend) my choice for best rock tune of all time when our little diversion is closed. And I will occasionally reveal a few of my favorites and even drop hints about my top-most choice. Here's a clue: the best song of all time comes out of Britain. Sorry, Aerosmith fans. As for one of my all-time favorite rock and roll jams, Yes's live version of "Starship Trooper", particularly Steve Howe's amazing guitar solo through "Wurm"-- the song's climax -- ranks high on my I-wish-I-were-a rock-guitarist list. And one of my favorite oldies to sing, full voice, is "Never Been To Spain" by Three Dog Night. Peace. BG]

Some of you might find this sort of diversion grotesque -- wondering what the greatest rock song of all time might be while World War III (or IV) is breaking out in the Middle East. It's a bit like wondering what tune Nero was fiddling while Rome was burning (I imagine it was the coda to "Baba O'Riley"). But if we are on the edge of apocalypse (which actually means "to uncover" or "reveal", by the way; it only rather recently devolved into "final doom"), then what could be more revealing than to divine the best rock song of all time?

Israel, indeed, is at war with its neighbors. It has been since time immemorial. World opinion will shift and slant about this; there will be many who will continue to blame Israel for everything, and many new faces will join them. Propagandists will posit that Israel is not only America's puppet in the region, they will win over many hearts with the rather foolish belief that America is solely responsible for Israel's strength and prosperity. Hence, America will be attacked by radicals in an effort to isolate America from the rest of the world; America, in retreat, licking its massive wounds -- that's what Israel's enemies need. But Israel will surprise those who hate it so. It is a nation with incredible power. It will not be easily cowed, and it surely will not be obliterated from the earth (which is the apparent goal of Iran and the "disbanded" PLO charter).

Lastly, this is not about territory or religion. It is a battle over the very nature of God, about which nation is God's nation; about which God is really the one with power. And it is a battle over gods. But it is also a battle over peace. As one astute commentator said, if Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas were to destroy all their weapons and wave the flag of peace, Israel would retreat to its borders and live unto itself peacefully. But if Israel were to destroy all its weapons, if it were to return all occupied lands and smash its guns into ploughshares, it would be pushed into the Dead Sea by its neighbors.

You see, as long as Israel exists, the problem will persist. That is why my support goes to Israel: the invaders are circling, and they want Jerusalem -- the City of Peace -- for themselves. Israel will not let that happen. But I am guessing that over the next few weeks, months, years -- even decades -- there will be things done by Israel that will challenge the loyalties of most of its allies. That, in fact, already seems to be happening. For I hear many conservative voices, voices one would expect to be pro-Israel to the core, chiming critical of Israel's recent actions.

But I think I will stay out of all of this, for now. I am ignorant in these matters. I will simply follow my heart on this one.

Peace to all. We pray.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Think of Only One Song, On A Desert Island (A Footnote)

OK. If you are tempted to comment here about the best rock song EVER, you are invited -- should you be the shy type -- to EMAIL me your number 1. I will maintain your anonymity, if you wish. But I will still post the results here; we need to know what people are thinking.

I've already gotten one legitimate "Best Rock Song of All Time" submission: Meatloaf's "Two Out of Three Ain't Bad." There was nary a defense from this very frequent visitor to Contratimes. Just some reference to first (and lost) love. Now, not being a Meatloaf fan myself (unless I make it), I can understand why this submisson came "over the transom", so to speak. But love is love, and rock and roll is a powerful force. So I cannot disagree with my dear friend. He loves the song; it is the one song he would have if he could only have one.

Think of it this way: if you were trapped on a desert island, what is the one song you'd want to have with you? No. That's not really the question. For I am asking you not what song is your favorite. I am asking you what song you would consider the very best: the one that everybody should acknowledge as the greatest of all time. Surely I have favorites I prefer over the one I think is tops. Heck, "Happy Birthday" is one of my favorite sing-along songs (particularly on September 21), but it is not the Best Song of All. I love "Wonderful Tonight" by Eric Clapton; I love "Hold On Loosely" by .38 Special; I love "Do Ya" by ELO and "Waiting for the Bus" by ZZ Top; I love "Ordinary World" by Duran Duran and "Heavy" by Collective Soul; I love "Subdivisions" by Rush and "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon; I weep for sheer beauty when I hear Simon and Garfunkel's "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" (I proposed to my wife in front of 125 of her colleagues by singing Simon & Garfunkel's "For Emily, Whenever I May Find Her", a song which always stops my heart), but none of these is a contender for best overall rock song of all time.

Know too that if you submit a decent defense of your best song ever, I will post it here (you can be my guest writer for the day). Why is "Losing My Religion" the best song of all time? Or is the best really The Who's "Baba O'Riley", Elton John's "Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road" or Pat Benatar's "Hell is For Children"? Or should we all just stop, knowing that the best rock song of all time is "We Are The World"?

So. Go for it. Crank out a serious lick; riff on anything you want. The stage, the microphone, the studio band -- they're all yours. The audience waits.

"Turn It Up." The amps here, as you know, go to 11 -- and a half.

Peace.

PS. I promised that I would eventually reveal my choice for number 1 rock song of all time. Let me do two things. Let me throw out a clue once in a while, and let me tell you some songs I think are tremendous. First, a clue: the number one song of all time in my opinion is not a song one would dance to. Second, a truly amazing song, one of the very best, is Toad the Wet Sprocket's "Throw It All Away". In fact, you should go out right now and buy Toad's album, Coil. It is a wonderful CD. Perhaps someday I will write an essay why that song is on my Top Ten, and why it is something of a personal anthem.

Oh. Just if you're wondering. The best SONG of all time, overall, is Bach/Gounod's "Ave Maria". Beautiful beyond words.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

On The Turntable: Your Favorite Pick

I want you to think about this with all due seriousness, and yet with no seriousness at all. I want your brain engaged, and your gut. I want the heady and the visceral. I want aesthetics and I want philosophy, even sociology. What I am looking for is your opinion on this most pressing matter: What do you think is the greatest (best) rock-and-roll song of all time?

OK. Here are the ground rules. The song has at least got to be chartable; it has had to have been something most people could have heard. Nothing from the dark, metal-slashed underbelly of anarchists' bars in Soho that only serve beer fermented with rage and tears; no blues and ska-punk mix played once at UC-Berkeley. I am talking music that most folks know: Beatles, Zeppelin, the Birds; Reo Speedwagon, the Sex Pistols, the Talking Heads, Bob Dylan, Van Morrison; Michael Jackson, INXS, U2, Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, David Bowie, Janice Joplin; Melissa Etheridge, Jethro Tull, Lynyrd Skynrd, UB40, Abba, Grand Funk Railroad, Bob Seger, The Boss, The Cure, The Clash, Cream, Tom Jones; Edgar Winter, Procol Harum, Ween, Pepper, Metallica, Seal, Dave Matthews, The Backstreet Boys; Grand Master Flash or Ice T with Ice Cube; Gnarls Barkley, R.E.M., Anita Baker, Joan Jett, Sinead O'Connor, Lenny Kravitz, Twisted Sister, Sister Sledge; you know, the stuff that is on the radio (or has been, for more than one play). If you were allowed to pick one song that to you was the very best song, what would it be?

And don't just limit yourself to the song that makes you want to dance, play hoops, or cruise chicks. By best I mean that song that is the complete expression of the rock-and-roll life; I am talking about that song that captures the essence of a generation (or two or three) that has been weaned on this stuff. Is "Stairway to Heaven" the greatest rock song of all time? Why? Is U2's "One" the greatest? If so, what makes it important, what makes it the best? Is James Taylor's "Steamroller" the greatest song; or Michael Jackson's "Beat It"? How about Maria Muldaur's "Midnight at the Oasis", The Rolling Stones "Satisfaction", or Cher's "Half Breed"? Surely someone thinks those bad New Hampshire boys' "Dream On" is the greatest of all time, right Aerosmith fans?

Now, I recognize that this is a very broad category. OK. So that shouldn't limit anyone from defending his or her choice. Let us know what you think, and then defend it. Be creative. Is the song great for its political impact, perhaps like Neil Young's "Ohio"? Is the song great because it has the greatest guitar solo ever, like, I don't know, "Layla" or Queen's "We Will Rock You"? Is it the best because so many people bought the album; or because so many prom committees chose it for their theme ("Freebird" comes to mind)? Is the song great because it represents a benchmark, a highwater mark, a transition; did it spark a cultural shift, a change in paradigms? Or do you think it the best because you imagine yourself as a rock star, and this would be your "standard", your triple platinum mindblower you just loved to play live?

So, let's hear what you think. Be creative, bold, arrogant, pompous and presumptuous. Pretend you are the editor of coolness at Rolling Stone. Tell us what you think. Come. Don't be shy.

In return, I will let you all know -- later -- what I believe to be the best rock song of all time. I further promise to be bold and creative, even philosophical. Of course, one of my readers knows my pick already, so he cannot here divulge what that tune is or else I will out him publicly (his pick is Guns and Roses' "Sweet Child of Mine", which is a rowdy good pick for those of us who play a wicked air guitar).

The only limit on this is that you cannot pick Jefferson Starship's "We Built This City", John Cougar's "R.O.C.K. in the USA", or anything where the singer stutters or spells out a word (sorry, I have no R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for such stuff). OK. I take that back. There are no limitations other than the one -- most (English-speaking) people must have had the chance to hear the song on the radio, or, at least, have had a chance to hear the band or artist.

So, there you go. Summertime drivel for the artistic and musical. Blow our minds with your audacity. Be ridiculous. Tell us why "MacArthur Park" is the greatest song of all time; defend your thesis that "Space Oddity" is the stuff of the gods.

Good luck.

Peace.

BG (on sabbatical, sort of)

Breathing Room

I am afraid that I have exhausted my readers, or at least I have exhausted my readers' patience. Maybe I have overdrawn on the account; checks are bouncing and everyone finds me deadbeat. But I am a bit dead, and even a bit beat, over my lengthy (and, I guess, tedious) series on the Episcopal Church. I must take a respite from it, as surely you must, too. So, there is a moratorium on that controversy for a while. And since it is summertime, perhaps a little brainlessness is in order. Well, maybe not brainlessness. Maybe just a diversion from such heady (and emotional) matters. I send you here for less controversial fare.

Peace.

BG

Theses On The Door: Addendum 2 - "Not (Homosexual) Conversion?!"

[As you may know, blogs often present themselves in reverse. This is the last part of a lengthy series which starts here. I hope you find all this useful. Peace. BG]

In Part VIII of my latest series, "Theses On The Door", Contratimes visitor (and my friend) Luke Buckham posted this comment:

I'm curious--these essays are very articulate about your position on homosexuality inside the church, and they also seem to show quite clearly that you're in opposition to homosexuality itself.

Right now, though, I'm not here to argue about that, and I know better than to always jump to the obvious conclusion when it comes to your views. So I just wanted to ask: what's your position on homosexuality OUTSIDE the church; in other words, homosexuality in general? Do you think the sexual orientation of gays can be significantly altered? If you believe that homosexuality is just plain wrong and irrational, do you have any idea of what might constitute a remedy?

It might seem very easy to assemble an answer to that question from previous posts of yours, but I'd rather hear it from you in direct response to the preceding question.

As I stated yesterday in Addendum 1, Mr. Buckham has a penchant for asking tough questions. And these are no exception. Where, and how, to begin?

I might begin with homosexual activists themselves. There seems to be ample evidence that activists believe homosexuals can change, or that at least some people can "change" their orientation. I knew a man who had a lovely wife of 22 years, and three gorgeous children they raised together. He rather suddenly left his wife and family for -- surprise! -- a man. Did the father change? Was he really an intrinsically gay man who was behaving in a way extrinsic to his nature? Was he finally "genuine" sexually when he was with his male lover? Had he finally found himself in such liberation?

Some of us who have paid attention to those modern novelists and psychologists who address the "self" and its elusive nature, notice that the theme of many of these writers and thinkers is singular, even determined: what -- and who -- are you, really? How do you know you are you; how do you know you are genuinely "yourself"? Are you really a "banker", a "writer", an "artist", a "mother", a "loser", a "heterosexual"? What I am getting at is that there is a rather modern fascination with identity. And there is also a fascination with doubting whether identity is even possible: can the self ever know itself, and can it ever be happy? Can it ever be found? Who can tell?

So, in a sense, it is right to ask whether the once straight man I knew remains truly and intrinsically gay. Are any of us any of the things we think we are? Perhaps. But perhaps not. It would not be surprising to hear of a man who leaves his wife for a gay lover only to come to some later epiphany that he is not really gay at all.

But Luke has not really asked me about my rather random ruminations on identity. He wants to know whether I am opposed to homosexuality in general. The answer is simple: I am. But what my series has been about is restricting homosexuality in the Church. It is about seeing it as it is: irrational, aberrant. What I have not done is insisted that homosexuality be restricted in the culture, the secular culture outside the Church. I have not insisted that gays and lesbians not be allowed to do whatever they wish "out there", which is everywhere else but inside the Church's Holy Offices. I am even willing to give them everything -- Hollywood and the arts, the marketplace of fashion, the peaks of political aspirations, the great chairs of academia; but I am not willing to give them the imago dei, the image of God, nor am I willing to call loving and committed sex between members of the same sex "sacred marriage". I will give them the world as long I can have Jerusalem; they can have the whole house as long as I can keep the conservatory or the study.

But there is more to say about "changeability", about conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality, or at least to sexual abstinence. Indeed, Luke is right -- he could have discovered my opinions in other things I've written. For I have written that the political marriage between gays and lesbians, on the one hand, and the transgendered folks on the other, is utterly confounding. It is one of the most irrational, contradictory alliances on the planet. For the gay and lesbian conviction, particularly theologically, is that God and nature do not make mistakes; that being gay or lesbian is not a matter of choice, but one of essence. There is no changing this; there is no mistake or aberration. Gender is fixed, sexual attraction is innate, hardwired from conception. Or so it goes. But for some strange reason these advocates of a static sexual genesis suddenly become elastic; God and nature do indeed make mistakes, and trans-gendered folks are those mistakes. Suddenly we learn that sexual identity can change; we learn that the repressed female self can be liberated through surgery and hormone therapy into an XY-chromosome male, one cosmetically altered to look like an XX-chromosome female (though in reality the altered person still looks like an XY-chromosome male, only with lipstick and skirt). Suddenly we learn that sexual behaviors can be influenced by reinforcement (medical, psychological, social) and nurture; we learn that sexual identity is fluid and personal, even a choice (for a man trapped in a woman's body must choose transformation). It is all rather confusing.

Gamesmanship

There are certain identity games (or so I call them) for which I have little patience. I can recall a woman at college who often dressed like a clown (she was in a clowning ministry). Somedays she'd stop fellow students on the quad, or in the hallway. She'd do her clown thing, and would always take issue -- quite defensively -- with those who insisted on calling her by her real name. No, no. You had to call her "Happy the Clown" or "Sunshine the Clown". She was not Sandy or Heather. And Happy the Clown was not above making her audience rather miserable, embarrassing folks in front of their peers as they would inadvertently (though genuinely) blurt out her REAL name; Sunshine often became quite stormy.

This sort of thing is remarkably similar to men who dress in drag. It stymies me, thoroughly, why such men demand that I refer to them in female terms -- she, her, etc. There is nothing -- at all -- female about them. They are mere imitators, mere fakes. They are male on the surface and they are male at the core. Their very chromosomes declare this to be the case. But why, why, am I expected to affirm an illusion, even a lie? Why am I expected to call Jim Smith in drag Julianna Plumbersbut? He is no Julianna, and he "ain't no woman". Why the charade? Why the lack of the genuine, the real? Why is sexual artifice preferred to what is plainly natural; why prefer Sweet and Low when one can have honey?

Alas, it is because there is nothing genuine or real. Even gays and lesbians must accept this, if they accept draq queens and sundry queer celebrations where genders are blurred, destroyed, transformed; where gender and sex are whacked out in drag bustiers or butch tags of denim, leather and chain. And since there is no "real", then it follows that sexuality and gender is not real either; nor are self and happiness and a fixed sexual nature. Sexuality is malleable, and is therefore changeable. I don't need science or scripture to tell me this, I need only look at a Gay Pride parade. People can't be proud of what they can't help but be. I am not proud I have hands, white skin, XY chromosomes, whiskers, grey hair. I am proud of the choices I have made and will make; I am proud of many of the choices I have not made. Pride, including gay pride, is all about choice. And I don't need revelation to tell me what my eyes plainly see: the secular and progressive mind is committed to changing reality, where existence precedes essence and essence is determined on a whim. You decide who and what you are. That is modern psychology to the core. And if you are comfortable doing this, if you are able to live a "meaningful and fulfilling" life -- to your own standards -- then that is modern psychological bliss.

Long Hair Is A Woman's Glory?

Several days ago I watched "The Sky Did Not Fall", an indie film-short produced by Andrew Rossi and aired on Current TV. The film documented the legalization of gay marriage by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. It is an amazing piece of cinematography and documentary.

In the final minutes of the film, two lesbian lovers, engaged to be wed, finally pick up and complete their long-awaited marriage license. One of them notices something curious on the license: there are respective lines requesting the names of the "husband" and "wife". The spouse-to-be comments about this, sparking the following exchange:

A: One of us has to be a bride and someone has to be a groom. Who’s gonna be a bride and who’s gonna be the groom? [Pause] I get to be the bride!

B: Alright. My hair's shorter.

***

My hair's shorter. Even here, in the midst of their holiest moments as a "couple", both women tacitly imply that there is a need for maleness and femaleness to make a marriage a marriage. It is a stunning moment in the film, as they speak so casually and softly to each other, breathlessly perusing the license. I'll be male -- a husband -- because I have shorter hair.

The film ends at the couple's wedding. Let me put this climax plainly: there is NOTHING ROMANTIC about the vows they exchange. In fact, their vows are thoroughly political: I will be your safe harbor from those outside who declare that what we have is not real. It is a shocking moment of emptiness.

But the whole thing is telling: gender ain't what you is, it's what you claim you is. You decide.

Hence, change must be possible.

Luke asked, finally, whether I have any idea how one might "change" or convert from homosexuality to either heterosexuality or abstention. I have no answer. But I have often wondered why it is the case that, if a marriage between two men is not about sex but loving another person, then how is it that they each can't love a woman? Surely a woman is another person. And if it is about sex AND love, gay men are limited to anal intercourse and fellatio -- really. But why is this a gender thing, then? Women have anuses and mouths; how are they excluded from being loveable and wonderful?

It is often asked how a marriage between two men (or two women), deeply in love and committed with all due fidelity, is a threat to my marriage to my wife. That's a fair challenge, for sure. But so is this: if true human relationships are all about love and commitment, how does my saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman threaten the loving commitment between two men? Surely "marriage" is only a formal and public declaration of a couples' private love and vows. How then does not making such public declarations of gay couples' private vows threaten those vows? How does marriage as traditionally defined limit gay and lesbian love and fidelity?

But this whole thing really DOES threaten my marriage, because it threatens language, and therefore it threatens thought. Anyone who asserts that my marriage to a woman, utterly distinct from me in nearly every way, is equal to a marriage between two men -- who are not that distinct -- or two women (also not distinct), well, such an assertion is tantamount to intellectual death. A man who declares two saucers atop each other is equal to a cup atop a saucer; a woman who believes that a gun and gun is equal to a gun and a bullet; a psychologist who believes a seed on a seed is the same as a seed in the soil; a preacher who asserts that a sword inside a sword is equal to a sword in a scabbard; any one of these proponents of new identities ultimately destroys our liberal ability to think and reason. That painter who uses paint to apply paint; that sculptor who attempts to sculpt the tool in his hand with that very tool; the carpenter who hammers hammers into boards; the seamstress who threads needles with needles; the chef who roasts lamb on a lamb -- none of these are Zen koans freeing us from illusion. They are delusions freeing us from reality. This is not about being wise or enlightened. It is about dulling the mind entirely. It is devolution. It is surely not evolution.

On Homophobia

One closing note. When I was doing research for a book (finished, unpublished) I read Heterosexism: A Weapon of Homophobia, by Suzanne Pharr. She writes:

The elimination of homophobia requires that homosexual identity be viewed as viable and legitimate and as normal as heterosexual identity. It does not require tolerance; it requires an equal footing. Given the elimination of homophobia, sexual identity–whether homosexual, bi-sexual, or heterosexual–will not be seen as good or bad but simply what it is. [emphasis added]

Ms. Pharr lays down quite a hand. Clearly she sets for us the political goal: hetero-, bi- and homosexuality are "normal", and are on an equal footing. But that is not the most interesting card in her hand. For she throws down elsewhere a card with a rather bold face: in her opinion, the best way to combat opposition to homosexuality is to "keep the problem focused on the homophobic person". You see, it is not about truth, science, genes, psychology. It is about winning a fight. It is about declaring someone homophobic, and to keep hammering that point home until the opposition skulks off in embarrassment, fear, or shame. Of course, she let's us know what homophobia means:

Homophobia -- the irrational fear and hatred of those who love and sexually desire those of the same sex.

But as this essay and series have shown, opposition to homosexuality need not be rooted in fear or hatred. Rather, such opposition can be born of a love of reason. There is nothing irrational or even remotely fearful here. Hence, it can't be deemed homophobia, can it? Undoubtably, that is a problem.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, subjectivism, objectivism, reason, heterosexism, homophobia, Suzanne Pharr

Theses On The Door: Addendum 1 - Hell

It would be unfair to end a series on the irrationality of consecrating a gay, unmarried, cohabitating man to the status of Christian bishop without addressing the reasonable comments raised by Contratimes reader (and my friend), Luke Buckham. It is not often I address comments raised by a reader in a direct post. But Luke asks very tough questions. It is one of his gifts.

In Part IV of the series, "Theses On The Door", I inserted at the end of that installment the following passage from St. Paul's second epistle to Timothy:

¹But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. ²People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, ⁴treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— ⁵having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

In response to this passage (see the comments thread of Part IV), which I cited in order to anchor my remarks about the "form of godliness", Luke writes:

Perhaps an interesting way to bring more clarity to this debate would be to ask a simple question: do you, Bill Gnade, believe that those who don't accept Christ's teaching and Christ's spirit, commit their lives to it, and spread it to others, are on their way, literally, to hell eternal?…If you say, as a good christian [sic] friend of mine often does, that you don't know, I'd say that's a form of heresy, even if it's a wise answer.

My reply to Luke must begin with a simple observation: I am not engaged -- yet -- in a debate with him. It would be more apt to describe our exchange as a discussion. I believe Luke would accept the description. I would further note that Luke has asked a compound question; there are numerous qualifications appended to his query, like "accept Christ's teaching and [His] spirit", "commit their lives to it", "spread it to others". I wish the question were simpler, like, "Do you think those who reject Christ will be accepted by Him anyway?" Because that question at least implies an answer. In fact, it is an answer in a rhetorical sense.

But I don't know how it follows that, if I plead genuine ignorance, I have committed heresy. For I am not advocating anything other than my own lack of certitude; I am not proposing anything other than my own limitations (particularly as they are constrained by Luke's question). I might still answer that the words of Christ, the teachings of the apostles, the polemics of the Church Fathers (and Mothers) and the orthodox traditions of Christendom do in fact state that those who reject Christ will be granted their wish, namely, a life without Him; a life without redemption. My ignorance of whether these warnings MUST be fulfilled is another matter altogether.

Luke knows that I believe C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce is perhaps the best and most accessible description of damnation (and redemption) I've ever read; Charles Williams' Descent into Hell is quite good, too. Both works of fiction are powerful and prescient, I believe. And if not prescient, they are at least trenchant observations on the nature of rejection and estrangement between humans. I mean, let us assume that there is no divinely ordained hell or damnation. That does not mitigate the overwhelming fact that humans reject and damn each other every day, in truly abusive and horrific ways. Surely some marital breakups are as final as any eternal hell; surely many crimes are as brutal as a lake of fire; surely people divorce themselves from reality and friends, family and lovers every minute of the day. We see people choosing all sorts of hells at every turn. One could even argue that a suicide is a form of self-imposed damnation: an act either damning the world as unworthy of the suicidal self or damning that self as unworthy of the world.

I would further respond with an anecdote. I recall a New Testament professor of mine defending -- rhetorically -- universalism, the belief that, in the end, everyone is accepted and redeemed by God. My professor asked why all Christians would not want that to be the case; he observed that it seemed to him that certain Christians' angry resistance to universalism indicated that some Christians really WANT THERE TO BE A HELL, that they really WANT TO SEND PEOPLE TO AN ETERNITY OF SUFFERING AND TORMENT. He asked whether our desire should be that all people would in fact be "saved". His lecture remains one of the most memorable moments of my college experience.

But I have not known anyone who will have bliss who does not want bliss. If a person does not seek bliss today, steeped in mystery as each of us is, then why would that person seek bliss tomorrow, particularly a bliss that is given against one's will? If I can reject an ice cream cone offered by my father on the condition that I first clean my bedroom -- even when I desperately want that ice cream -- why is at all strange or difficult to assume that people might reject God? Many of us wonder why our wives or fathers or mothers reject us. Does not God wonder the same thing about those who reject Him? And is it not an act of love and justice to finally give what it is that people really want?

I am reminded of the thoroughly secular movie, "The Rapture" starring Mimi Rogers. It is a very adult film about the relatively Protestant fascination with the theologically dubious "Rapture", the return of Christ (before the final days) when He takes home from the soon-to-be-damned earth all His children. The film is fascinating in its climax, for it shows how obdurate and stubborn we humans can be in the very face of God.

Is it a heresy for me to suggest that hell is a form of love? Is it heresy for me to suggest that damnation is an act of mercy, compassion, and even kindness? Many people believe that ending the life of a maimed animal struck by a car on the highway is an act of compassion. Some argue that death should be offered to humans in pain; doctor-assisted suicide and living wills are all about death as mercy and love. How about that soul begging to be put out of its misery, especially its misery in the presence of God, friends and family? Is it kindness that prompts God to finally give the plaintive soul what it demands? Is hell God's most reluctant act? Is it His final resort, His final gift? Is creation one sort of gift and destruction another?

If Luke were to finally press me for a definitive answer, it would be this: that if people are to be saved -- in this life, in the next, in the middle, or wherever -- Jesus Christ must be central to that salvation. There may be countless roads to Christ; but there is only one gate to paradise, and it is the Christ of the Christian faith. Everyone may be offered one final, undeniable and unshakeable encounter with God and His Incarnate Son even after death; but a decision will nonetheless be expected: accept or no?

And if Christ is not the central place between the Will of Allah and the Law of Moses; if He is not the fleshly answer to the self-emptying Buddha; if He is not the liberating God-Man Servant-King of all Hindu castes; if He is not the Incarnation of Grace, the crossroads between extremes; if He is not the only savior or means of salvation -- then Christianity offers nothing. Why bother? Why follow if He and His Church are nothing special in the end?

I don't know if this is an answer† to Luke's question. But I've at least tried to draft an answer, an answer which may resemble so much stew with a sprig of heresy thrown in.

Peace.

(Tomorrow: A reply to another of Luke Buckham's questions.)

†A different yet equally important answer can also be found in my other series, "The Problem Of Knowing Good and Evil".

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part X (Conclusion)

[Today marks the end, at least for now, of my disagreement with The Episcopal Church of the United States. I am glad it is over; I am sure you are too. This series was mostly catharsis; I needed to get something off my heart -- and my head. If any of you found my catharsis helpful, I am glad. If you have not, I am still glad, because I am free of something I’ve held too long. That my visitor numbers dropped significantly during this period indicates either that summer is a typical low-point for bloggers, or that readers simply were not interested in the controversy. Perhaps my critique of The Episcopal Church has all been done before, by better minds in better words. Surely that is the case. But that fact would not have liberated me; I needed to do this. Thanks for the indulgence. Here ends this series, which began at this link. You should start there. Peace. BG.]

This series set out to do one thing. What it did not set out to do was to come to blows over the authority of Scripture or the ancient wonders of tradition as these play out within the Episcopal Church. There is clearly no zealous effort on my part to delve into the Bible, nor have I coursed through the Church Fathers or pored over the nuances of ancient liturgies. No, I have set out to show that the current leadership and vision of the church is irrational, given wholly to subjectivism and utterly fallacious reasoning; and if not fallacious reasoning, reasoning that is nonetheless slovenly, broken and even deceptive. And I have tried to show the irony of this, for the Episcopal Church believes itself to be singularly rational.

There is nothing rational in ordaining a gay, unmarried, cohabitating man to the episcopate; there is nothing rational about consecrating such a man to the bishopric because he is -- as was publicly declared -- a homosexual. There is nothing rational in the popular dismissal of biblical denouncements of homosexuality; nor is there anything rational in positing that homosexuality is permissible, even laudable, because it is genetic, natural, or “created by God.” There is nothing rational in arguing that good actions or good character merit some sort of honor, or indebt us to elevate a man we like, or find charming, helpful, or just plain brilliant. There is nothing rational in averring a love that is tolerant; there is nothing rational in removing from the list of sinners and outcasts “homosexuals”, only to place on the same list the “homophobic” and “conservative”. And there is nothing rational about defending some declaration, deed, or revolution as “a move of the Holy Spirit” or some similar act of God.

This series is all about reason. It is about thinking clearly. Even if there are moments of muddled thought found herein, it is my intent to destroy the muddle with greater clarity. I want reason to truly triumph. But I cannot say that about my many religious peers: they seem entirely content with the muddle that is the present church. What they’ve offered as apologies for Bishop Gene Robinson are simply so much rejectamenta.

If one were to read this series from start to finish I believe the reader could easily dismantle nearly any argument celebrating homosexuality in the church. For example, an argument I read recently suggested that Jesus was “curiously silent” about homosexuality, and yet may have mentioned it in His Sermon on the Mount when He said:

…anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, [ An Aramaic term of contempt] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin (Matthew 5:22 NIV)

You see, some exegetes wonder whether ‘Raca’ (or, allegedly, ‘Racha’), when transliterated into Greek, should be translated as some derogatory term, like ‘fairy’ or ‘effeminate’. For in the Greek there is the possibility that the word is feminine, that it refers to an effeminate male (related to ‘malakoi’). One critic even wondered why Matthew would have chosen to use the Aramaic term, since it is unambiguously NOT referring to gender. Rather, it is simply an insult about a person’s worth, that they are “empty”. That Matthew used the word is because it is most likely the very word Jesus used; our Lord most likely spoke Aramaic. But to some pro-gay exegetes, Jesus is not silent about homophobia, for in Matthew 5:22, He is denouncing it. (See this link, or this one, or even this.)

But the problem with this sort of thing is immediately evident. The pro-gay exegetes are always quick to point out that scripture cannot help us in sexual matters, since the writers did not have the psychological and sexual categories we moderns enjoy; the writers were in the dark, limited. Of course, if that’s the case, then why would we care what Jesus had to say in Matthew 5:22? Perhaps He, too, was in the dark –– limited, ancient, even prejudiced.

And that is the sort of thing already addressed in my discussion of “The Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance” (dubbed so by me, I believe).

In October 2003, when I sat with V. Gene Robinson to discuss all these issues, he began his apologetic with this statement (I paraphrase):

You know the ancients believed that only men contributed to procreation; that females were simply vessels, contributing nothing. Everything came from the man. A woman was merely a conduit, a bridge. She added nothing.

I wonder: how many reasonable people believe this for one second? For Bishop Robinson’s apology is based on the assumption that whenever any ancient looked at a child, that person always had to say, “You know something? You look just like your father.” If Gene Robinson is correct, then no one ever said, “You know, you look just like your mother.” Of course, one reference, one simple phrase -- of how a child has his mother's eyes -- uncovered in ancient literature instantly decimates Mr. Bishop Robinson’s contention. But we don’t even need that evidence; we just need reason, and reason shows that it is impossible to believe that every child born in the ancient world looked like Dad.

In closing, I want to return to the consecration ceremonies of Bishop Robinson. Let’s look again at what was said there by Bishop Robinson’s predecessor, NH Bishop Douglas Theuner:

The argument (over Robinson’s consecration) [is] about control, about power, about who is in and who is out, about who is right and who is wrong…Because of who you are, Gene, you can stand for the unity of the church in a way that none of us can. Because of your presence, the episcopate will be more a symbol of unity than it ever has been.

Is the irony lost on anyone here? Is the episcopate more united than ever? Oh, wait. Bishop Theuner merely said that because of Gene Robinson, the episcopate will be "more a symbol of unity" than it ever has been. Not actually unified, merely a "symbol of unity". Surely that makes perfect sense three years later, for the episcopate is hardly united in fact (but in symbol it is undoubtedly unified, and symbols are everything). And is it not the case that it was power and control that placed Gene Robinson in his bishop’s seat? Is not the leadership of the Episcopal Church all about power, about decreeing who is right, who is wrong? Was not Theuner in that moment of unity pronouncing disunity, a disunion from those who do not have his sense of who is right, and who is in?

It is important to note here that I like Gene Robinson. He is a kind and able man. He is a skilled facilitator. He is gentle. But these were not the reasons he was consecrated, as the comments of Bishop Theuner show. All others candidates for the bishopric of New Hampshire had those sorts of qualities. Nay, Gene Robinson was chosen as a symbol of God’s new deal, of His liberally liberating activity in the world.

Before Gene Robinson ever sat in the Bishop’s Seat (all Episcopal churches have one) in my parish church, I sat in that chair. I sat in it the night before he would come and preach to All Saints’, the first parish he visited after his consecration. And as I sat in that chair, I prayed. I prayed for him, that his heart would be softened; that he would know the hope and truth to which he was called; that he would know the love of God, and that the eyes of his heart would be enlightened. And I prayed that if he did not serve God in truth and love, that his episcopacy would fail. Perhaps my prayers were amiss. We shall see. Lord, have mercy.

The Bishop’s Seat at All Saints’ is a very large, very high chair. Gene Robinson’s feet do not reach the floor; it is an awkward seat. My understanding is that the seat was purposely crafted for the sole purpose of invoking humility; that the bishop who sat thereon would feel rather small, knowing, hopefully, that the office of bishop is much greater and larger than the man; and that the man who sits in that seat should understand that he is pastor to a church much larger, much more universal, than the vision of just one little man, even a man on the margins.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, subjectivism, objectivism, reason

Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part IX

[I was wrong. This is not the last installment of my polemic against the leadership of the newly renamed The Episcopal Church. Tomorrow will be, or so I hope. This is the day for a discussion about two things; the consecration on November 2, 2003 of V. Gene Robinson, the first openly gay man ever elevated to the office of Bishop in the history of Christendom, and, the beauties of the human body and human sexuality. In short, today and tomorrow will deal with some of the most important public utterances ever recorded in the history of Christianity. Part I of this series begins at this link; I recommend that readers start at the beginning rather than here, at the tail end of things. Peace. BG]

Let us all agree that the human body is lovely, glorious, holy. If we cannot so agree, let us at least stipulate for sake of argument that such things are true; the human body is a wonder, the very stuff of art. Let us also stipulate that sexuality is equally beautiful, that it blends in its glorious dance and pleasure all the transcendent with the immanent, the heavenly with the mundane, the spiritual with the physical. Sexuality is the physical gateway to identity, to one's soul, spirit, heart; it's where two souls commune, where pleasures and minds become one, where mysteries abound. When we say such things like, "she touched me" or "he entered me" or "I entered her", we do not mean that someone touched our hair, or cheek; or that someone has entered our nostril or that a man has entered his lover's ear canal. No. By all this we mean that place, that physical place, where we touch each other: where we touch another's "isness" with our "isness"; where we touch our very selves in mutual (hopefully) physical bliss. And the wonder and the glory is that such wonder and glory are given to us by God.

I hope that we can at least agree on this: that sexuality is a wonderful gift that should not be hidden under some bushel, or decried as gross, dirty or bestial. Let us please elevate it to the highest possible place of beauty and love and holiness; let us speak of it with sanctity and yet without squeamishness, for it is natural and common and just plain good. Agreed?

Please let me return to the November 2, 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson. I remind readers first that I was there; that I was member of a small contingent of dissenters who were to politely stand and speak in protest of Mr. Robinson's consecration; and that we did so, and that we then removed ourselves from that arena the moment the final consecrating acts would begin. We did everything according to both liturgical form and good taste; there was nothing showy or angry or vehement about our actions; we moved solemnly, sadly, and with copious tears.

When Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold spoke to the 4,000 attendees gathered in the Whittemore Center at the University of New Hampshire, he asked whether anyone had any reasons why the consecration should not move forward. Our contingent arose (I stayed in my seat as planned), and followed the red carpet that coursed toward the left (from our seat); the group followed it to the designated place for public pronouncements. But before our group was recognized, another priest rose quickly from his chair and made a beeline for a different microphone; coming from our right, he paid no heed to the carpeted pathway.

The man was Rev. Earl Fox from Pittsburgh, or so he introduced himself. He was recognized by the presiding bishop and Rev. Fox read his statement. The statement consisted of a rhetorical remark wondering whether the holy gathering was prepared to endorse homosexuality. He then began to read a very clinical statement about the sort of sexual activities homosexual men apparently enjoy. Rev. Fox had percentages and clinical terms, like "89 percent of homosexual men participate in mouth to penis contact" and so on. Needless to say, the man made me squirm; it felt like an awful precursor to what I knew were to be the gentle remarks given by my peers: everyone in the arena (and the listening media) would associate us with Mr. Fox. But at no time did Mr. Fox speak in terms that were not gratuitously clinical. He never used slang, innuendo or jargon: his were the exact terms used in sexual educational material. And he spoke plainly, calmly, nonchalantly; he spoke as if each statement began with "as a simple matter of fact…."

After but a few moments of this, and when a smattering of laughter and gasps could be heard coursing through the assembly, the presiding bishop of The Episcopal Church raised a hand and interrupted Rev. Fox with these tremendous words, "Father Fox, would you please spare us the details and come to the substance of your remarks." They are stunning words.

"Please, Spare Us The Details"

In the very first part of this series I quoted these words without attribution, though I promised I would return to them. I return to them here because they mark some of the most important words ever spoken in a Christian gathering of such import. They are the kind of words that go down in Church history like "Sola Scriptura!" or "...of one substance with the Father." For they are mindbendingly important, revealing far more than any of us gathered in that great assembly could guess.

Let me get to the substance of my remarks: if 4,000 wildly tolerant, gloriously expansive, unbelievably progressive and ineluctably erudite people squirm and scoff and snicker at mere words; if 4,000 of the most advanced Christians in the world cannot tolerate mere sounds; if the presiding bishop himself cannot handle the clinical descriptions of homosexuality, raising his hand and asking to be spared; if just talking about homosexual activities makes these folks stop their ears, taking great offense at Mr. Fox; how is it his words merit condemnation but the man who actually participates in such physical and real activities is about to be consecrated -- even consecrated BECAUSE he participates in them? How is it that talking about in a holy gathering what V. Gene Robinson IS merits censure and dismissiveness, even damnation; yet participating in those things -- in private, of course -- does not?

An answer to this question is rather easy: we would not want to be talking about vaginas and penises and copulation if Gene Robinson was a heterosexual, now would we? No matter how clinically we spoke on these matters, if Gene Robinson were straight, we would all deem such comments as inappropriate, particularly with children in attendance. Fine. But Mr. Fox was first speaking at the invitation of Presiding Bishop Griswold: Rev. Griswold asked if anyone knew any reason why the consecration of Rev. Robinson should not go forward. And Mr. Fox was dismissed as he made his grievances known: Rev. Griswold assumed that the "substance of the remarks" was different than the "details." Rev. Fox was merely speaking his mind and Rev. Griswold was offended.

But why should a holy gathering of adults (that children were present was not Rev. Fox's fault, since the consecrating act is an adult act) not be able to hear the beautiful and hallowed "details" about what is utterly germane to Rev. Robinson's consecration? Surely what Gene Robinson does to express his love is a creation of God, a holy and lovely act, no? Then why NOT speak about it? Plus, if Gene Robinson had been straight then explicit words about his sexual acts would be irrelevant; his heterosexuality would not have been germane to his consecration at all. But his homosexuality, in fact, was (and is) germane: he was consecrated the bishop of the outcasts, the marginalized.

Then-Bishop of New Hampshire Douglas Theuner, speaking during the ceremonies said this about Mr. Robinson:

Our Lord's attention was directed entirely to the outcast and the marginalized. His wrath was reserved for the religious leaders of his own faith. They were chastised by our Lord because they thought that people were made for their religious institutions and not that their religious institutions were made for the people. …Because of who you are, Gene, you can stand for the unity of the church in a way that none of us can.
[emphasis added]

Bishop Theuner, as some of you may know, was the key operative in assuring Mr. Robinson became his successor. Here, in Theuner's own words, we see why: Gene Robinson is a gay man on the margins, and our Lord cared for (even preferred?) the marginalized.

But there is still more to say: homosexuality as normal sexual behavior is still rather new; people do not hide "in the closet" because they are straight, but because they are not. "Being outed" is a relatively new phenomenon. Hence, Gene Robinson, as a gay man who is out, can help bring homosexuality to the forefront -- he can normalize it, christen it; he can be a symbol of Christian liberty. There is no heterosexual liberation or lifestyle or gene at issue. The whole thing is about homosexuality. Plus, The Episcopal Church was (and is) allegedly in "dialogue" about sexual identity and the sanctity of gay marriage and unions; how to "bless" them and consecrate them and to find any sort of sacramental meaning in them. In contrast, there was (and is) no such discussion about heterosexuality. Hence, why would it be inappropriate to speak of homosexuality in a public forum like this?

Perhaps because people have a natural aversion to homosexuality, people like Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold and the holy gathered who were repulsed by Father Fox. But this was all a great straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel: Fox was offensive and yet Bishop Robinson's sexuality was held up as a normal, lovely, beautiful and liberating creation, created by God and sanctified by mutual love and understanding. But we just can't talk about it.

Moreover, when Bishop Robinson finally spoke, he described the event in these words:

It's not about me. It's about so many other people who find themselves at the margins.

In other words, it IS about him; he was one of the "other people" on the margins. Bishop Robinson merely meant that it was not ALL about him. He is the Bishop to and for outsiders.

In closing, I'd like to refer to the liturgy of consecration, that moment which immediately followed my group's little protest. After (ostensibly) considering the reasons why Rev. Robinson's consecration should not move forward, and after rejecting them, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold asked, "Is it your will that we ordain V. Gene Robinson a bishop?" And those thousands gathered responded, "That is our will."

It is a curious thing that the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) should even have a response like this. For it is remarkably human: "That is OUR will." There is nothing about God here; there is no sense even that our will is the will of God, that He is speaking through the collective voice of His people. No. It is all just our will.

And then there is this amazing prayer:

O God of unchangeable power and eternal light: Look favorably on your whole Church, that wonderful and sacred mystery; by the effectual working of your providence, carry out in tranquillity the plan of salvation; let the whole world see that that things which were cast down are being raised up, and things which had grown old are being made new ... [emphasis added]

One might ask whether the BCP is guilty of so much wishful thinking in enjoining us to pray that God will work out His plan of salvation with "tranquillity." Irrespective of how God so acts, let us note the irony of this prayer following a bishop's ordination. For here we have the words, "let the whole world see ... things which had grown old are being made new." Indeed, what a prayer, for in this case it is utterly true (and prophetic). For the heresies -- even the sexual ones like homosexuality -- that were once old are now being made new. Having been cast down by the Church, the Church is giving them new life. Homosexuality, as we know, is not new; nor is the gnosticism that has raised it from the buried past. It is an old thing and yet age does not become it. No matter what the will of the gathered in New Hampshire was and is -- a gay bishop may indeed be a novelty and it may indeed be "our will" -- but it is an old novelty that the Church rejected long ago. I am afraid that the decision to consecrate that old heresy represents the will and last testament of The Episcopal Church.

Peace.

Part X (the final part) of this series begins here.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, subjectivism, objectivism, reason

Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part VIII

[The series continues, though what follows is new this morning. Through yesterday I posted in serial form a letter I drafted in 2003 on the eve of the confirmation and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. My focus has been, and remains so, that much of the ECUSA has abandoned reason, a key element of Episcopal discernment. The series begins here. I intend to complete the series with one more post. Peace. BG]

Some of us abhor subjectivism in church. Many of us in fact have left churches wherein subjectivism was rampant: everyone was receiving some sort of "word from God", some sort of "vision" or "directive" or "prophecy". The choir director hears from God that more traditional songs must serve as the church's musical centerpiece; while the praise band leader is certain God prefers more contemporary musical fare. One senior pastor hears from God that the Sunday message should be "Grow to go! How you must learn to lead in your home church before you can lead on the mission field"; while the associate pastor the very next week preaches that God wants people to "Go to grow! Or how a prophet has no honor in his hometown church; and how the mission field will turn you into a better disciple." (The sad thing is that this example is true: the two pastors at my former church [years ago] preached on successive Sundays, but both were on vacation when the other spoke; thus the confused, contrary messages.)

I, personally, left this sort of thing because it was too confusing, and too upending. I never knew which way was up, or to whom God was speaking. It became a matter of intense spiritual discernment every day. Plus, it proved to be an ever elusive aspect of spiritual discourse, for it was not exactly certain how to debate or discuss various issues. After all, if God was speaking, who was I to question, doubt, disagree? The result in this was a sort of spiritual competition: who was "more spiritual", "discerning", "open to God's leading". In other words, the problem became one of acute self-centeredness: was I hearing God in all these strange and even sometimes creepy signs allegedly pointing to His presence and activity? The whole thing seemed to paralyze me and the church, with everyone waiting for a sign or a word before acting or deciding. And debate came to a standstill: there is no argument with God's Spirit. He blows whithersoever He will.

So in leaving this confusion I went to the Episcopal Church (EC), a place I had been flirting with since 1983. I had sporadically attended the EC because it was safe, wise, consistent and traditional. There was an authoritative structure: there was a rector, a curate, a vestry and bishops. There was the authority of a broad communion, and the authority of Scripture, Tradition and Reason held in glorious concert. In worship, there was liturgy, structure, meaning, and the rubrics preventing congregants from using worship for self-centered reasons. If any one heard from God, it was easily tested, tried, analyzed. Subjectivism was held in check. We could compare "visions" against the whole of Anglican and Christian tradition. We did not need to fret by ourselves, doubting whether we were "spiritual enough." There was the safety of objectivity in the Church: this is true and of God, and this is not. So I became an Episcopalian, diving in headfirst. Things went swimmingly.

Of course, things only went swimmingly until I realized, too late perhaps, that the election and consecration of V. Gene Robinson, the openly gay and "unmarried" Bishop of New Hampshire, was awash in subjectivism. Instead of objective demonstrations of the falseness of arguments opposing gay ordination; instead of citations of Scripture and Tradition and Reason drawing Episcopalians together, I discovered that Bishop Robinson's election was a "new move of God". Tripping off the tongue were phrases like "The Holy Spirit is doing a wonderful thing", "The Holy Spirit has spoken through the good people of New Hampshire", and so on. Hence, discussion was essentially nullified: God is moving and you better not thwart Him in His mighty, wonderful ways. The more advanced preferred to speak of being "open to God"; of not putting Him in a box.

As I have shown throughout this series, arguments that were ostensibly reasonable in favor of Mr. Robinson's consecration were not, in fact, reasonable. Not reasonable at all. And yet not only do such arguments maintain a popular cachet, those who propound them dismiss their fallaciousness with hardly a blush: God just does crazy but lovely things. Thus, many of us are again left with an acute self-centeredness: why are we so spiritually blind not to see such miracles?

But the IX Bishop of New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson –– on the very eve of his consecration speaking to the media gathered in Grace Church in Manchester, NH on October 19, 2003 –– gave us doubters exactly the sort of objective certitudes we expected from our Bishop-elect co-adjutor. For on that day he said:

I agonize about this all the time. This is one of the hardest things I'll ever do. …I do have this sense I'm supposed to go forward, and I do feel that's coming from God and not my own ego. But I don't know. …If I'm wrong, God help me -- and God will help me. (Associated Press, Aug. 19, 2003)

Forgive me. There was no objectivity in Mr. Robinson's remark other than that he was objective about his subjectivity. But there is no foothold to be found in his words; there is no tiny crag for the tip of a finger by which we might climb upward with any confidence towards understanding the lofty plan of God in this matter. For the New Hampshire bishop –– along with thousands of his supporters (inside the church and without) –– from the beginning removed the debate to subjective realms: God was (maybe) doing a great thing indeed!

So once again we must conclude that the role of reason in Episcopal discernment was abandoned some time ago. Subjectivism, masquerading in the guise of "experience" and "perspective" and "understanding" and "witness", is Lord of the realm. For in the beginning the spirit of the Lord moved over the order and said, "Let there be chaos." And so it was.

Peace.

Part IX of this series begins here.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, subjectivism, objectivism, reason

Theses On The Door: The Episcopal Church Of The United States, Part VII

[I must remind readers that what follows is a letter I wrote on the eve of V. Gene Robinson's election to the episcopate in 2003. The series begins here, and is an examination of the possible role of homosexuality in the Church; it is not a commentary on homosexuality in secular society.

Today's installment concludes this part of the series. I recognize that this has been a long process for many of my readers. I apologize if I have taxed your patience. But this series is more for me than perhaps for many of you: I need to make my case as to why the Episcopal Church is no longer much of a home for my family and me.

The gist of this series has been utterly consistent, though I am not at all sure I have succeeded. It has been offered here to show that the Episcopal Church has not elevated reason to new levels; rather, it has neglected, even denigrated, reason. In so doing, it has severed itself from the reasoned traditions and doctrines rooted in history and Holy Scripture; the only traditions it remains enamored of are ones of compromise.

This may come as bad news to many of my returning readers, but I am not through yet. In the next few days I shall explore the subjectivism that is the new church polemic. Really, this has all been backstory. Also, any major additions to the original are printed between []. Peace. BG]

What's Left of the Triumvirate?
V. The problem with democracy: it's fallacious

Last summer [1992] during a vestry retreat at my parish church, [then Canon] V. Gene Robinson came to serve as retreat facilitator. He was incredibly adept at his role.

At one point, I had a bit of a debate with a fellow vestry member. She was speaking in terms of democracy, that most of the parish was in favor of such and such. I countered that the Episcopal Church is not a democracy; that it is, by definition, a hierarchy. I said that it did not matter what "most people” thought; the church is an institution built around the leadership of the rectory, and the authority of the bishop. A democratic church is a congregationalist model, not an Episcopal one.

To this, I am pleased, Mr. Robinson gave his overwhelming support. He reiterated that I was indeed right. I was pleased with his comments. However, I find it ironic that Mr. Robinson is now comfortable with the idea of a majority vote approving his bishopric. I especially find it ironic when I consider that Mr. Robinson himself must be something of an anti-authoritarian.

Mr. Robinson was once married. He made vows of fidelity to his wife. He later reneged on those vows. After procuring a divorce, Mr. Robinson engaged in a homosexual relationship. In fact, he moved in with the man. I ask, at what point was Mr. Robinson submitting to the authority of the Episcopal Church? Did he submit to its positions on marriage, divorce, homosexuality, or cohabitation? Or did he determine for himself what was best for him? If the former, why does he have sex with a man that is neither his wife nor husband, for the church has never supported that, has it? If the latter, how could he represent authority in a church in which he himself did not respect that authority? For surely he snubbed his nose at the last General Convention's pronouncement that homosexuality, at the very least, was incompatible with Scripture, a call made by “majority” vote. Is Mr. Robinson not anti-authoritarian? If so, why, then, would anyone submit to him as bishop?

In another irony, a NH diocesan spokesman told my parish that ultimately, in matters of authority, the Episcopal Church's power is in the laity. Really? How then is a bishop even necessary? And if that is really true, then why would that same spokesman, speaking in favor of homosexuality, share that NH bishop Douglas Theuner is in favor of a gay bishop, or that the Presiding Bishop is moderate on the issue (I do not know his position)? Why would the laity care what the bishop thinks if the laity is ultimately in control? Technically speaking, the appeal to the bishops' positions is nothing other than the fallacy of appealing to authority. Must we once again face another fallacy in this process?

The fact is that majorities, even lay majorities, are often wrong.† That is why there are laws protecting the rights of minorities. That is why there are leaders, prophets, and a Christ. If majorities are usually right, then majorities don't need leaders or laws at all, since, apparently, they are usually right, knowing what they need for leadership. Majorities, apparently, can lead themselves.

Such tautologies notwithstanding, Mr. Robinson, who claimed in my parish that majorities do not run the church, ultimately supports that his anti-authoritarianism be approved by a majority vote! Really, who needs a bishop at all?

Finally, it is sad that Mr. Robinson, who claims to be a shepherd of the Church, would state in The New York Times that, "It breaks my heart if any [Anglicans] choose to leave [the Anglican communion]. But if they leave it's because they are choosing to leave, and they are choosing to divide this communion, not me. ...I am not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church.” That doesn't sound much like a shepherd's heart, does it? What do we make of a man who claims that he is "not willing to take responsibility for the future of the Anglican Church?" Is that NOT the very thing a bishop IS supposed to take responsibility for? He's not to take responsibility for the church's past, is he?

Moreover, the (alleged) prophet Muhammad had a clear sense of ministry when he said, "All of you are shepherds responsible for your flocks. A ruler is shepherd of his subjects and he is responsible for them." It seems Mr. Robinson couldn't even be a good Muslim, let alone be a good Episcopalian!

***

It is written in 2 Timothy 4: 3-4: "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths". That time has arrived in the Episcopal Church in the debate over homosexuality. And if we start with reason, we can see that many of the most forceful arguments supporting homosexuality are fallacious. Reason dictates that Mr. Robinson's confirmation will be based on a series of common fallacies. Last week, a woman featured in a National Public Radio story on the issue facing the Episcopal Church said, "The Holy Spirit has spoken through the good people of New Hampshire in electing an openly gay bishop.” In light of what I've written in this essay, there are only three options for us: There is no Holy Spirit; or the Holy Spirit has NOT spoken through the good people of New Hampshire; or the Holy Spirit HAS spoken through the people of New Hampshire.

Of course, the first option––that there is no Holy Spirit–– is untenable. But the second option––the Holy Spirit is NOT speaking–– is not only possible, it seems highly probable. Why? Because if the third option is true, then we are helpless. For if the Holy Spirit is speaking through the pro-gay, pro-Gene Robinson supporters in New Hampshire, we MUST conclude that the Holy Spirit is irrational, given to fits of fallacious reasoning and invalid arguments. For it is indeed the case that the arguments in favor of Mr. Robinson are fallacious. Do we really think that if God speaks, He is going to speak irrationally; will He speak fallaciously?

Hence, we are left with a problem. Either the triumvirate of Holy Scripture, tradition, and reason remain strong and valid, or the Holy Spirit has destroyed all three.

[†One might think that I would today cite statistics that seem to show that the majority of people oppose both the ordination of gay bishops and gay marriage, thus indicating that I have contradicted myself or have neglected to notice that ordaining and blessing gay bishops and marriages are protections offered to a minority. I will not make that mistake: I believe that the ordination of homosexual bishops is demonstrably inconsistent with reason; and that the blessing of gay marriage is inconsistent with the utterly reasonable sacrament of marriage. Hence, majority opinion is irrelevant here, pro or con.]

Peace.

Part VIII of this series begins here.

©Bill Gnade 2003, 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop,
tradition, idolatry, goddess, mother earth, reason