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

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

[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]

What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
IV. Call it the Fallacy of New Love

Elsewhere I have criticized the modern Church for its compromises with the zeitgeist. Perhaps its most egregious compromise is its dalliance with the democratization of truth, of assenting to ideas, beliefs or church policies because of the will of a majority, which is a very fallacious habit. I have also criticized the Church for its tepid defense of ancient creeds and even older truths. This tepidity is exemplified within the Church in what St. Paul aptly called the “form of godliness”†. The “form of godliness”, manifest most acutely in the liberalizing of churches throughout the West, consists almost entirely of a soft-headed view of love, a view which characterizes love as the support and endorsement of behaviors which the Church has held throughout its history as sinful or wrongheaded.

Truly loving people, pulpits are now preaching, are tolerant and open-minded, expansive in their permissiveness, non-absolute in their moral constructs, and commited to intellectual relativism [though not really (more later)]. But this godliness is off-base. It is the godliness that denies the power of God and the power that is to be found in the presence of His holiness. For real godliness believes that God can and will change people, that He will transform them when they themselves cannot affect personal change. Real godliness loves with a love that is hard-headed, and soft-hearted, and not vice versa. It is a love that confronts people with the awful truth of their lives without denying the awful truth of their lives.

A line from The Book of Common Prayer, eucharistic prayer C, Rite II, addresses where so many of us find ourselves regarding our understanding of love. In this beautifully written prayer, the respondent says: “Let us not presume to come to this (Eucharistic) meal solely for solace, but strength; not solely for pardon, but renewal.” The prayer admits that there is a tendency in the heart of every supplicant to seek only what one wants to hear from love––the comfort, forgiveness, and approval––and not the other side of love as well. That side is where God gives us strength to be better than we presently are; it's the side of love that confronts us by saying that each of us needs to be renewed, not just emotionally, but totally: sexually, spiritually, intellectually, physically. This is the side of love we don't really want to hear, for it implies that we are not quite as good or as whole as we pretend to be.

Herein lies the great fallacy of new love: love has become mere approval solely to make things easier. If, for example, society sweepingly reformed itself, moving from censorship of herion addiction to celebrating such addiction as beautiful and lovely, everyone with a heroin addicted child would find it easier to love that child. If an alcoholic father actually received monetary and social promotion, even fame and glory for his alcoholism, his children might not find him at all embarrassing when he stumbles into their school Christmas pageant. So, too, with homosexuality: remove the sinfulness or the aberrance of such behavior and one finds it easier to love those who behave homosexually, or “are” homosexuals. I could feel this type of love make its strong, tempting appeal in the recent [1993 remember] meeting at my parish church regarding the confirmation of Gene Robinson. There was a clear, emotional tone to some of the things said in favor of homosexuality; the quality of which suggested that if homosexuality is considered 'sinful' or 'wrong', everything will be so much harder. Of course, we know that true love is confrontational: Jesus, the incarnation of God's love, was not walking about the Levant dishing out approval. He called people 'whited sepulchers' and a 'brood of vipers.' He vandalized a temple market. He also told people not to judge others, and then reminded them not to throw their pearls before swine, which requires them to be judgmental, since one must discern the swine from the clean [(there is power -- and a lesson -- in paradox)].

Yes, Jesus is Love Incarnate; yes, God is love. And we know His love is liberating precisely because it is judgmental: God makes a judgment to purge us of that which harms us.

I often tell people that my father was effective with me when I was a teenager because he loved me more than he loved his rules. A truly loving father, like God, has rules for his children. A father with no rules is not a loving father. A God without rules is no God. But a truly loving father, like God, loves his children more than his own rules. If he didn't, then he would not be a lover of life, but of principles, which are less than life. My father's love for me was never less than his love for his rules. So, when I failed to obey him, I was loved to wholeness. For my dad wished nothing more than to be with me. He never wished to be alone with his rules. This is God's way with us. God loves us more than His rules. But, if we break God's rules, no matter how He restores us, He does not restore us by destroying His rules. God does not say, 'Do not lie. But if you do, I will love you anyway, and you can lie all you want; and there will be no rules about lying.' Instead of granting us some distorted immunity, God sets out to make us truthtellers. Similarly God makes all sinners, straight and gay, thieves and murderers, whole if they just let Him. No one is exempt from this 'difficult' love of God.

So the fallacy of easy love is really about making love less difficult. But that is not real love. It is akin to telling a child not to play with matches and then, when one finds the child striking a match, handing the child a book of matches with a “wink, wink” of the eye. Such a compromise may make it easier to 'deal with' the child, but it will not make it easier when he burns himself. The compromise itself is unloving.

Peace.

[†2 Timothy 3:1-5: 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.]

Part VII 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

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

[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between [].

Also, please recall that in Part I it was reported that, in response to comments I made to now Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson, Mr. Robinson replied "I don't know anybody who is arguing that way." Well, "that way" is pretty much what is printed below. Peace. BG]

What's Left of the Trimuvirate? (cont.)

III. Call it the "fallacy of ignoring tradition"

Moving now to the next major fallacy, let us put it forward rather plainly: Tradition has adapted with the times throughout the history of the Church. Once it was traditional for parishioners to own slaves. At one time it was tradition that kept women from the priesthood. But, thank God, tradition has changed. And there is no tradition in the Church worth keeping that would prevent homosexuals from marrying, or being elected as Bishop.

The fallacy here, really, is not that tradition hasn't changed. It has. The fallacy is that there has been a tradition in the Church that precludes homosexuality from ever being accepted, and yet that tradition is dismissed without so much as an argument. It is patently ignored. What is that tradition? It is the tradition of the Sacrament of Marriage, rooted in Judaism, sacramentalized by Jesus the Christ, and honored by the Church throughout the ages. And it is a sacrament that cannot be changed.

Here is the general metaphysics of the sacrament of marriage, hastily outlined, but nonetheless foundational to the tradition of which I am speaking: the Church is Christ's Bride, and He is the wondrous Bridegroom. But men and women, by their very natures (there is no room to expand on this here), perceive Christ differently. The Mary Magdelene character in Jesus Christ Superstar struggles with her affections for a man who does not exploit her: “I don't know how to love Him.” Her confusion is understandable: she's a woman, Jesus is a man. I have heard women speak of Jesus during Bible study groups in ways that border on the romantic. For men––at least straight men––this type of affection is crazily unfamiliar. No man I know would want Jesus to come and 'do spoons' with him in the deep of night. In contrast, I once heard nearly a dozen women "ooh" and "ahh" over one woman's testimony that she feels Jesus come to her on nights when her husband has withdrawn from her. Men and women even perceive Jesus differently because women, theoretically, could be impregnated by the Incarnate God of the Universe. But, and here is the rub, men are called to be Christ's Bride. How do men, who represent something very different in Christian theology, become brides at the Great Wedding?

The Church has said that men gain a better understanding of their futures with Christ by participating in the Sacrament of Marriage. For in that sacrament, a man and woman, representing Jesus Christ and the Church respectively, come to understand something profound about Jesus' love for the Church, and the Church's due response to that love. A man chasing his wife around the house, eager to express his love and eager for her love, is the symbol of Christ's zealous love for His Church. The way a wife responds to the 'husbanding' of her husband is the perfect paradigm of how one responds to Christ's love! And by watching how her husband pursues her, a woman better understands the strength of Christ's love, which is a burning passion any loving husband feels within himself every day. But how does a man respond to that burning love when it is directed at him by Jesus? He responds by imitating how his wife responds to his overtures, his passion, his zeal. And this is a beautiful, ancient, and deeply metaphysical thing!

Furthermore, in honor, celebration and adulation of the joys of their life together, including pure sexual bliss, any loving husband and wife, attempting to incarnate their love; attempting to bring permanance to their union; and attempting to pass on to others the very pleasures in which they indulge, procreate children. Each of us (it is easy to forget) is the product of sexual orgasm. No doubt, sexual beings know how quickly sexual pleasures pass. But there is no doubt either that through procreation, the momentary flashes of pleasure in procreative sex acts reverberate through a couple's progeny every breathing moment. Procreation brings permanance to the sex act! Moreover, procreation shares the joys of love, sex and life with others! [Think of it this way: if sex is so great, would you not want to pass that greatness on to others? I mean, if we brag about the best restaurants with friends, surely we'd want others––our children!!––to know the pleasures of love, commitment, sex.]

All this, of course, emulates Christ's own intercourse with His Bride. For Christ speaks to His Church, He sows His Word in Her eager, loving womb, and new life is created, the life which is His children. Christ and His Church do not indulge in such pleasurable intercourse solely for selfish reasons, but to empower others [converts/children] so they too may know such pleasure. Hence, homosexuality fails to meet this incredible sacrament's power. For a man having sex with a man, no matter how “loving”, does not help anyone learn anything about God. It is, after all, a horrible symbol of Christ having sex with Christ. It is completely self-enjoying. Similarly, sex between two women is the Church having sex with itself. Both types of homosexual images are distortions of the holy union between Christ and His Church. As such, neither image can ever be sacramental: for they symbolize nothing remotely Christian. And if they can never be sacramental, what can they be, but desacramental?

Of course, premarital sex, adultery, divorce, birth control, and abortion are also distortions of this Holy Sacrament; each symbolizes something dreadful. Premarital intercourse is the equivalent of Christ sleeping with several Churches, or the Church rolling in the hay with several Gods, before finding the “Right One.” Adultery is Christ running off with other Brides, the Church running off with other Christs. Divorce is the dissolution of Christ and His Church due to irreconciliable differences (or a myriad of other reasons). Birth control symbolizes Jesus and the Church intercoursing with each other self-indulgently, the Church enjoying the presence of God's Word without having to be burdened (yet) with new members, new converts, new children. And abortion is merely the Church saying to Christ that She is not ready to bring forward the child––the new convert––He has conceived in Her womb.

Please, I am not saying that there are not exigent reasons for any one of these desecrations of the marriage sacrament. Christianity has never said that the earth is perfect, or that it will be perfect. But it has also maintained the tradition that marriage, as a Sacrament, is a standard for a whole host of reasons; and that merely because there are aberrations or difficulties in life it does not follow that one abandons or redesigns the standard. Extremes occur; even Jesus sadly recognized that.

Here, then, ends our description of the fallacy of ignoring tradition. The Church, rooted in Judaism, has held that marriage between a man and woman is a symbol, a sacramental fact, of God and creation, Christ and Church. There is no reformation to take place here. There is nothing to deconstruct. The Sacrament of Marriage is a basal point of Christian theology; foundational, universal, eternal. It is a tradition not only worth keeping, it is a tradition that is rooted in absolute truth, and hence can never be forsaken without great peril.

[It is important to insert here something about Creation. If I do not, someone might assert that I am essentially suggesting that Jesus is indeed a homosexual if He is indeed the Bridegroom of Christian men.

In a hasty sketch, let me simply state that since the earliest times of ancient Israel's history, Israel battled idolatry. Often the idols and false gods it battled were feminine. The reason for this was rooted in the religious starting point of primitive peoples: they started with the earth, the fertile, fecund earth, teeming with life. The earth reminded them of a mother, and it was all they knew. But the problem with that starting point is that divinity then begins to look feminine; it begins to look earthly and earth-bound. Thus the very things of the earth begin to be worshiped and idolized. And not just things hewn from rock or carved in wood. Sex and fertility and wine are idolized, the very glories of the orgiastic goddess which is Mother Earth. Even temple prostitutes draw men and women closer to the goddess. After all, if the Goddess is creation, if She is the earth and the cosmos, then everything in it is her body; is of her substance. That we still think in similar terms today is evident in abortion discussions, primarily when those who speak in favor of abortion claim that a child is not just its mother's, it is its mother's very body. The distinction between Goddess Earth and the things of the earth is not made. The failure to make that distinction is wherein idolatry is born.

In contrast, the Jewish revelation that God is male begins not with the immanence of earth, but with the transcendence of the Creator: He is outside space and time––and earth and wood and stone––the way a human father is outside reproduction: a father ejaculates his word into the womb of his bride and yet he remains -- himself -- transcendent of the creation that follows. God, too, ejaculated His Word into the abyss, and that Word brought forth light and life. But unlike the womb and the Mother Earth, God is outside; He is beyond the sex act like each of our fathers was outside our mothers: the father enters but for a moment, and he remains forever outside. Thus, the concept of a Transcendent God, the transcendent father, shatters the tendency to idolize any earthly THING, for God transcends the earth, the cosmos, the stuff of matter and mother (I believe matter, material and mother all share the same Latin root and do so because the ancients conflated the two ideas). No wonder abortion discussions do not revolve around whether a fetus is actually the father's body: we all assume that fatherhood and transcendence are synonymous. This revelation that God is male compared to creation gave not only Israel the proper foothold for climbing out of the idolatrous womb, it gave us all that opportunity: there are no idols if True Divinity is outside everything that is made.

Hence, not only is the Sacrament of Marriage a sacrament that illuminates Christ's relationship to the Church, it is a sacrament that illuminates the Father's relationship to all of Creation. Through such we learn that, by comparison, all of us, men and women alike, are feminine in comparison to the Transcendent God. Hence, even men––even truly manly men like me!––are feminine in comparison to God. Thus, transformed by Christ's ministry and the Holy Spirit, and informed by the Sacrament of Marriage, I, as a man, learn to become a Bride of Christ. This is not then a Male God marrying a male follower in the fullness of time: it is a simple man submitting to the sobering fact that he is not God. It is a simple man accepting his limitation: Jesus is the Man, and I, as man, must decrease: I am but a type who is female in comparison to God. There is no gender confusion here: this is just the dance between the transcendent and the immanent, the creator and the created, the independent and the contingent. Masculine and feminine remain in perfect harmony and balance.]

Peace.

(Tomorrow: the fallacy of the new love)

Part VI 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

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

[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]

What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
II. Call it the Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance

[Hermeneutics is the "science (or theory) of interpretation". In this case, we are referring to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.]

The Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance (if you will permit me to be overly didactic), is the fallacy employed to denigrate the arguments of those who cite Biblical or scriptural references allegedly condemning homosexuality. It is as common as sleep. In fact, one could recite it in one’s dreams. Here it is: scriptural texts are so imbedded in their respective milieus that one cannot take them at face value. Using all the modern techniques available to critique biblical passages, it becomes clear that passages traditionally or prima facie interpreted as condemning homosexuality in fact do not condemn homosexuality per se. That they appear to is solely due to our ignorance of certain cultural biases inherent in the original writers’ worldviews. Thus, certain passages in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, for example, prima facie condemn homosexuality, but a closer look reveals no such thing. Instead, Romans condemns heterosexuals who go against their pure natures and commit homosexual acts. As for loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not only is the Bible generally silent about such relationships, it even seems to support them; love, commitment, and covenantal fidelity are requisites for Godly relations. Surely gay men and women can be “covenantal” in their relations with their life partners, no? The long and short of it is that certain biblical passages are so embedded in the cultural predilections of their time that one might even say that the lens through which the original writers drafted those passages was significantly distorted. [After all, what did ancients know of nature, psychology, sexuality and biology?]

Of course, the fallacy is immediately evident: the Church of 2003 is embedded in a particular milieu. The Church of 2003 -- in 1000 years (for example) -- will be looked upon as one "blinded by certain cultural presumptions" (let’s not forget that some day these very years will be called the Middle Ages). Hence, if the Church of today is embedded in a culture, and that culture has its own predilections for certain things, then the modern Church can neither absolutize its frame of reference nor can it be certain it understands the original biblical texts regarding relevant matters. For if St. Paul’s lens was distorted, perhaps our lens is also distorted (as surely it must be); if that is the case, then perhaps the distortion we see in Paul’s lens is actually the distortion of our own lens as we look at Paul! Perhaps Paul’s lens is quite clear, free of astigmatism!

Moreover, why is Paul (and the early Church) deemed biased, and even untrustworthy, in understanding homosexuality, and yet he is reliable when speaking about matters of fidelity, covenant and equality? [What about Paul's cultural bias when it comes to his understanding of covenant and love?] What conundrums such arguments create! But there is more that is damnable in the argument as posited. For if the Epistle to the Romans condemns heterosexuals who act against their true nature and perform homosexual acts, why would God condemn such a thing, if homosexuality is indeed morally acceptable? And what would be gained if God did create people with "different natures"? If the homosexual acts are permissible, what does it matter if one is created a certain way or not? If it is lovely to say “God bless you”, what is to be condemned if a man, born mute, nonetheless tries to say “God bless you” against his nature? If the act can’t be condemned, then what does one’s propensity have to do with it? A baseball player that is naturally right-handed in fact is commended if he learns to bat from both sides of the plate. This for no other reason than that people realize that if an action is commendable, there is no genetic proclivity that requires that someone must abstain from that act to be true to nature. Plus, where does this all lead us when discussing Mr. Robinson? Here’s a man who once submitted to the Sacament of Holy Matrimony, who consummated that sacrament, fathering two children with a lovely wife. Eventually, he rejected his sacramental vows, divorced his wife, and moved in with a man that was neither husband nor wife. Was Mr. Robinson not a heterosexual at one time? Is he not a homosexual now? What, then, is his true nature? Is he condemned as a straight man who strayed from his true nature in homosexuality? Or was he gay to begin with?

That we cannot ever answer these questions about Mr. Robinson is rather clear. What is also clear is that the reconstructed view of Paul’s argument in Romans can be used by anyone slipping between straight and gay sex, invoking what Mr. Robinson himself must have invoked, that such a person is merely “trying to find [my] true nature.” What does the Church have to offer to help people discover their true natures, if Mr. Robinson himself jumped from side to side, apparently confused? Or does the Church let people decide such an important matter for themselves? If that is the case, then why would Paul condemn shifting sexual allegiances, if people must decide for themselves? Either Mr. Robinson is a straight man who should be condemned for acting gay, or he is a gay man who determined his true nature with no help from Scripture, Tradition, or the Church regarding who he “really is.” If the latter, then there is no way Paul condemns homosexuality under ANY conditions regarding "natures"! Forget bi-sexuals: They’ve apparently got no true nature. If the reconstructionists supporting Mr. Robinson are right, there is no room in the kingdom for bi-sexual people. [And if St. Paul condemns those who act against their true heterosexual nature and act homosexually, would he condemn homosexuals who act against their "true" nature and enter heterosexual relations? And if one's nature determines how one must behave, then how are bi-sexuals supposed to behave, if they have either two natures or can't determine which "one" is their true nature? And what of the man who claims that nature has endowed him with a powerful predilection for having sex with a different woman every night; that his promiscuity is entirely natural to him? Where do we turn for Christian guidance in these matters? Is heterosexual marriage strictly for those whose nature inclines them toward that sacrament?]

Also, what of the related argument, that Jesus is curiously silent on the matter of homosexuality? How is it that He could ignore such a thing if homosexuality is such a big deal? If Jesus was silent, it seems that not only was homosexuality not a big deal to Him, it was probably something with which He was rather comfortable. The only sexual thing that He does condemn is divorce, and there is plenty of that around today's Church and society!

There is only one thing to say about this twist on the hermeneutic argument: Fallacious! Jesus was silent on, what, about 100,000 moral questions? For He is dishearteningly silent on the environment, drunk driving, hand guns, prison reform, and cannibalism. He is silent on abortion, LSD, airplane pollution, global warming and pornography. He is silent about pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. What, pray tell, shall we infer from His deafening silence on these issues?

(Tomorrow, the Fallacy of the Ignorance of Tradition.)

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Part V of this series begins here.

Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up, hermeneutics, bi-sexuality