Saturday, June 9, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
Time Magazine Interview of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams
You can find Time Magazine's troubling interview with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, here. In it, Williams again voices his dissatisfaction with the election and consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, on the grounds that consecrating an openly gay man constituted what many Anglicans, especially in the "global south," regarded as a breach of communion.
Williams' position seems to be that no part of the church should undertake actions that other parts will regard as communion-breaking, even when such actions are undertaken as a response to the Gospel call for compassion and justice.
But, what the Archbishop seems to fail to understand, is that it is not the offical sanctioning or actions that are regarded by opponents as communion-breaking, but the underlying beliefs. If the ordaining of gay and lesbian people, and the blessing of our unions, causes offense, it is because this reflects our emerging belief as a church that the sheer fact of being gay and lesbian is not "intrinsically disordered," and that homosexuality is not contemptible on Biblical grounds.
It is that belief--not just official positions or acts--that is causing the present divide, and there is nothing we can do about that, other than continue to explain our reasoning and share our experience. Many in the global South simply cannot accept the idea of being in communion with those who hold such beliefs.
But, we cannot simply stop believing as we do, and we cannot forcibly stop many in the global South, or among our own recusants, from refusing to accept communion with us as long as we hold such beliefs.
By advocating the idea that we should act as if we believe homosexuality is sinful in order not to scandalize others, the Archbishop--whose writings and presentations prior to his elevation as Archbishop make it clear that he shares the conviction that the Church has been misguided in its attitude toward homosexuality--is inevitably advocating hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
Certainly, any church, like any other community, has a right to adopt official teachings and positions, and to define certain moral positions as being "beyond the pale" of that teaching.
But, it seems to me, that does not add up to an obligation by anyone to "fudge" their disagreement with such teaching. It is incumbent on any moral agent--whether an individual or community--to be open and honest about ones understanding, and not to pretend to adhere to teachings that one does not, in fact, believe in, just in order to "fit in the community."
And then, to accept the consequences: If ones convictions fall within the "official" teaching of a group one has historically belonged to, well and good. If not, then one must have the backbone to declare what one finds to be true. This does not mean one should accept lightly a parting of the ways between oneself and others with whom one has been in community. But, one should have the backbone not to pretend to believe other than one does just because others make it clear that, on the basis of that belief, they can no longer accept you as part of the community. Anything less is immoral cowardice.
As a gay person who remained in the closet all too long in a cowardly and immoral attempt to "fit into" an often unaccepting community, I can speak to this from hard-won experience.
When ones attempts to "fit in" go beyond "fudging" about ones beliefs or experience, to turning a blind eye to injustice by members of the community toward others, that immorality is greatly compounded.
And that is why, I am sad to say, I believe Archbishop Williams' positions, actions and statements around the issue of homosexuality in the Church have been both immoral, and cowardly.
Willliams' cowardice has been somewhat mitigated by his concern for avoiding past "colonialist" behavior on the part of European and Euro-American Christians toward their sisters and brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and their descendents. But, the Archbishop does not seem to understand how paternalistic his current stance is. If we are to treat our fellow Anglicans of the global South and East as fellow adults, then this entails being honest with them about where we stand, and accepting that they may find this unacceptable, and choose to stand apart from us. That is their adult prerogative. But, to dissemble to them, to attempt to shield them from the fact that we disagree profoundly with them about notions of gender role and sexuality, about Biblical interpretation and even, in certain important respects, about the meaning of faith in God, is to treat them as children, and is an attitude profoundly caught up in our past colonialist relationship.
Williams' position seems to be that no part of the church should undertake actions that other parts will regard as communion-breaking, even when such actions are undertaken as a response to the Gospel call for compassion and justice.
But, what the Archbishop seems to fail to understand, is that it is not the offical sanctioning or actions that are regarded by opponents as communion-breaking, but the underlying beliefs. If the ordaining of gay and lesbian people, and the blessing of our unions, causes offense, it is because this reflects our emerging belief as a church that the sheer fact of being gay and lesbian is not "intrinsically disordered," and that homosexuality is not contemptible on Biblical grounds.
It is that belief--not just official positions or acts--that is causing the present divide, and there is nothing we can do about that, other than continue to explain our reasoning and share our experience. Many in the global South simply cannot accept the idea of being in communion with those who hold such beliefs.
But, we cannot simply stop believing as we do, and we cannot forcibly stop many in the global South, or among our own recusants, from refusing to accept communion with us as long as we hold such beliefs.
By advocating the idea that we should act as if we believe homosexuality is sinful in order not to scandalize others, the Archbishop--whose writings and presentations prior to his elevation as Archbishop make it clear that he shares the conviction that the Church has been misguided in its attitude toward homosexuality--is inevitably advocating hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
Certainly, any church, like any other community, has a right to adopt official teachings and positions, and to define certain moral positions as being "beyond the pale" of that teaching.
But, it seems to me, that does not add up to an obligation by anyone to "fudge" their disagreement with such teaching. It is incumbent on any moral agent--whether an individual or community--to be open and honest about ones understanding, and not to pretend to adhere to teachings that one does not, in fact, believe in, just in order to "fit in the community."
And then, to accept the consequences: If ones convictions fall within the "official" teaching of a group one has historically belonged to, well and good. If not, then one must have the backbone to declare what one finds to be true. This does not mean one should accept lightly a parting of the ways between oneself and others with whom one has been in community. But, one should have the backbone not to pretend to believe other than one does just because others make it clear that, on the basis of that belief, they can no longer accept you as part of the community. Anything less is immoral cowardice.
As a gay person who remained in the closet all too long in a cowardly and immoral attempt to "fit into" an often unaccepting community, I can speak to this from hard-won experience.
When ones attempts to "fit in" go beyond "fudging" about ones beliefs or experience, to turning a blind eye to injustice by members of the community toward others, that immorality is greatly compounded.
And that is why, I am sad to say, I believe Archbishop Williams' positions, actions and statements around the issue of homosexuality in the Church have been both immoral, and cowardly.
Willliams' cowardice has been somewhat mitigated by his concern for avoiding past "colonialist" behavior on the part of European and Euro-American Christians toward their sisters and brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and their descendents. But, the Archbishop does not seem to understand how paternalistic his current stance is. If we are to treat our fellow Anglicans of the global South and East as fellow adults, then this entails being honest with them about where we stand, and accepting that they may find this unacceptable, and choose to stand apart from us. That is their adult prerogative. But, to dissemble to them, to attempt to shield them from the fact that we disagree profoundly with them about notions of gender role and sexuality, about Biblical interpretation and even, in certain important respects, about the meaning of faith in God, is to treat them as children, and is an attitude profoundly caught up in our past colonialist relationship.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Soulforce on the Nomination of James Holsinger for Surgeon General
Soulforce today expressed deep concern over the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for United States Surgeon General.
"As the leading spokesperson for matters of public health, the Surgeon General should be guided by sound medical science, not anti-gay views rooted in religion-based bigotry," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes.
Dr. Holsinger is the current president of the United Methodist Judicial Council. As a member of the council, he opposed the 2004 decision to allow Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian, to continue serving as a minister. He also upheld the 2004 defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud, another lesbian minister, and sided with a Virginia pastor who denied church membership to an openly gay man.
Read the rest of this article at soulforce.com.
"As the leading spokesperson for matters of public health, the Surgeon General should be guided by sound medical science, not anti-gay views rooted in religion-based bigotry," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes.
Dr. Holsinger is the current president of the United Methodist Judicial Council. As a member of the council, he opposed the 2004 decision to allow Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian, to continue serving as a minister. He also upheld the 2004 defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud, another lesbian minister, and sided with a Virginia pastor who denied church membership to an openly gay man.
Read the rest of this article at soulforce.com.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Lavender Heart of Texas
Those aware of the oppressive attitudes and policies propogated by the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth might be astonished to find how comfortable a place Dallas can be for openly gay folks. Read John Cloud's article, "The Lavender Heart of Texas" in the 17 May edition of Time Magazine. (Photo: Jensen Walker for TIME)
March 2, 2007, letter to ++Katherine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
Dear Bishop Schori, I am writing to share with you some thoughts grounded in my experience as a gay man baptized and raised in the Episcopal church, who has had to go elsewhere, to a local UCC parish, to find a congregation willing to receive my family—myself, my male partner, and our daughters--as it is around the communion table.
I am also writing to share with you the joy and hope I feel at your selection as Presiding Bishop, and to assure you that I will continue to pray for you as you lead the Episcopal church though these challenging times.
I know you are aware of the discouragement faced by those of us who are in committed same-sex relationships in dioceses such as this one of ***, just as I am aware of the apparent dilemma you face as a leader of the Church in trying to balance the Gospel calls to do justice and to preserve communion among Christians, at a time when Christians are divided about what justice demands. I will not waste words trying to convince you of what I am confident you already have experienced to be true: that it is unjust to refuse to engage in full communion with those of us are bound in love with someone of the same gender.
That refusal is just what my family has experienced in the Episcopal diocese of ***. There is no parish here that would sacramentally celebrate, or even publicly countenance, the loving bond between myself and my spouse.
I suspect that, for you, the question is not so much, “Is this unjust,” but, “How should a Christian respond to such injustice?” At present, you seem inclined to recommend that, in the interest of maintaining communion, we exercise patience and not break the external bonds of communion with those who perpetrate such injustice. When I was single, I was inclined to agree. But, as my daughters grew older and more susceptible to imbibing the implications of our church’s stance toward families like ours, I realized I should not impose on them conditions I might accept for myself.
This experience emboldens me to write you out of a concern that the dilemma the Church faces is not what I fear you may take it to be: We are not being asked to choose between justice and communion, for these cannot truly contradict each other. True communion is lacking where justice is denied. We are not being asked to choose between acting justly and demonstrating our willingness to remain in communion, but rather, between two versions of communion: one that excludes gay and lesbian people in the fullness of their lives, and one that does not. A communion that excludes people on that basis is truly impaired, and responsibility for that impairment lies at the hands of the excluder, not the excluded.
In Tanzania, the gathered Primates challenged the Episcopal Church to clarify its commitment to communion, even when this demands sacrifice. And, they are right to do so. But, the sacrifice communion demands is not what some of the Primates appear to believe: Communion demands we sacrifice precisely those idolatrous attachments that cut us off from our sisters and brothers and hence, from God. In refusing to cut off gay and lesbian people from full participation in the life of the Church, we extend communion, we do not break it. We do not even break communion with those who insist on continuing to exclude gay and lesbian people. For, in their case, communion is already broken.
You recently cited Saint Paul’s rejoinder to Christians to act charitably and patiently toward their “weaker brethren,” to be willing even to make concessions in order to give the latter time to grow into what Paul and his audience believed to be a more mature grasp of the implications of the Gospel. But, these concessions were matters of innocuous constraints. The constraints some people in the Church would place on gay and lesbian people are not innocuous, and the two situations are not analogous. I could give up certain types of meat without sacrificing anything fundamental to my personhood. But, to ask me and my spouse, Sam, to sacrifice our love as a condition for full participation in the Church is to break communion with us and our daughters, however we respond to that demand. And, I do not believe Paul ever intended to recommend to anyone that they break communion, or accept being excluded from communion, in the interest of the “weaker bretheren.”
I hope you will lead the church into fuller communion by courageously refusing to cut any of us off from a place at the table, even if that means others will refuse to join you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
