The Currency of Controversy

In the Church's seasons of controversy, taking no public position is sometimes the prudent and charitably Christian to do. But perhaps it is time for those who once spoke out with bold and godly clarity on behalf of others whose voices were refused legitimacy to lay aside their polite diplomacy and speak up again. Perhaps it is time now for those who seem to have gone strangely quiet to take a clear position on the issues roiling the Church today, and freely accept the consequences of speaking plainly the Truth of the Gospel.

Homosexuality is the precipitating issue that has brought forward deep disagreements around biblical interpretation and application, limits and privileges of constitutional authority, the ontology of communion, and the definition of Anglicanism. Nevertheless, because most people concede that these other issues are open to legitimate differences of opinion, homosexuality continues to orient the debate. Since at least 1993, I’ve heard repeated the claim that “it’s really all about anal sex.” The plain wisdom of this insight recognizes that, for many of the ‘manly men’ disturbed by folks like Bp. Robinson and his partner, the idea of same-sex activity between two women simply doesn’t elicit the same passionate revulsion as does the idea of gay male sex. This may suggest an important insight into the nature of the current dispute. Currently, historically, and biblically, the objection to homosexuality is always primarily and most energetically expressed by men, and always primarily and most energetically focused upon the sexual activity rather than upon the sexual orientation itself.


It seems reasonable, then, to suppose that a driving objection to male same-sex sexuality is misogyny. The objection is aimed at the ‘womanization of Man,’ presumably expressed in the willingness of one or both of the male partners to serve as ‘lowly woman’ to the other, and in the willingness of one or both to treat the other as such. It is easy then to see how misogyny would lie also behind the condemnation of lesbianism as the ‘andros-izing’ of Woman. In addition, it may well be an enculturated misogyny in women themselves that shapes the fear and hatred of gay people expressed by some heterosexual women.

It should be important to a truly Christian agenda that fear and hatred of homosexuals may be rooted in hatred and fear of women. It suggests that the real issue finally is not anal sex, but a lingering pre-Christian hatred of Woman. It’s important because Jesus himself contradicted both hatred and sexism, and taught his followers to do the same.

If then we can support a Christian skepticism toward the condemnation of homosexuality, perhaps we can turn more productively toward speaking up for a Christian theology of same-sex love and union. The homophobe and gay-hater will often imply that the ‘homosexual lifestyle’ is equivalent to promiscuity and sexual predation. But there is in fact no widely-held position amongst Christians, Episcopalians, and Anglicans that does not agree that promiscuity and sexual predation are evils that deserve our unanimous condemnation in the Name of the Lord, and are ills from which we should unanimously encourage all people to turn and repent. There is already substantial agreement that the Church ought rightly call upon all people not to divorce sex from love; to seek sexual love only within the bonds of the life-long commitment of a couple’s fidelity each to the other; and to base such relationship upon mutually self-transcending love, charity, and dependence upon God. Thus, skepticism toward the condemnation of homosexuality enables the Church to discern inherently Christian values that can guide and bless all couples, and also condemn sexual promiscuity and predation, both gay and straight.

Both Episcopalian polity and the Anglican ethos contradict any decree that would try to require every congregation, diocese, or province of the Communion to adopt a gay-inclusive practice for itself. At the same time, both skepticism toward condemnation of homosexuality and genuine Anglicanism do require that those who choose not to endorse gay unions must cease to condemn those who do; and that those who choose to endorse gay unions must cease to condemn those who do not. We can speak up favorably for all this as both truly liberal and truly orthodox.

And until we do so, good Christian people are being thrown over, sent to the back, and kicked out for the sake of nothing more than the mere appearance of unity. Gay Christians, theologically liberal Christians, and inclusive evangelical Christians (yes, they do exist), are being dismissed, marginalized, and hushed up in favor of a superficial unanimity. This makes it timely for those of us who quietly or secretly believe that this is wrong to surrender our prudent diplomacy. It is time for us to take a position boldly and plainly around that which we believe and know as the Truth of the Gospel. It is time for us who still have voice in the Diocese of Texas, in the Episcopal Church, and in the Anglican Communion to speak up for those whom the Church is too comfortably and too efficiently silencing. Certainly it’s not the easy thing to do; or the safe thing, the convenient thing, or the comfortable thing. But it is the right thing and the good thing. It is time now to speak up with bold clarity. It is the godly thing to do.

Jim +