Anglicans cling to biblical fig leaf in same-sex marriage struggle

Ken Cauthen, writes in his blog, Liberal to Left Musings: Politics, Religion, Ethics, Justice, Humor, that Exegesis Follows Belief.  For those who have not had to learn such arcane terms in a theological education, exegesis simply refers to a critical reading of a text, and particularly of scripture. [I do love how every speciality creates special language to keep the riff-raff off of their intellectual turff!]

Cauthen was reacting to a statement from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, against Anglican recognition of same-sex marriage. Williams declared

Changing the Anglican theological position on homosexuality would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion

Cauthen points out that, contrary to Williams' implication, religionists do not in fact make their moral decisions based on interpretation of scripture. Rather, they do their scriptural interpretation based on prevailing moral stances.

Were this not the case, we would certainly see Christian preachers routinely urging members of their flocks to stone their neighbours who wear clothing made of mixed fibres and extolling the virtues of slavery (so long as the slaves come from a nation other than their own, of course).

The Archbishop then only pretends that the intellectual work must come before a change in Anglican ethics, but this is merely another attempt to avoid having to make a move toward justice - a move that would be terribly divisive within the Anglican Communion.

Our moral stances do not - even for true believers - come directly from an interpretation of scripture. They come from our own sense of the world - a sense that is deeply and inextricably influenced by the culture of our times. In the 19th century, Theodore Parker told us that the moral arc of the universe is long, but that it bends toward justice. That ongoing change in the cultural ethics is influenced by religion, but it is a product of so many more influences that - in practice - our exegesis follows our moral choices and not the other way around.

Cauthen concludes,

[Those religionists] who approve of same-sex love need most is not more and better exegesis but to find non-exegetical ways to change hearts and minds. When that happens, the foundational and sustaining exegesis will be forthcoming.

My hope is that the Anglican Communion's 'bending toward justice' for same-sex couples does not take too terribly long and that - despite the very present risk of schism - it will recognize that an exegesis incompatible with the culturally recognized demands of justice is unsustainable.

I am not ashamed

I received a very interesting email the other day:

I am going to be in London over the summer with my girl friend Amy and we are interested in your fellowship. The issue is we are both people in the arts and grew up in conservative churches .. me Roman Catholic, she Protestant fundamentalist and we really got hurt. We found a Unitarian fellowship in America and this was healing for us both. Would we fit with you? We are "out there" in terms of style. I (Chad) wear short skirts and tall boots and Amy goes bra-less and wears very very short dresses. We have been rejected in our home churches and wonder if we would be welcomed dressed as we are in your church. 

Chad Bradford

The message came through the British Unitarian Association's web site contact system. My intention was to contact these folks and find out more about them. There are certainly people who are biologically men and identify as women and I would and do welcome them completely. This didn't sound like that at all though. The story seemed - well - more than a bit odd.

So I poked around just a bit and what do you know! The return email address is canonpearson@yahoo.com. This address belongs to Canon Mark Pearson, the pastor of the Trinity Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC) in Kingston, NH, USA.

I contacted Canon Pearson. He replied by email that Chad and Amy were staying with him and had borrowed his computer - but that they were good people. All my requests for contact information for "Chad" and "Amy" were fruitless...  "Oh, Chad doesn't have an email address..."

The CEC is a conservative church. It opposes "...theological liberalism, gnosticism,Theosophy, non-traditional sexual ethics, and the ordination of women to the priesthood." Is a picture becoming clear now? Do you think that Canon Pearson with his strict CEC morals would have house-guests like Chad and Amy? I think not. I think that Chad and Amy might be figments of someone's over-active imagination.

What can we learn here?

First, some conservative Christians are so insecure about their position that that they have to bait more inclusive religionists in the hope that they can find some way to portray us in an unflattering light. When you don't have anything to say, it's always helpful to have a good enemy!

Second, some conservative Christians are obsessed with sex. Really - can we not find a better use of our time in a world that is fraught with war, starvation, and oppression than conjuring up images of men in short skirts and high boots? One has to wonder what's really going on in a mind that is focused on images of braless women in "very very short dresses".

Third, some conservative Christians are technologically challenged! Don't we all know how easy it is to get another email address?

In a world that so needs to feel the connection between all people - a world where divisions and misunderstandings are literally killing our brothers and sisters - religion must play a unifying role. We must promote love and understanding in all its forms. We must be a force for acceptance and never the instigators of exclusion. We must recognize the beauty of all human beings in all their wonder and with all their many flaws.

Someone tried to shame us for standing on the side of love. Where does the shame truly belong?

IDAHOmophobia

Today is IDAHO - not the US state best known for potatoes and survivalists - the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.  What would the world look like if bias against and fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people were suddenly to disappear? Would it be a place where 'normal' marriage would be destroyed and the fabric of society would totally unravel as most religious people and political conservatives would have us believe?

Perhaps that world would look more like Mexico's region of Juchitán - a place where - as reported in a 2008 New York Times piece, sexuality and gender identity is understood in a more flexible and continuous way than it is in most of the world. Juchitán is a place where males who have felt themselves to be female from childhood are known as muxes and are as accepted in society as much as anyone else.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Juchitán society has not completely unravelled. But the attitudes expressed by the family members of the muxes bring tears to my eyes in their gentle acceptance and welcoming of differences. The grandmother of a thirteen year old Muxe sums up the attitude of many when she says “It is how God sent him." The father of 16 year old Alex (pictured above with Alex and his mother) says about his muxe son “It was God who sent him and why would I reject him?" These people with their considerable faith seem to 'get' what the more 'sophisticated' religious right do not - we are all children of God to be accepted and loved in the way we are made.

The Juchitán way of thinking intrudes on what is usually a tidy categoried way of looking at sexuality. You must be gay or straight, we are told. OK, bisexuality is possible, but no one dare admit to it knowing that they will be rejected by everyone identified with either of the two poles...  Juchitán allows for more fluidity.

The Juchitán way is more in alignment with the many studies over the years that tell us that sexuality is a continuum. And why would it not be? We are not either short or tall, with no one in between. We are not divided neatly into the shy or outgoing, messy or tidy, smart or dumb, black or white, or blind or sighted categories. Why would sexuality be entirely different from these others?

The classic Kinsey Reports clearly show sexual orientation to fall along a continuum. A more recent piece in Scientific American by Robert Epstein is one in many confirmations of the Kinsey conclusions and Epstein claims that "fewer than 10 percent of subjects score as “pure” hetero sexual or homosexual."

So, why - despite all of the evidence that sexual orientation is continuous - do we continue to insist on tidily categorizing each other into two or three discrete groups? To some extent, it is clearly human nature to put everyone into boxes and slap on a label - it helps us make sense of our world. It also degrades people and prevents us from understanding and having compassion for one another - and indeed, for our own selves.

On this day - IDAHO - maybe we can begin to recognize with acceptance that the walls we build between us are false and that we build them out of fear for what we see within. Maybe today can be a moment of gentle loving kindness to ourselves that say it is OK not to be 100% this or that, but that being human is good enough. Only when we can accept ourselves can we accept others.