LETTER TO THIS EDITOR -
24 SEPTEMBER
Today is Monday, 24 September 2018. We have an excellent new letter to this editor. It continues in the train of the numerous letters I have received for several weeks, and so I am pleased to present it:
___________________________________________
Dear Ron:
As a member of the "Lawrence diocese" and as one who appreciates thoughtful and respectful dialogue on complex issues, I raise a point of clarification. A letter you posted on September 14th includes the following commonly-held opinion: "The breakaway diocese of Mark Lawrence chooses to practice discrimination and exclusion against homosexual and transgender individuals..." This summary statement oversimplifies my thinking, which is also the position of my bishop and diocese as I understand it.
Please note that my intent here is not to refute you or your letter writer, but merely to explain my current thinking in the complex and evolving debate over Christian sexual ethics. The term, "homosexual," as a class of humans, does not come from the Bible, but from the scientific work of Sigmund Freud over a hundred years ago. There is no harm in scientific classification, but the popularity of Freud's terminology has led to confusion in our understanding of scripture. For example, the Revised Standard Version (RSV), a respected modern translation, renders I Corinthians 6:9-10 as follows: "...neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God." However, based on my reading of translations and commentaries, the Greek phrase the RSV translates as "homosexuals" really means something like "men who play either the female role or the male role in homosexual coitus." Activities, not personality classes, are being addressed. The Bible does not condemn any class of persons, but rather warns against certain types of actions. Our current controversy is giving us the opportunity, and the necessity, of untangling this confusion.
My thinking has changed over the course of the debate in the Episcopal Church over homosexual rights. I now think the church should not look down on anyone's personal sexual attractions. However, the church should recommend the Bible's rules about sexual behavior, as beneficial ethical guidelines for all people, regardless of their orientations. The foregoing is my general view, not an exact solution for individual problems. I think my diocese has the same general view. In my knowledge, Bishop Lawrence has ordained at least one self-identified homosexual-but-celibate person to the clergy. That indicates that we are not discriminating against people merely for being homosexual.
I realize that my position is not the final answer for all people, especially not for my "liberal" friends nor for my wife, but I am grateful for the opportunity to exchange ideas in this blog spot. Thank you, Ron.
Sam Dargan
_________________________________________
And thank you, Sam Dargan, for this fine letter. This is exactly the sort of thing I like for this blog, ideas that are clear, respectful of others, and not personal. Let's have more.
If I may add a thought here, as Sam says, the real dividing issue is whether the church should insist homosexuals remain celibate after ordination. The best argument for homosexual celibacy is in Wesley Hill's work, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, 2010, 160 p. A professor at Trinity School for Ministry, Hill claims that homosexuals are born and not made, but must remain celibate. This raises the issue of loneliness and depression, something he addresses by calling for friendship networks among celibate homosexuals. I must admit I have not read Hill's book, and maybe he addresses the obvious issue in the book, but I wonder how far this "friendship" can go on a physical level. Where is the limit: handshake, hug, kiss, ...? Or, should there be no physical contact at all? Is verbal and written communication enough to satisfy the emotional needs of human beings? I rather doubt it. The idea that homosexuals should deny and sublimate their physical desires sounds unhealthy to me, but then I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
When the Episcopal Church took up the issue of homosexuality, starting in the 1970s, it found two different aspects: the morality of homosexual activities, and the ordination of homosexual persons. The "wings" of the church took opposite sides on both aspects. The "conservatives" insisted that homosexual activities were inherently immoral and thus non-celibate homosexuals must be denied ordination. The "liberals" held that homosexual activity was morally neutral, that is, inherently neither good not bad, and that non-celibate homosexuals must not be denied ordination. The Episcopal Church never really had an open and full discussion of the aspect of morality of homosexual activity. Instead, the church dealt with the matter of homosexuality on an institutional level, finally deciding that homosexuals must not be denied ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy regardless of celibacy. This was, as the conservatives pointed out, in fact, a back door answer of the morality question. By adopting the ordination of homosexuals regardless of celibacy, the church gave tacit approval of the liberals' view of moral neutrality. This, in turn, led to the logical steps of the Episcopal Church's adoption of the blessing of same-sex unions and of same-sex marriage. I have always regretted that the church never hashed out the underlying moral issue when it had a chance in the 1970s-90s, but then the General Convention, with its rigid and restricted time constraints, does not readily lend itself to such broad discussions. As I see it, this leaves us presently with two opposing views of the interface of the church and homosexuality, to see homosexual physical acts as 1-morally neutral or as 2-immoral. That, I think, is the kernel of the matter.
I found it curious that, in the two recent tours, the "conversations" of the Church diocese, and the Last Hurrah of Bp Lawrence, the issue of homosexuality barely appeared even though it had been the direct cause of the schism. There were very few questions from the audiences about it. Lawrence skirted it, and said he left the Church in 2012 because of the transgender issue. However, the letters I get to this blog overwhelmingly deal with homosexuality. I suspect we do not want to talk about homosexuality face to face, but do want to talk about it. What that says, well, you will have to decide for yourself.
Join the conversation. Send me your thoughts, and follow Sam Dargan's pattern: ideas, respect, and non-personal. Send to the email address above. Let's keep the dialogue going. It is healthy for all of us.
If I may add a thought here, as Sam says, the real dividing issue is whether the church should insist homosexuals remain celibate after ordination. The best argument for homosexual celibacy is in Wesley Hill's work, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality, 2010, 160 p. A professor at Trinity School for Ministry, Hill claims that homosexuals are born and not made, but must remain celibate. This raises the issue of loneliness and depression, something he addresses by calling for friendship networks among celibate homosexuals. I must admit I have not read Hill's book, and maybe he addresses the obvious issue in the book, but I wonder how far this "friendship" can go on a physical level. Where is the limit: handshake, hug, kiss, ...? Or, should there be no physical contact at all? Is verbal and written communication enough to satisfy the emotional needs of human beings? I rather doubt it. The idea that homosexuals should deny and sublimate their physical desires sounds unhealthy to me, but then I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.
When the Episcopal Church took up the issue of homosexuality, starting in the 1970s, it found two different aspects: the morality of homosexual activities, and the ordination of homosexual persons. The "wings" of the church took opposite sides on both aspects. The "conservatives" insisted that homosexual activities were inherently immoral and thus non-celibate homosexuals must be denied ordination. The "liberals" held that homosexual activity was morally neutral, that is, inherently neither good not bad, and that non-celibate homosexuals must not be denied ordination. The Episcopal Church never really had an open and full discussion of the aspect of morality of homosexual activity. Instead, the church dealt with the matter of homosexuality on an institutional level, finally deciding that homosexuals must not be denied ordination to the priesthood and episcopacy regardless of celibacy. This was, as the conservatives pointed out, in fact, a back door answer of the morality question. By adopting the ordination of homosexuals regardless of celibacy, the church gave tacit approval of the liberals' view of moral neutrality. This, in turn, led to the logical steps of the Episcopal Church's adoption of the blessing of same-sex unions and of same-sex marriage. I have always regretted that the church never hashed out the underlying moral issue when it had a chance in the 1970s-90s, but then the General Convention, with its rigid and restricted time constraints, does not readily lend itself to such broad discussions. As I see it, this leaves us presently with two opposing views of the interface of the church and homosexuality, to see homosexual physical acts as 1-morally neutral or as 2-immoral. That, I think, is the kernel of the matter.
I found it curious that, in the two recent tours, the "conversations" of the Church diocese, and the Last Hurrah of Bp Lawrence, the issue of homosexuality barely appeared even though it had been the direct cause of the schism. There were very few questions from the audiences about it. Lawrence skirted it, and said he left the Church in 2012 because of the transgender issue. However, the letters I get to this blog overwhelmingly deal with homosexuality. I suspect we do not want to talk about homosexuality face to face, but do want to talk about it. What that says, well, you will have to decide for yourself.
Join the conversation. Send me your thoughts, and follow Sam Dargan's pattern: ideas, respect, and non-personal. Send to the email address above. Let's keep the dialogue going. It is healthy for all of us.
