Episcopal Church and the Gay Debate
Saturday, November 01, 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:22:57 -0500
To:
From: "Peter Greenwood"
Subject: RE: [forum] Re: [HoB/D] What would it look like to honor all members'
convictions?
Message-ID:
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> I have never heard a straight person think that *their* sexuality is
> not at the core of their identity. So position C amounts to:
> * straight sexuality is at the core of one's being, AND
> * gay sexuality is not at the core of one's being.
> But that is a denial of the equal humanity of both persons.
So Position A would hold that the notion and meaning of sexuality includes
the possibility of "straight sexuality" and also "gay sexuality". A
significant reason for holding this view is that that is how some people (or
they themselves) experience themselves and their sexual orientation. To use
"Christian" language, inasmuch as God created everything, including
sexuality, Position A holds that God has made some people with the intention
that they be gay and others with the intention that they be straight.
On the other hand, Position C would hold that, concerning how we have been
made, sexuality is based only on maleness or femaleness, because that is
what God has revealed about how he made us all. Therefore, for someone with
a same-sex orientation, even if their experience of this is profound,
Position C would hold that their maleness or femaleness is in fact the basic
reality, and that their same-sex orientation is operating at a less
fundamental level. Or in "Christian" language, God has made us male or
female; he hasn't made anyone with the intention that they have a same-sex
orientation. His only intention is that they have a heterosexual
orientation.
Now, from the viewpoint of Position A, it is clear that Position B can be
perceived as a "denial of the equal humanity of both persons" because
Position A believes that an experience of being gay is on the same level as
a straight person's maleness of femaleness, and Position C says, in effect,
"Not so. Reality is such that your maleness or femaleness is more
fundamental than your experience of gayness."
This can clearly be offensive to those holding Position A, but from the
viewpoint of Position C it is not "a denial of the equal humanity of both
persons" because Position C does not believe that same-sex orientation is an
inherent part of the makeup of someone's humanity. Position C holds that
everyone is made in the image of God, and that this is the basis for the
equality in worth etc. between any two people, gay or straight.
Now, the point I'm trying to get to is NOT to here convince anyone of the
merits of Position A or C, but rather to have it recognized that (at least
for some) the dispute about whether to bless same-sex practice is not merely
at the level of homophobia, but arises from a fundamental disagreement about
how God has made us.
>> Finally, Positions A and C represent very different views of creation, at
a
>> radical (i.e. root) level.
> No, they don't. They only do so if you say that a view of creation
> must involve, at its root, a view of sexuality. That is hardly true,
> it seems to me. Genesis seems indeed to imply something about gender
> at the root of creation--though even there, it is apparently
> contradicted by the facts of human biology (since there are, in fact,
> intersexed individuals), and also by Galations 3:28.
In the very same place in Genesis where we are told that God made us in his
image (Gen 1:27) we are told that "male and female he created them". Far
from merely 'implying something about gender' it is quite explicit that
maleness and femaleness are linked directly with the belief that we are
created, and for example, this is taken up again explicitly by Jesus in his
word on marriage (Mat 19:4).
Now again, I'm not arguing here for a particular interpretation of Genesis
and the resulting doctrine of creation, instead I'm arguing that two quite
different doctrines of creation lie behind Positions A and C.
>> As Bishop Michael Ingham said recently "... no doctrine of creation
>> which ignores homosexual persons is an adequate doctrine of
>> creation."
> +Ingham is right, but not because a doctrine of creation must involve,
> at a root level, something about sexuality. Rather, he is saying that
> a view of creation which ignores *any* part of creation is
> inadequate.
Exactly. So the question then is: is "same-sex orientation" a part of
creation? And by this, I don't mean is same-sex orientation a
*possibility*, because the way God made the world it clearly has many
different possibilities, from the extremely good to the extremely evil. So
a better way of phrasing the question is: "Did God intend 'same-sex
orientation' to be part of the humanity he created?"
I believe that there are two very different answers that are given to this
question, and that they point to the root of the divide between many in the
Episcopal Church, and Anglican Communion for that matter.
Peter Greenwood
Pittsburgh
