Last week, retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong issued a manifesto declaring that he “will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality in the church with anyone.” Period. In “The Time Has Come!” Spong writes that for him, enough is enough, especially when it comes to Christian responses to homosexual issues based on a particular reading of biblical texts and understanding of Christian ethics.
I’ve been mulling over his essay (or as I earlier characterized it, “broadside”) for several days. And I’ve been reading the reactions of others to it as well. Some agree. Some disagree. Some do both, kind of an “agreement, but…” sort of thing. Statements have appeared like: “…the battle is NOT won.”
“I hate to see him leave the debate…”
“No, the battle is not won!”
“…we must engage people in order to change hearts and minds.”
Or, like those words penned by my fellow Presbyterian blogger, John Shuck at Shuck and Jive:
We need more people to follow the lead of Bishop Spong and speak clearly. This clear speech is what is required to penetrate the fog of homophobic propaganda and the hand wringing of the weak-kneed who unwittingly corroborate with it.
I like that.
When I first read the essay, my first reaction was, “Hey, that reminds me of the old Chambers Brothers song of my youth, ‘Time Has Come Today.’” My second response was, “Hey, that reminds me of something my seminary apologetics professor used to say all the time, ‘Belief cannot argue with unbelief, it can only preach to it.’”
I read the piece as one who was once on my way to ordination as a deacon in the Episcopal Church, only to be shooed away from the table by a hypocritical bishop reflecting those very attitudes condemned by Spong in this essay. I read it as one who has returned to the church of his birth and upbringing, the Presbyterian Church USA, and has found a large measure of peace and comfort in doing so.
Belief Cannot Argue with Unbelief
What isn’t apparent in the manifesto, but what is absolutely necessary to it, is the theological journey Spong has been on. I don’t think we, regardless of our faith commitments, can really understand the manifesto in its fullness, nor really concur with it, without first understanding and appreciating that journey.
The priest of the small Episcopal church I briefly attended a while back was quick to label Spong as a heretic from the pulpit and sometimes, in private and jokingly I trust, call for his burning—along with the Presiding Bishop, et al.
Spong is, by certain standards, a heretic. But then, so am I. And that has nothing to do with his, or my, view of homosexuality. That view, that understanding, flows from a theological journey. For Spong, traditionally understood theism is a woefully inadequate conception of what we term “God.” The Bible is a collection of theological reflections which can inform our own reflections. It is not, in any way typically understood, the Word of God.
Many of the so-called “historical” events found in that collection of writings (for example, all those great Hebrew stories in what’s sometimes called The Old Testament, many of the Jesus stories like the virgin birth, preexisting divinity of Jesus, bodily resurrection, etc.) are not history properly understood; but, rather, are theological interpretations of encounters with and experiences of the man, Jesus, who while not “God in the flesh,” was, nevertheless, divine-infused. I don’t think I’m misunderstanding his writings here. Even the latest book, Eternal Life: A New Vision, presents these thoughts in its subtitle: Beyond Religion, Beyond Theism, Beyond Heaven and Hell.
The logical end of that kind of theological journey is the realization that to continue to debate an issue like homosexuality in the church is, indeed, fruitless. It is fruitless if for no other reason than the fact that there is no common ground from which to start the debate. Belief cannot argue with unbelief.
Put plainly, what possible good outcome is there from a debate in which one party starts from the assumption that the collection of writings we call “Bible” is authoritative in some way, normative for our sexual behavior, when the other person starts from the assumption that the collections of writings we call “Bible" are no more authoritative for our behavior than, for example, the Qur’an, or the writings of various Eastern religious figures, or all those Gnostic gospels?
The only possible result is talking heads, each trying to be heard above the other, often yelling at each other in the end. Belief arguing, if you will, with unbelief.
The liberals in the Episcopal denomination (and greater Anglican Communion) have used "debate" under the guise of the "listening process" and "indaba" and whatever to merely stall while the establish the gayness of the denomination. While Spong was "debating", he was ordaining pretty much exclusively homosexual clergy (fully a third of his clergy were practicing homosexuals after his disastrous tenure). Orthodox debated in good faith while Spong and his ilk have none.
And their debate? Re-hashing silly "shellfish" arguments, ad-hominem slurs such as "hateful" and "bigots" and "homophobes", ignoring scholarly experts such as Robert Gagnon, etc.
So yes, the heretic is right on this point. Stop "debating" the homosexualists in the Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran denominations. The Episcopal denomination is a sad warning sign if you don't heed this advice.
John Shelby Spong. There, that wasn't so hard.
Whodat? The person with the funny gun with barrels that can be aimed independently of each other? One for Spongs and one for Spongites, perhaps?
:)) He'd be better off with a hand granade,i guess, TFWelsh, then multibarreled and multidirectional gun. At least he will quit shooting himself in the foot ;)
****
Whodat, you are the best convincing argument for acceptance of Homosexuality and homosexual priests. Your hate, anger, and perpetually spit venom can convert anyone into a person compassionate to homosexuals. The power of reserve psychology!Keep up doing what you doing, you really helping your opponents.Thanks.
Pardon me?
You dare to call people that disagree with you, fools? That doesnt help you position, you know it.
I am a woman and won't tolerate your behaivor. I demand you apologize to me or I will report you.
Belief can not argue with unbelief--it has to be preached to. That's Karl Barth, right?
The fact is that if Spong is right, as he believes he is, and I believe he is, about homosexuality, he needs to do more preaching. Not condemnation of false attitudes, not criticizing "medievalism" but proclaiming why Christians--even the ones who don't believe--should not simply have sympathy for LGBT people, but identify with them. The wounds against our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are very same as the wounds of Christ. It is not biology, nor psychology, nor utilitarianism that has revealed this to us--that's general revelation. It is the unique revelation that is revealed in Jesus Christ, crucified and risen and the body of Christ that is to absorb those wounds in an act of costly grace. It's the good news of the gospel.
A number of years ago I was at a planning meeting for a Soulforce action in Oklahoma. Mel White was leading the discussion, and over the course of the meeting he expressed essentially the same message as Spong.
I remember wrestling with it then, especially in the light of my ideas concerning conflict resolution, ideas that have been shaped both by my profession (philosophy) and by my work facilitating AVP (Alternatives to Violence Project) workshops in prisons and elsewhere.
As a philosopher, I am committed to a certain approach towards resolving disagreements about ideas--an approach that involves not only constructing as honestly and carefully as I can my own reasons for my views, but also listening charitably to my philosophical opponents, reconstructing their reasoning in the most plausible and defensible terms, and then precisely explaining the points at which I disagree and why (unless, of course, I am persuaded, in which case I no longer disagree). As a philosopher, I believe in the value of engaging in such discourse (otherwise I wouldn't be a philosopher).
As a nonviolent conflict resolution facilitator, I have learned the importance of compassionate listening--listening not merely for what is explicitly said, but (more significantly) for the needs and feelings that are running under the surface.
It is when everyone hears these things that a human connection is forged in the midst of conflict. It is in the context of such connections that genuine consensus becomes possible: integrative solutions that everyone can live with, arrived at in such a way that everyone's dignity is intact.
What I wrestled with when I first heard Mel say "The debate is over" was how (if at all) such a message could be consolidated with my convictions about conflict resolution. And the same questions came up again for me last week when I read Spong's manifesto.
What is clear to me is that the shouting match that goes by the name of debate is unproductive. It is clear to me that little is gained when you bring together those who believe homosexuality is a sin and those who believe categorically condemning it is a sin, and have them engage in a polemical exchange in which both sides are just trying to prove the other wrong based on incompatible starting points.
It is also clear to me that we should not put off the pursuit of justice until everyone has reached consensus about what is just. Had the civil rights movement held off until every southern racist could be convinced of the wrongness of segregation, we'd all still be waiting to this day. If I become convinced, based on experience and reflection in the light of the best contrary arguments, that something is seriously unjust, then my integrity demands that I act accordingly.
But Gandhi insisted that when we pursue justice, we rely on methods that acknowledge our fallibility, methods that will succeed only to the extent that we've got it right, and that, furthermore, will expose the inadequacies and limitations of our own perspective. For him, this meant, among other things, reliance on nonviolence.
My question is what this means for my own commitment to ending the injustices that marginalize my gay and lesbian neighbors, especially within the church. What kind of engagement reflects both the integrity of my convictions and my openness to being transformed by the struggle? To what extent can Spong's message (and Mel White's message before him) fit into such engagement?
I honestly don't know.
Eric, I"m with you in your uncertainty in a sense. When I wrote this piece I was, and am still, convinced that the general tide of society will bring about the realization of justice for folks like me. As another comment above says, though, the positive preaching of God's all-inclusive love (whatever we might mean by that word, God) is always needed and always in order. I'm not convinced, however, that one can find any common ground in a religious context for further debate and, therefore, it's fruitless.
If Mel and Jack are right, as I believe they are, then it's up to us to "live into" that already-won victory. How that plays out in our individual lives, well, that's the question, no?
"All-inclusive love", a wishy-washy term combining Cheap Grace and Latitudinarianism.
"...then it's up to us to "live into" that already-won victory."
Here is what Jack's victory gave him: Membership decline by almost 50% and only 25% of diocese of Newark parishes currently can afford full time clergy. High fives all around for this "victory." Let us emulate that in other denominations!
I viewed Bishop Spong's letter as a breath of fresh air in that it summarily dismissed so many of the arguments put forth by the likes of the peripatetic robroy. These tiresome and half baked concerns about affording equal opportunities to gays and lesbians are the arguments of someone who resists change and seems to have forgotten (as others have aptly pointed out in this blog) that we are all God's children.
How presumptuous to assume that only you can understand the Bible and that only you can dole out grace according to your personal criteria. It amazes me that gays and lesbians would be equated with those that Bonhoeffer raled against (Nazis). The internet often gives those with a deep seated hatred and anger a medium for displaying the worst side of humanity while hiding behind screen names. I find it interesting and shocking that those who proclaim to be the most educated with pedigreed degrees and a "I know more than you know" attitude sink to the level of those who are prejudiced and biased on the basis of having little exposure to the diversity of the human experience. Is education not supposed to broaden one's horizons and a realization that all in life is not black and white?
I think that is what Bishop Spong is proposing. How are we as humans capable of deciding if homosexuality is good or bad? It is not a new phenomenon. As others have alluded to, there have been gays and lesbians in all walks of life through out the ages. And guess what? The world has not collapsed. The human population is not shrinking.
Robroy is quick to criticize but presents little alternatives for gays and lesbians in his version of the Bible. So we can't marry. We are destined to lives of sexual perversion and have no self control. If we are allowed to marry, to adopt children, and to try to experience what it means to develop a loving relationship with another human, then sanctioned approval of bestiality and pedophilia is soon to follow. We are criticized for sleeping around and being sexually immoral. Any attempts then to form a long lasting committed relationship with another person of the same sex are met with mockery and criticism. So....where does that leave us robroy?
I should sit at home alone for the rest of my life and pray. Pray that I will not burn in the eternal fires of hell. Pray that I will be forgiven for making the wrong decision that fateful day to live life as a gay man---a "lifestyle". I'm sure we all remember the day we sat down at the table and decided on whether to be gay or straight. I think I decided on a Friday after a hectic week at school. Darn, I must have been tired and didn't realize how hard this would all be. Can I go back and redo my decision? Yes, I really need to pray because being gay can be willed away just as can other afflictions like alcoholism.
I don't claim to know why homosexuals are on this earth. A degree in medicine does not give one the insight into why this is so. I do know that the earth is not coming to an end. The sky is not falling. It is a sign of progress when the human race is willing to accept the fact that not all are alike. The robroys of the world remind me of the cruel world of the backyard chickens where a newcomer to the flock was often pecked to death mercilessly for being a Brown Leghorn instead of a White Leghorn.
Pax et bonum.
Yes, what we need is listening rooted in non-violent practice. Doing this is very hard! It is far easier for me to compete in a right/wrong contest than a love contest.
Thank you for writing such a moving, passionate piece on Spong's manifesto. I've been chewing on it since I read it as well but you've written my own conclusions with far more beauty and discipleship than I could have. I don't have time for a more lengthy analysis or commentary but I wanted to thank you and let you know how moved I am..
Eric.. you still in Oklahoma? We should have a beer!
Still in Oklahoma and always up for a beer...
The link address for your blog has a @ instead of a dot so the link is broken. Here
http://david-gillespie.blogspot.com
OR YOU CAN LOOK FOR SOUTHERN FRIED FAITH AT WWW.BLOGGER.COM
John Spong, who before he retired used to speak for less than 27,000 poor lost souls in Newark, New Jersey, says the battle is over; homosexualism is somehow now "Christian"? Is he rehearsing for “Comedy Central”? Is this some sort of joke? Benedict XVI speaks for 1.1 billion Christians, and he unequivocally teaches, as does Christendom since its inception, that homosexualism is part of the Cult of Death, the extermination of the Future, the suicide of Humanity, a hate crime against Nature. With all due respect and compassionate love, John Spong needs to get professional help. He suffers from Delusional Disorder, as do whatever few extremists allegedly following him. Delusional Disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a psychotic mental disorder that is characterized by holding one or more non-bizarre delusions in the absence of any other significant psychopathology. Non-bizarre delusions are fixed beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, but that could possibly be plausible. To believe that homosexualism can somehow be acceptable sexual behavior for anyone sane, be they Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Communist, atheist, agnostic, or Christian, is, in itself, a clear indicator of Delusional Disorder.
Furthermore, every learned person knows that "homophobia" is the irrational fear of human beings, not of homosexuals.
Patrianews, homosexualism is not a hate crime against nature, homosexuals are born that way, follow this link. The other option (homosexuals choose to be that way) doesn't have evidence, only vague correlations that doesn't help to "cure" the homosexuality. I put cure between quotes because no medical or scientific evidence say that homosexualism is a disease.
Then, is not the suicide of humanity, or darwinian paradox, because the femal maternal relatives of homosexuals men have higher fecundity than female maternal relatives of heterosexuals, follow this link. So the men homosexuality favours their female maternal relatives, maintaining their numbers, q.e.d. they are natural, follow this link for the model of transmission of male homosexuality.
In the end, you have non-bizarre delusions with your comparisions of homosexuality with "hate crime against nature" or "suicide of humanity", beliefs that are certainly and definitely false, according the evidence previously presented in the last paragraphs, q.e.d you are the one suffering the delusional disorder.
Only by putting ideology over science can any one state that homosexuals, or adulterers, cannibals or polygamists for that matter, are “born that way.” Scientific research has never demonstrated that there is any location on any human chromosome and/or any combination of amino acids that is "responsible" for so-called sexual "orientation" or disorientation, as in the case of those who prefer abnormal sexual practices.
Genetically and physically speaking, humans are heterosexual mammals by design and orientation. Nature never forces any one to practice a sexual behavior against their will or their choosing.
Scientifically speaking, homosexualism and all other sex-related behaviors or practices are freely engaged in, never involuntarily imposed upon by Nature. For example, Nature does not compel any one to insert anything into their anus. Those that do, do so by choice, freely and voluntarily. Gender identity, i.e., a person's view of his or her own gender, is a developmental process that occurs after a person is born, not before.
It is ignorant, unjust and anti-scientific for homosexualists, those who advance the ideology of homosexualism, to deny people their basic right to sexual self-determination. Because homosexualism, as an ideology, advances the anti human reproductive agenda of the Cult of Death followers, it is indeed the suicide of Humanity and the extermination of the Future. As currently being forced upon society, homosexualism, most definitely is a hate crime against Nature.
Eric Reitan as usual brings some level-headedness to a hot topic. Though Spong's manifesto validated my outrage and was enjoyable for that reason, I can see how his triumphalism may create more problems. Still, like Spong, I sometimes refuse to debate gay rights with conservative Christians because engaging in their debate, on the defensive, leaves the power imbalance unquestioned. Instead I prefer to pull back and say, "Hey, how did YOU get to set the terms of who gets included? Why is the burden of proof on us? What makes you the authorities on how to read the Bible, other than the power of the heterosexual majority?"
I like that, Jendi. Thanks for another approach.
I have a question for the one who said: HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN BECAUSE GOD SAID SO! What else are you going to preach as sin? Are you going to preach about the kind of foods to be eaten, clothes to be worn, issues of women, taxation, jubilee, etc. All these concerns are in the Bible. Why do you prefer to pick on homosexuality and discriminate against the others. What of the fact that that this 'sin' is one of fourteen 'sins' mentioned in Leviticus. Where is the logic in this debate?
And genocide was OK because God said so. Rape was OK because God said so.
Picking up sticks and being killed for it was a sin because God said so, as is eating shellfish, wearing multiple kinds of cloth, or disobeying your "master" if you were a slave or a servant. Because God said so.
Luckily, people have spent at least the last few hundred years thinking "You know, just because something in the Bible says that God said so, maybe that doesn't make it right. Maybe women should be allowed to have a voice and a vote regardless of the command of 'God' that they submit themselves to men. Maybe slavery isn't good just because God says it's acceptable.
"Who knows - maybe what's written down in the Bible, or the Koran, or any other 'holy books' aren't the words of God, but the words of men who got some things right, and got some things wrong."
Sorry, but "God says so" doesn't work any more - that excuse has been played out. Now the question is "Is is right?" Luckily we have better ways of finding out the answer than "Well, God said so."
I think you have what the Bible says and actually means mixed up. For example why does 2 + 2 = 4? Is it because that's what we've always been told and always read or is it because at some point you actually understood it to equal 4 through proper understanding and rationale? You have to take the same approach with the Bible and understanding God. The Bible says in all your getting get understanding. You need understanding.
Genocide and rape has never been acceptable to God. Murder will always be wrong in the eyes of God. Eating shellfish and wearing multiple kinds of clothing is old testament law that has been eradicated because of the new testament. Disobeying your master is still wrong...plain understanding can be used with that.
Women that think God is forcing them to be 2nd class citizens don't understand the new testament because men are supposed to submit to their wives if Christ is their head otherwise what is there for women to submit to, no Christ seen in their husband no submission.
You sound like someone that has been church hurt or has had lots of negative things to occur in your life that has left you bitter. Only bitter people talk like this.
I don't think I am one of those who have been left bitter by the church, although others have at times thought that of me. I haven't been church hurt (good term) but I do feel at times church dogma has ended up hurting my family (not the Catholic church, but probably the same principle). That being said, here are a couple things you might want to include in your equations.
Women might think the church is forcing them to be 2nd class citizens because the church is listening to people who are explaining the "no Christ seen in their husbands no submission" concept. Those people tend to think they have a better understanding of God than the women in the class. Are you one of those who helps women understand if the problem is no Christ seen in their husband, or if the problem is the woman is just being rebellious and unsubmissive?
You say plain understanding shows dosobeying your master is still wrong. Who decides which one is the master? In a master slave relationship, disobeying is not wrong. If it is not a master slave situation, then how did one get to be the master over the other? The most unworthy source of deciding who is master would be religion. But without making those decisions, very few religions would even exist.
That depends on which debate you are referring to. For Spong, as a clergyman, he is called on to take regular decisions concerning others - as in marrying same sex couples. For him , the debate is over because he says he will no longer wait for the consent of the more cautious to do his job.
But there is another debate which is far from over, as so shamefully revealed by some of the comments above: that is the very nature of same sex attraction as "sin". For me personally, the slogan "love the sinner, hate the sin" is not only obnoxious, but hurtful. It makes the sweeping judgement that by definition I as a gay man am necessarily a sinner. This is simply not so.
In my Catholic school and afterwards, I was taught the value and primacy of conscience, that nothing is sin unless we engage in it against knowledge that it is sinful. Later, I learnt through the practice of Ignatian spirituality that one way to approach God, and to discern His personal message to each of us, is by constant prayerful reflection on our own experience.
I have wrestled deeply with this issue, through prayer, study, spiritual direction, silent retreats, and discussion with others. I have found that Scripture does not in fact condemn homosexuality, the Church for many centuries recognised gay saints, consecrated gay bishops, and blessed same sex unions.
The current resolute opposition by the churches is a (relatively) modern invention, totally contrary to true Gospel values of love, inclusion, justice for all.
I no longer need debated for myself: I am comfortable in my faith and its practice. However, there are many others out there who remain wounded and vulnerable by the constant prejudice they encounter. Too many of them will be led to reject the church, or even to suicide. For them, the debate is far from over. In compassion and sheer Christian charity it must continue.
I've written elsewhere on this topic. While a bit dated (it was written a year ago), I really haven't budged from a strong belief that love of neighbor is so grounded in every religious tradition I know of and that includes our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. To deny anyone dignity and hospitality is to erode and destroy community. And community is basic for human growth and development, for spiritual well-being:
linked text = Dignity, Hospitality, Community
Actually, any even modestly learned person knows that the homo- in homosexual and homophobia is from the Greek word for "same"; it's not the Latin for "man" in the sense of human being.
Is it too much to ask a Christian to know the existence of the Greek homo- root? I mean, considering that that word and a disputed iota subscript were at the bottom of one of the most important theological disputes in early Christianity.
So, the silly word homophobia, taken literally, would mean something like Screwtape's "horror of the same old thing" as described in a letter that I think everyone should read aloud every Christmas. But it doesn't mean that, because it was coined and accepted to mean something else, which also is not fear of man.
Less seriously, the quote in the title is from Stoppard's "Invention of Love" when Housman first hears this new name for the condition that he knew well. Why ugly? As he says in outrage, "homo" is Greek, and "sexual" is Latin!
"My question is what this means for my own commitment to ending the injustices that marginalize my gay and lesbian neighbors, especially within the church. What kind of engagement reflects both the integrity of my convictions and my openness to being transformed by the struggle? To what extent can Spong's message (and Mel White's message before him) fit into such engagement?"
Eric, your commitment to understanding is admirable. For anyone who is interested in moving the debate within the Christian community to a level of respect and openness, rather than declaring it to be over, please visit my blog:
http://loveplustruth.blogspot.com/
I have written three posts in the form of an extended letter, respectfully answering
an article from a couple weeks ago by Candace Chellew-Hodge, whom I admire.
(I couldn't finish the letter in time to post the link as a comment on her actual article, but the letter is for the broader RD audience anyway). I attempt to present, with love and truth, a viewpoint on marriage and homosexuality that is faithful to the entire spirit of the Bible and the message of Jesus. Both liberals and conservatives will probably find fault with what I have to say, but please take this invitation to respectfully engage with me and point out where you think I am wrong in a loving manner, on the comment pages of my blog. Maybe we can build some bridges between two warring camps.
For the most part, people don't condemn homosexuality because of their religious convictions--they join churches to support and, they hope, promulgate the moral views they hold on independent grounds. If they don't like the position their churches take on these matters they either ignore it or leave--as we've seen in the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church was out of line making ANY statement about homosexuality--pro or con. Ethics is a philosophical discipline: the leadership of the church doesn't have the training or expertise to engage with such issues and is incredibly arrogant to imagine that they're in a position to teach us about any ethical issues whatsoever.
So Spong is right in a way. Churches shouldn't be debating questions of sexual conduct. But that's because they never should have been debating these or any other controversial ethical issues. The business of churches is to maintain buildings and do services period. And the business of priests is to maintain the buildings and, like good trained monkeys, do the magic act. Period.
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.