Religion

In an earlier comment, Nick pointed me to this post from Harold Paxton looking at the recent election of Bishop Robinson from the exact opposite point of view than mine. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that — as Mark Twain (I believe) said, it’s differences of opinion that make horse races.

In his post, he quotes two of the more definitive statements condemning homosexuality from the Bible — I Corinthians 6: 8-13, and Leviticus 18:22 (NIV). I’ll freely admit that on purely a “look — this is what the Bible says” standpoint, these two passages are extremely diffcult for me to argue with when trying to defend my beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin, not something that people should be condemned for, and something that should be accepted both in today’s society and today’s church. Both passages are fairly cut and dry in their equation of homosexuality and sin.

Yesterday, though, I happened across this post from Matt Zemek that does what I feel to be an admirable job of explaining why, as long as one is willing to allow for a less strictly literal reading of the Bible, modern Christians should be able to overlook someone’s sexuality when discussing matters of the faith.

So, is homosexuality a knowing choice against God? Until the early 1970s, world opinion was that it indeed was. But in the early 1970s, scientists in various fields (social, cognitive, biological, genetic) began to speak to the idea that homosexuality was not the perverted and twisted sinful choice that it had been thought to be through the centuries, from Old Testament times all the way to the middle of the 20th Century. It began to be determined–and has been continuously reaffirmed ever since–that homosexuality is genetically and biologically determined, that it is not a disease or an inherently twisted choice rooted in lustful, primal desires and nothing but.

In scientific communities, there is no doubt today that homosexuality is rooted in biology and genetics, and not in the perversity of human minds, period. Therefore, knowing what we know now–NOT in Paul’s time, NOT 100 years ago, but today–it is pretty clear that homosexuality is not a sin, because it does not fit the dynamic of a knowing and free choice against what is good or acceptable before God.

There’s more good stuff in the rest of Matt’s post. I’ll also admit that there are statements later in Matt’s post that I have a harder time agreeing with. However, his outlook on why homosexuality was condemned at the time the Bible was written but should not be today speaks strongly to me, and puts into words the vague concepts I’d had rattling around in my head but hadn’t been able to articulate.

In the end, on a personal level, I’ve never been able to believe that God is nearly as interested in our sex lives as we often think he is (a phrase I picked up from Dad). To me, the measure of Godliness in a person is a matter of how much they are able to love and respect others, regardless of whether one agrees on a personal level with their choices, and how you treat others at all times. I’ve seen gay relationships that are every bit as loving and respectful as heterosexual marriages — sometimes moreso — and I cannot believe that God would overlook the love between two people simply because they happen to have the same genetalia.

Homophobia, and the condemnation of homosexuality as “sin” is an ancient and outmoded way of thinking, prevalent at the time the Bible was written, but thoroughly debunked today. I think it’s wonderful that the Episcopal church is so publicly realizing this, and I can only hope that more people start looking at it this way.

There’s an excellent editorial at the Star Tribune looking at the events of the last 24 hours (use username: djwudi, password djwudi if you get registration hassles).

We had hoped to comment this morning on the meaning of the Episcopal debate over the nomination of the Rev. Gene Robinson to be bishop of the New Hampshire diocese. Why is it happening now? What does it portend? Is the Episcopal Church, as it often has before, signaling a significant change in the social fabric of American life?

That was before Robinson was ambushed, hours before the House of Bishops was to take the final vote on his nomination, by the most scurrilous smear: He was accused of linkage to a porn Web site and of inappropriately touching another man. The church investigated both charges and cleared Robinson. The House of Bishops then voted to accept his elevation to Bishop of New Hampshire. End of story? Not quite.

[…]

So we come full circle. Gene Robinson, meet Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky. But there is a difference: In Clinton’s case, years of digging eventually produced evidence of private sexual misbehavior. Robinson appears guilty of nothing at all — save being a gay man who wants to be a bishop. For some, unfortunately, that is enough to justify all sorts of innuendo and dirty tricks. Be warned: This is the way they play.

(via Atrios)

The American cleric Gene Robinson became the first openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican communion [today] after he was formally cleared of allegations of sexual misconduct.

[…]

Dr Williams predicted in a statement issued minutes after the vote that difficult days lay ahead and that the decision would inevitably have a significant impact.

He said: “It will be vital to ensure that the concerns and needs of those across the communion who are gravely concerned at this development can be heard, understood and taken into account.”

[…]

The primate of the US church, Frank Griswold, appealed for calm as he announced that 62 bishops had voted in favour – more than the simple majority of the 107 entitled to vote – sparking a furious reaction from opposing bishops.

I was hoping that I’d be able to follow up this morning’s string of posts with this news. I don’t doubt that there will be repercussions from this, both good and bad, over the coming months and years. However, the mere fact that we were able to get to this point, despite the last minute machinations of Robinson’s detractors, says wonderful things about where we might head in the future.

Many, many congratulations to Bishop Robinson, and to all of his supporters.

Update: Google News’ collection of related articles.

Thanks to Dad for the pointer to this story in his comment five minutes ago (I love the ‘net sometimes)!

The clergyman seeking to become the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church has been cleared of 11th-hour allegations, church sources have confirmed, NBC News’ Jim Avila reported Tuesday afternoon. The vote by bishops to confirm the elevation of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, which had been postponed Monday for an investigation into the surprise allegations, was rescheduled for Tuesday afternoon.

So exactly what is the substance of the mysterious last-minute, surprise allegation that has put Gene Robinson’s confirmation vote as Bishop of New Hampshire on hold?

Sources say that the alleged inappropriate conduct by the Rev. Cn. Gene Robinson occurred when Robinson touched a married man in his 40’s on his bicep, shoulder and upper back in the process of a public conversation at a province meeting around two years ago.

(via Atrios)

This just seems to be the day for long posts, doesn’t it? Well, bear with me — I’m flaming pissed right now, and I don’t feel like hiding all the reasons behind the ‘extended post’ link.

Earlier today, I linked to a story about how the Episcopal Church looked ready to elect the first openly gay bishop. I should have known that in the real world, this wasn’t likely to happen.

This afternoon, a string of posts was posted on Eschaton pointing out the smear campaign currently being waged against Rev. Gene Robinson that has resulted in the final vote, which was supposed to happen today, being postponed ‘indefinitely.’

First: a link to a Weekly Standard article breaking the news that one could access a porn website through links from the website of Outright a gay youth support website.

THE CONTROVERSIAL gay Episcopal bishop-elect of New Hampshire is a founder of a group called Outright that supports gay, lesbian, or “questioning” young people 22-years-old or younger and gets them together with older gay and lesbian role models. On its website, Outright had a link to a pornographic website–until the link became an issue in the fight at the Episcopal Church’s national convention in Minneapolis over ratifying the election of the bishop-elect, Gene Robinson, by New Hampshire Episcopalians. The link, indeed all links, were removed from the website today.

Eschaton apparently found about about this from a CNN broadcast, which was loosely quoted as such:

If you go to a website, and then make a few more clicks, and then leave the web site, and then make a few more clicks, you can access some erotica if you pay for it.

Go to the website, make a few more clicks, then leave the website, then make a few more clicks, then you’ll find porn if you pay for it.

Next, Atrios came up with the transcript of the CNN report he heard (emphasis mine):

Also, the vote is being postponed, we have learned from church officials, is because another group who initially came to CNN revealed that they suspect that a Web site called outright.org, an organization that counsels gay and lesbian youth under the age of 21, that if you go on to their Web site, there are a few clicks away and leaving their Web site can eventually get you, they say, to a pornographic site.

Next came the revelation that Fred Barnes, the author of the Weekly Standard article, is a board member of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a very conservative organization of Episcopalians. Sure sounds like a possible conflict of interest to me.

Later, another CNN transcript was found, demonstrating just how easy it was to get to porn via Outreach’s site:

First, let’s show you a bit of the Web site. We will not show you all of its entirety but if you go to it and make a few clicks and then leave the Web site using various links and make a few more clicks you discover an erotica, what is described as an erotica site where you can download or view rather some photographs. Of course you have to pay to see additional photographs.

This is nothing more than a blatant smear campaign designed to discredit Rev. Robinson and block his election as a Bishop. Allegations have also surfaced involving possible “improper touching”. According to this CNN transcript (the first one linked to by Eschaton):

…one of [the allegations] has to do with an e-mail that was sent just last night from a man in Manchester, Vermont, by the name of David Lewis, who sent an e-mail to a bishop claiming that — or alleging that — Reverend Robinson had — quote — “touched him inappropriately” a few years ago at a convocation, and he’s asking the bishops to look into this.

In other words, even though Rev. Robinson has been in the news for months, along with word of his upcoming election process, these allegations only surfaced at the very last moment, when it actually looked like he would be elected to his position as Bishop. As I stated above, it looks for all the world to me like this is nothing more than a brutal, vicious smear campaign.

Rev. Robinson may have had the honor of being elected the first gay bishop of the Episcopal Church today. He may not have — having made it through the first two elections is a good indicator, but not a gaurantee, that he would have made it through the third. At this point, though, we may never know.