TimesOnline
But this time, we know what it’s all about, don’t we? Not joyful, simplified Christianity but a pulling-up of drawbridges. Anglican archbishops in Dar es Salaam are struggling to avoid “schism” in their vast communion over the issue of ordaining, or indeed tolerating, Christians whose unsought orientation is to pair up with others of their own gender. And it will be the illiberal, genitally-fixated wing of Anglicanism that sidles towards unity with Rome. It will do this because it thinks — accurately, more’s the pity — that Rome is where you find the most intolerant attitudes towards homosexuality.
It always intrigues me to watch liberal/postmodernist columnists going to war against fundamentalism on issues of sexuality. They start out with all the fire and fury of their supposed passionate love for the broken hearts of others and their desire for, well, something or other… They then vent their frustrated rage at the Churches’ incurable obsession with genital sexuality which, they hold, “Cripples every good intention, impedes every good work,” as though it were definitively the core of the problem that is causing the pain of those they claim to defend. Then, they present their solution:
The irony is, their solution is simply, “Let’s not talk about it.” They state that, “Christianity could just grow up, and stop treating sex as if it were innately toxic or radioactive and yet irresistibly interesting,” ignoring, for a moment, that these voices may actually have noticed something real. (Not that sexuality is innately toxic, but that there may actually be some seriously broken hearts resulting from the misuse of sexuality…) How do they substantiate this position of willful obliviousness?
The present Pope’s use of expressions such as “objectively disordered” is not only cruel, but unfounded in any solid fact. Nor is real homosexuality, as evangelicals love to claim, “curable”. You can persuade, inspire or bully people out of committing crimes, but not out of perceiving a particular kind of beauty, loveability, caressability and companionableness more in one sex than another. You can condemn people for doing bad things, but you cannot dictate where they will see beauty, a reflection of divinity.
Well, never mind that the very man that removed Homosexuality from the DSM has released his studies stating rather conclusively that homosexuality can be changed. Never mind that there are thousands of persons world wide who’s personal journeys beg to differ with this position. Let’s ignore all the research and just make a raw batch of categorical statements about your own opinions. In other words — they just don’t substantiate it — in fact, they don’t even engage any research that disagrees with them while upholding research as that which will vindicate them.
Ironically, the solution they offer — just ignoring the broken hearts of those trapped in this lifestyle — is exactly the same solution actually being currently practiced in the fundamentalist churches they rail against. In fact, it’s the solution nearly exclusively practiced on both sides (except for a very few.) While one side rails against behaviors and the other side praises the same, the real problem is that neither side is prepared to engage the broken at a level that actually matters.
And, what would engaging them look like? It would start with reading Romans and Galatians again for the very first time, walking away from the idiocy of our ethical revision of Christianity and figuring out that there is no other way to describe Christianity but with the word, “Freedom.” It would continue with the recognition of the dignity and sonship/daughtership of every child of God (regardless of their behavior) and a reexamination of the radical nature of both love itself as well as the call of Christ to do so. It would continue with an honest recognition of the reality of human broken hearts — especially in the case of those who are settling for so much less then what they were created for. Then it would require figuring out that love doesn’t tell a person who is settling for such that that’s all they can expect for their lives.
Just maybe, somewhere in there, the church might discover the point Paul was making back there: That love, grace, freedom and an intimate relationship with God/others can heal what no amount of hiding our heads in the sand or shouting our judgments at the broken will ever even touch.
But then, that would require us to actually go into the dark places of the human heart that Jesus hung out in — instead of acting like the damage is beautiful or, conversely, too evil to do anything but mark the person as fuel for the fires of hell…
Oh wait… Never mind… That would cut into the stained glass window budget…