The Bishop begins with a lengthy section on "Language" in which he expresses his desire to remove the words "homosexual," "gay" and "lesbian" from our vocabulary before we even begin the discussion. The Bishop writes:
The main reason I prefer to refer to someone as a person who experiences same-sex attraction rather than as a “homosexual” or “gay” or “lesbian” is because this way of speaking is more fitting for the church, which views all people as persons created in the image of God. That is, the church views our identity in terms of our relationship to God, not in terms of our sexual identity. Once the church succumbs to the idea that our basic identity is sexual rather than theological in nature, then the church has already lost its way in the discussion. This is not to say that our sexual being in unimportant, but it is to say that it is more appropriate for the church to first view people as persons who are created in the image of God before it says anything about their sexual identity.
I believe this is Bishop Whitaker's first act of spiritual violence in this article. "Gay" and "lesbian" are important words to us. These are the words that give us, as lesbian and gay people, our identity. Many of us in the years before 1969 and the beginning of the contemporary lesbian and gay movement grew up in families with heterosexual parents in a heterosexual world where the words "homosexual," "lesbian" and "gay" were never even spoken. We did not know who we were. We just knew that we were strangely different from our peers. Many of us felt isolated. We felt "I'm the only one in the world who feels like this." We were oppressed and depressed, sometimes to the point of not wanting to live at all. It was a tremendous experience of revelation and spiritual liberation when we first went to a gathering of "out" lesbian and gay persons, or when we first read a book relating the experiences of other gay or lesbian persons. This is how we discovered, affirmed and embraced our identity, the identity that was suppressed and hidden from us for so long.
Whitaker implies that one cannot simultaneously view someone as gay or lesbian and as a human being in the image of God. This is near the crux of our disagreement. Historically, those in dominant positions in our culture have viewed the image of God to be represented as white rather than black or male rather than female. Like racism and sexism, heterosexism views only heterosexuals as reflecting the image of God. Bishop Whitaker succumbs to a common misreading of the Bible that attributes the "image of God" only to human beings before the entry of sin in the world when a mythological Eve shared a mythological forbidden fruit with a mythological Adam (the mythological "Fall of Humanity"). In actuality the Bible nowhere speaks of the image of God being marred in human beings. Indeed, after the "Fall" the Bible speaks of human beings as continuing to bear the image of God and forbids murder on that basis. (See Genesis 9:5-6) Whatever "image of God" means, it does not to refer to God-like moral perfection, but it does refer to the respect and dignity due every human being, a quality which all human beings share without exception.
To mythologically deny any human being the "image of God" is biblically impermissable.
Whitaker's article is lengthy, and I am not done with it yet. My next effort will be to examine Whitaker's use of a passage in Ephesians in his argument that there is some deep theological basis supporting the church's heterosexism.
And, before I publish this, let me add a note about "spiritual violence." I have charged the Bishop with spiritual violence, and I stand by that. But I want to clarify that I do not believe the Bishop wishes anyone any harm. The root cause of his spiritual violence is ultimately misinformation--a condition from which all human beings suffer. As Christians and human beings we need one another to overcome our own blind spots and misinformation. Together we can overcome spiritual violence, which is the real enemy, not our brother or sister human being.
2 comments:
I agree with you. I think it was rather ridiculous of the Bishop to remove 'homosexuality,' 'gay,' and 'lesbian' from the vocabulary because he believes that somehow they do not emulate the image of God and thus are irrelevant? It really is perplexing to me and such an identity is something that I don't want taken away. Entering a shadowy abiss of uncertainty or confusion about how to describe one's feelings or oneself is not a great feeling.
I think you are misunderstanding Bishop Whitaker's comments. I think the bishop is saying that before we are homosexual or heterosexual, we are all made in God's image. The fact that we are all made in God's image and are God's beloved children is infinitely more important than whether we are homosexual or heterosexual. Bp. Whitaker in no way implies that homosexuals are not created in the image of God.
Post a Comment