Response to Bishop Whitaker from Miami Beach Pastor

Friends,
Again, I am still at a campground in Colorado Springs with limited access to a computer station. I want to share an excellent response to Florida United Methodist Bishop Whitaker from a Florida U.M. Pastor. I'll have more to say later.


An Open Letter Responding to Florida’s Bishop Timothy
Whitaker’s “The Church and Homosexuality”
(for Bishop Whitaker's original article go to:
http://www.flumc2.org/page.asp?PKValue=967 )

St. John's on the Lake First United Methodist Church,
Miami Beach
The Rev. Dr. L. Annette Jones, Pastor
July 21, 2006

Bishop Whitaker:

I appreciate that you are seeking to further the
discussion of the church and homosexuality with
dignity and civility. Your conclusion that Christian
tradition can change through a new illumination of
God’s complete revelation in Jesus Christ contained in
scripture is more than sufficient to move us ever
closer to the pure and simple light of God.

I understand your effort to find a neutral word to
describe what you call the ‘phenomenon’ of
homosexuality. And I agree that words are very
important as we attempt to resolve these complex
issues. So much so that even the use of the word
‘phenomenon’ to describe the ‘experience’ of persons
who identify as homosexual runs the risk of
objectifying such persons and placing ‘them’ into a
separate category, over against ‘the rest of us’ or
‘normal’ people. Objectifying and separating persons
into ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not a helpful activity if our
goal is to reach resolution or understanding or even
live in harmony within community. Rather, such
language is often the first step in dehumanizing the
‘enemy’ on the way to war, which is where the UMC
appears to be in regard to homosexuality.

Your ‘nature’ argument runs the same risk of valuing
‘normal’ people more than persons who fall outside the
norm. This way of thinking has been demonstrated by
both history and ethicists to be a slippery slope. The
extreme of this thinking has taken more than one
unfortunate person to the length of trying to
exterminate all who do not fit his definition of the
ideal person.

So anything we can do to identify with one another and
find common ground should help our situation. You
point out that all people share a common humanity that
is of sacred worth to God, i.e., that in Christ there
is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, etc. This
places all persons on a level playing field no matter
what his or her ‘accident of birth’, as does the
protestant maxim ‘faith alone’, ‘grace alone’. This
is an appropriately modest and humble stance in the
face of a ‘nature’ that is more complex than any human
has mastered to date.

And you rightly point to the reality that each of us
in the church is a person whose primary relationship
is with God and that it is this relationship with God
that defines us, not our sexuality. Yet, I fail to see
how it matters which term you use as a qualifier to
the term ‘persons’. ‘Persons who experience same-sex
attraction’ as well as ‘persons who identify as
homosexual’ each put the emphasis on the reality that
all human beings are persons first and of sacred
worth, as you say so well.

I am concerned that your choice of ‘same-sex
attraction’ as a referent for all intimate love
relationships between persons of the same sex and as a
substitute for ‘homosexual’ fails to capture or
communicate the complete human experience you seek to
discuss. Sexual attraction is but one aspect of the
love relationship between persons of the same sex,
though it is an important component. The same is true
in the complex love relationships enjoyed by men and
women. The term ‘same sex attraction’ reduces this
complex love relationship to merely one aspect, the
erotic.

Further, research has shown that many people,
including persons who identify as heterosexual,
experience erotic attraction to persons of the same
sex. Even though a person identifies as heterosexual,
his or her attraction to persons of the same sex
contributes to the complex experience each of us knows
as ‘loving and being in love’.

For example, the depth psychology of Carl Jung is
predicated on the theory that all men have an
unconscious ‘anima’ or feminine component that is
critical in shaping each man’s identity and way of
being in relationships. Conversely, all women have an
unconscious ‘animus’ or masculine component. Most
people’s gender identity is a complex play of
‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ dynamics. The same is
true for persons who identify as homosexual.

If Jung is correct, that persons who identify as
heterosexual AND persons who identify as homosexual
all experience some degree of same-sex AND
opposite-sex attraction could be a major reason why
the topic of homosexuality is so ‘charged’. The
stronger and more ‘unconscious’ a person’s same-sex
attraction is, the more threatening it could be to the
ego. This perceived threat could stimulate the ego to
defend itself, thereby producing extreme and
irrational reactions to persons who are openly,
overtly and consciously homosexual.

I see that your use of the narrow term same-sex
attraction allows you to segregate ‘same-sex
attraction’ from ‘erotic desire’. I understand that
this helps you further your argument. However, there
are very few people who could actually distinguish
‘same-sex attraction’ from ‘erotic desire’ within
their own human experience. Persons who could do this
would be truly exceptional. And to expect this of the
average person would be unrealistic.

By contrast, the distinction between ‘being erotically
attracted’ to someone and ‘acting on’ that attraction
is more readily apparent. As a person develops impulse
control, she or he cultivates the ability to make this
distinction. However, the dynamics involved in moving
from erotic attraction to acting on that attraction
are indeed complex and are further complicated by the
fact that part of this process includes ‘losing ones
mind’ so to speak. That is to say that at some point
in the consummation of sexual attraction, the erotic
bypasses our rational mind and we surrender to a pure,
direct experience. This experience is not unlike
certain ecstatic spiritual experiences described by
mystics such as St. Theresa of Avila.

This erotic experience with another person is often an
important part of opening to full and complete
surrender to God and is the main reason why the
mandate that persons who identify as homosexual remain
celibate is such a serious spiritual issue. It is why
some call this expectation an inordinate burden and
even cruel. In other words, for most people the
consummation of erotic attraction is a critical step
in transforming eros into agape.

I have a problem with your use of Henri Nouwen as, not
only an example, but an ideal of how persons who
identify as homosexual should transform eros into
agape. The reality of Nouwen’s life as presented by
his biographer, Michael Ford, paints a portrait of a
man who suffered, who knew anguish as he struggled
with himself and embraced the journey that was his
unique life. Early in his life at Menninger, Nouwen
wrestled with his homosexual leanings, which at that
time he regarded as a disability and a cross to bear.
During his time at Harvard, he was tough on students
who were gay, telling them that homosexuality was an
evil state of being.

As his life unfolded and he became seasoned by the
reality of his life, Nouwen opened himself to
friendships with many persons who identified as
homosexual. Some encouraged him to go public. Other
friends cautioned that if he revealed his secret he
would lose credibility as a spiritual mentor and
authority on the inner life of the spirit among his
Catholic following. This possibility of being rejected
if people knew about his sexual orientation troubled
Nouwen greatly. "This took an enormous emotional,
spiritual and physical toll on his life and may have
contributed to his early death," Ford says. (Wounded
Prophet by Michael Ford)

Before he died in 1996, Nouwen became more vocal in
his support of persons who identify as homosexual,
saying they had a "unique vocation in the Christian
community."
I have never read that he lifted himself up as an
ideal of how persons who are homosexual should order
their lives. I have read that he understood celibacy
to be a calling, just as is priestly ministry, and not
for everyone.

In light of the anguish and inner turmoil that an
exceptional person with a superior spiritual capacity
like Henri Nouwen went through as he sought to come to
terms with the reality of his own
psysio/psycho/spritual being, why would you assume
that God would ask celibacy of a whole group of people
who most certainly do not all share his spiritual
capacity? Surely you would not suggest this just
because they happen to share in common an erotic
attraction to persons of the same sex. Is this not an
unreasonable and unrealistic expectation and does it
not act as a stumbling block to such persons’
spiritual unfolding?

I am reminded that Jesus warned the experts in the law
to not put burdens on people too heavy for them to
bear because God does not do this.

“One of the experts in the law answered Jesus,
"Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us
also." Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe
to you, because you load people down with burdens they
can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one
finger to help them.” Luke 11:45-46

Wouldn’t expecting all persons who are homosexual to
be celibate be as contrary to Christ’s teachings as it
would be to expect all persons who are heterosexual to
be celibate? Celibacy is not only an inordinate burden
for those who are not called by God to it, but it is
also a stumbling block to spiritual growth.

Further, by reducing the purpose of marriage to
procreation, you fail to appreciate the important role
marriage can play in a person spiritual unfolding. It
is my understanding that from a spiritual perspective
marriage is a full and complete relationship between
two people, the center of which is Christ. Each
person’s primary relationship is with Christ and the
relationship with another serves:
1. as a vehicle to communicate God’s pure, unbounded
love to each other
2. as a starting point for the couple to be in service
to the world, beginning with their children, if they
have children
3. to help identify and reduce selfishness and
self-centeredness in each member of the family, which
can be understood to be the root obstacle that blocks
the pure and simple light of God from shining through
one’s life.

A lifetime of intentional relationship with another
human being can do much to expose and free one from
this obstacle and help each one bear witness to God’s
love and power and way of life.

So, if the expectation that all persons who are
homosexual should be celibate can properly be
understood to be an inordinate burden for those who
are not called by God to celibacy (that celebrated
pragmatist, St. Paul said that it is better to marry
than to burn), what would it mean to ‘lift a finger to
help them?’

I have been convicted for years that the church is
remiss for not providing a means by which the
relationships of person who identify as homosexual can
be understood as a vehicle for spiritual growth and
ordered within our community of faith in a way that
reflects the relationship between Christ and the
church. This is our spiritual duty. We have failed in
this duty to date.

Following the pragmatism of St. Paul, it is a fact
that relationships between persons of the same sex do
exist against all odds and at great personal cost to
most.* Such relationships existed long before
cultural acceptance was even an option. Many such
persons are crying out to be treated humanely and with
dignity by not only the culture, but by the church. At
the present time, such persons receive no spiritual
guidance from the UMC that recognizes their reality.

There is dissonance within a church whose doctrine
excludes persons who are homosexual but whose
Episcopal teaching advocates inclusion at the level of
the local church as you have done. This again divides
the faithful into two classes of the baptized and
leads to no good for anyone.

I know that some relationships between persons of the
same sex ARE defined solely by erotic attraction and
sexual activity. Such relationships reinforce
selfishness and self-centeredness, just as do similar
heterosexual relationships, and they should be
recognized as such by the church.

However, it is important to acknowledge that many love
relationships between persons of the same sex do not
reinforce bondage to self but serve as a proximate
means to spiritual liberation as I have described
earlier. If the church would ‘lift its finger’ and
provide guidance to all persons who are homosexual, as
it does to persons who are heterosexual, and make
available to everyone equally the means of grace and
the love and support and encouragement of Christian
community and give realistic and reliable spiritual
guidance to those who are seeking this from the
church, then could we not trust God with the results
of each person’s transformation in God’s time, in
God’s way? Couldn’t we trust God with whatever is good
and right and possible for each one? And could we not
refrain from acting as though we know what that would
look like for each person? And could we not refrain
from judging the value of such transformation and
learn to celebrate each transformation as a work of
the Holy Sprit in each person’s life? Shouldn’t we be
comparing ourselves to ourselves within the light of
Christ instead of comparing ourselves to some ideal
that leaves most, if not all of us defensive and in a
state of not being ‘good enough’? How can it be ‘good
news’ for a person to know that her or his love
relationship is reason to be denied full inclusion in
the life of the church?

If we spent as much time seeking the spiritual gift of
‘discernment’ as we do making church laws that
marginalize persons who identify as homosexual, we
would be quite well equipped to recognize the powerful
and fresh liberating work of the Holy Spirit in the
lives of the faithful, no matter what her or his
sexual identity.

* the argument that is usually offered here is that
murderers exist but we don’t condone murder. A
murderer is one who has deprived another person of
their life by killing them. A person who loves
another person of the same sex shares nothing in
common, by virtue of their sexual identity, with a
person who has killed someone. Such logic does not
hold.