Bishop Katherine wrote a fascinating opinion piece for Episcopal Life back in February, just after the primate's meeting in Alexandria, Egypt. She reflected on the role of women in Egyptian culture--for example, how women in public are expected to be covered, and yet, in private, how women's sexuality is commonly taken to be the rightful property of men.
Bp. Katherine points out that such "complex and conflicting gender expectations" inevitably inform the way "male homosexuality" is viewed in many parts of the world: "The greatest difficulty in many cultures, including parts of North American society, is the perception that one of the partners in such a union must be acting like a woman -- and that is most definitely not a socially desirable status!"
Acting like a woman. To the straight/male normative majority, which still prevails in most parts of the world, for a man to be gay means being powerless. It means giving up the straight man's prerogative to be the "normal person," the basic identity whose cultural and theological experiences--the lens through which the normal straight person sees the world and the Bible--are taken for granted and assumed to be normative for everyone, everywhere.
And yet, as Bp. Katherine says, "all of us read Scripture through the lenses we have -- our cultural norms, our scientific understanding and our theological understanding of the purpose of marriage."
Of course we do. I readily acknowledge that the way I read scripture and understand marriage is conditioned by my experiences: growing up gay in the south; being white and middle class and male; coming out of a very conservative Pentecostal church and into a more welcoming Episcopal Church. All of these things go into how I encounter God in my life and in the Bible.
But this sword of context cuts both ways. Contextual theologians, like the liberationists of Latin America, or James Cone, who wrote about how the Black experience shapes African-American views of the scripture, have always acknowledged their experience, where they're starting from, and proceeded from there. But the "normative" readers and interpreters--the straight, white, male heirs of centuries of Western European straight, white, male hegemony--have resisted acknowledging that their readings are just as contextual, contingent, and conditioned as anyone else's. In fact, the "normative" interpreters often maintain that their view is objective, True with a capital T, and therefore above the fray. Other people--the Latin American poor, the Blacks, the women, the queers--have ulterior motives and want to twist the purity of scripture into something that can serve their own ends. But the "normative" readers only want to maintain the clear and obvious meaning of the text, never noticing that the "clear and obvious meaning" they see is just as much a product of context as any other.
This week at General Convention, a bunch of straight, white men, aka the House of Bishops (ok, so there are a handful of women in there; and a couple of gay men, that I know of) did an amazing, difficult, and brave thing: they voted, by overwhelming majorities, to give up some of their ancient privilege. Their votes on D025 and C061 (affirming that the discernment process is open to all the baptized) and C056 (to meet the needs of LGBT folk with pastoral generosity, and to develop rites to bless same sex marriages) acknowledged that the Episcopal Church believes in the importance of context. We acknowledge that there is more than one way to encounter God and to read and understand scripture. And we will no longer privilege one person's experience and context and exclude all others. Instead, we will try to live up to all those signs that say, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You."
The convention also passed D032, which adds gender identity and gender expression to the non-discrimination in lay employment canon.
Whether you are liberal or conservative, whether you are gay or straight, whether you are trans or not, you are welcome here.
I am very proud of our Bishops and Deputies for being brave enough to fully live up to our commitment to welcome everybody.
Since these votes were taken, there has been a lot of spin in the press declaring that the Episcopal Church has declared war on the Communion and arrogantly voted for schism. Don't believe it. We have merely been honest with ourselves, with one another, and with the Communion. Relationships and Communions built on lies and half-truths are abusive and unhealthy--in fact, they're not really relationships at all. We cannot be in Communion with someone under false pretenses. If there is to be a Communion--and all of us, I think it is safe to say, want there to be one--it must be based on truth. If it isn't, it's a Communion in name only, and why bother?
Despite the rabid declarations from abroad, our actions will only break the Communion if others want them to. Is it really so hard to say everyone is welcome at this table? I have always understood the most basic component of Anglican identity to be our comprehensiveness--we are not, nor have we ever been, a confessional church. Being Anglican means that it's okay to have theological differences. It means a commitment to worshiping and walking together despite our disagreements. At least, I thought that's what it meant.
Jason Cox
DioLA
