The Laughing Wolf

Bishops, Tolerance, Relationships, and Honor

I’ve been waiting to post on this not merely because the week has been extremely busy, but because there has been so much food for thought that some time was needed for digestion. Some of the thought and introspection has been good, even if not comfortable. Others have brought back old memories, and actually helped make them as comfortable as they can be.

First, let me be upfront and say that I think it was a mistake to make Gene Robinson a bishop of the Episcopal Church. I am a former (by my book) Episcopal and may still be on a church roll as such, though I was raised a Methodist.

There are two problems here for me, separate but related. First, he is gay and the Old Testament clearly states that this is a no no. If the Church is prepared to say that the Old Testament is renounced and that only the New Covenant remains, and that the New Covenant covers this from a doctrinal standpoint, that is one thing. If they are not, then they should not have elevated him given his orientation. Second, he is by Church Law as I understand it, an oath breaker.

Gene Robinson was, from all accounts, married and was married in the Church with the standard oaths. By leaving his wife, no matter the reason, he broke those oaths. Does this mean he can’t move up in the Church? Yes, it does, if those oaths are to mean anything. Is this harsh and unyielding? Yes, but then so is much of life.

Had he not married, and had acknowledged his homosexuality from the start, I would have very few problems with his going for Bishop. For he would have been honorable and forthright in his actions, and no solemn and holy oaths broken.

Yes, I am very aware that some people don’t figure things out for many years. Some try desperately to hide it, and there is a hell of a lot of stigma and social problems for those who are honest and forthright. Nor do I think many of them have a choice in this matter: it is my belief that there is some fairly clear and compelling scientific evidence that in some or even many cases there is a biological determination at work. I also, however, believe that some people use this as an excuse for behavior that does not have a biological basis.

Let me tell you a story about another Episcopal priest. One who took me into the Church when I left the Methodist Church in utter disgust. This was not a decision lightly made on my part, as my great-great-grandfather was the man widely regarded as the founder of the Southern Methodist Church. I left over a skypilot who was far more interested in power and money than much of anything else in my opinion. A man who refused to go visit my grandmother when she was ill because she had no money to leave the Church. This changed once he found out who my Mom was and who we were descended from, but the damage was done.

I found refuge with this priest and his family, in part because I went to the same school as his children. By this point I had already earned the God and Country award, studied a bit of theology and a good bit of history. We had some interesting theological discussions, and to my delight I found he agreed with some of my particular heresies. It was, and is, my contention that Heinlein was right: The only true sin is harming another unnecessarily.

My priest-friend thought a bit and responded with that hurting yourself was a sin. I disagreed, saying that I thought it was simply stupid, not a sin. To my surprise, he ended up agreeing with me and we went off into discussions of Heinlein, scripture, and more. I formally joined the Episcopal Church a few weeks later.

Fast forward a few years, and I am off at college. I get news from home, that there has been a problem at the Church. My priest-friend is leaving, in disgrace of sorts, and that I need to check into things. What had happened was that after many years of marriage, several good kids, and of leading various flocks, he had realized that he was a homosexual. Furthermore, he felt that he had been living a lie and that in so doing he had done wrong. He had done wrong in this, and was doing wrong in breaking his marriage vows and obtaining a divorce. These things also required that he leave the priesthood. This he accepted, and this he did.

It was not an easy time for any of his family or friends. I can’t imagine what it must have been like for them, or for him. Yet, the events of this last week have brought to the fore this episode, my thoughts, and made me examine them.

I cannot say if my priest-friend acted on his own or under pressure from the Church in his decisions. What I can say is that he either felt, or agreed, that he must leave the priesthood because of the situation and the moral obligations created. Had he not, I feel that he would have fought it in public and to the highest levels of the Church. He acted in the manner that was, to the best of my knowledge, the most honorable under the circumstances.

Many Churches preach tolerance and forgiveness, and they are right to do so. Few put it into true practice, in my opinion. This is not a case, however, where forgiveness equals automatic acceptance and manumission. It would appear that his flock has forgiven Gene Robinson his lapses, and that is well and good on a personal level. It is not good, however, for one who is to be an exemplar and held to the highest possible standards.

Where both Robinson and my priest failed, in my opinion, was in the area of self-honesty. While there are mitigating circumstances, they are not sufficient to overcome the lapses and allow elevation. Others have pointed out that were Rev. Robinson a heterosexual adulterer, there would be no question about this. He would not have been raised. Yet, simply because he is homosexual, he is raised despite breaking the same rules.

This is not equality in any sense of the word. If there is to be true equality here, then all must be held to the same standards, their word and their oaths must mean the same things, and their actions be beyond reproach.

This is not an easily accepted thing in this day and age, where there are few if any consequences for actions criminal, civil, or otherwise. I remember well another event in my hometown, where a student was caught cheating on a test. If I recall, he was pressured into it somewhat, something about a high school fraternity, but the fact was that he was caught cheating. There were consequences, including his being removed from the national honor society. He was forgiven in that he was not expelled and was given the chance to learn and grow. This did not mean, however, that he was reinstated to the society, for that was forever barred to him for his lapse in judgment. No matter what, such elevation was beyond him. As a child, I found this to be terribly unjust. But as a man, I realize the rightness of this action. There is a relevant bit of scripture referenced here, that you may want to read.

Such must, in my opinion, be the case here. The leaders of a church must be examples to one and all, and hold to the highest standards. This is why I think that much of the leadership of the Catholic Church needs to go, and it is why I do not think that Rev. Robinson should be a bishop. Forget for a moment that he is gay, and simply look at how he has dealt with himself, his family, and others, and how his word has been used. Did he, or did he not, break his oaths and Church Law. Then, decide.

This has not been an easy decision for me to reach. On the one hand, I have no problems with someone being openly homosexual and in a leadership position, if their words and actions be true. I fear that such should not be in a mainstream church for doctrinal reasons, but there is no reason that they should be barred from religion. Founding one’s own Church is perfectly legitimate, just look at the variety not only of religions in the world today, but the growing number of protestant denominations as well. Always room for one more, I think.

Then again, this is one of many reasons that I no longer call myself a Christian. While I follow many of the teachings of Christ, I find that too many of my beliefs fall in what many would consider heresy. I also strongly disagree with many Churches over doctrinal issues. My own sense of honor, and admittedly pride, mean that I can not and will not claim the title of Christian for these reasons, among others.

Being honorable, and owning up to one’s successes and imperfections mean that there are consequences. Some are tolerable, and some hurt in ways that cannot be described. That Rev. Robinson is deserving of forgiveness is indisputable, but that does not mean that he measures up to what is required for elevation.

-30-