Bishop Gene Robinson, the infamous gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, is reported as saying:
I always wanted to be a June bride.
And so he is planning to “march down the aisle” with his partner Mark, in a same sex legal union, in June 2008 (not July 4th as reported by Ruth Gledhill). Well, as I wrote in comments here and here, and see also this post, I consider this to be a small step in the right direction: if he will not give up his gay union, it is best that he formally acknowledges it and pledges himself to being faithful to his partner.
But hold on, isn’t there something wrong here? A man who has always wanted to a bride? Was he not thinking when he used the word “bride”, or perhaps joking? Does “always” go back to the time when he was a bridegroom? Perhaps he has always suffered from gender confusion. After all, if this rather sensationalist article can be trusted (see also the full text of the interview this article was based on):
Born in 1947 in the Bible Belt in Lexington, Kentucky, he was not expected to survive the delivery, so his sharecropper parents were asked to give names for both the birth and death certificates. Expecting a girl, they opted for Vicky Imogene. He has never changed it.
Given this confusion about his birth and his upbringing with a girl’s name, no wonder that
By the age of 11, he was sensing that his sexual urges were different from those of his schoolmates.
Now I know this is not a popular thing to say, but it seems rather likely that this man at least grew up to be gay because of serious psychological damage in childhood. To be fair to him, he did try therapy, and marriage, but his gay tendencies eventually got the upper hand.
The question here, as I see it, is whether the church should be promoting psychologically damaged people like this into high positions. Of course I have to accept that no one is perfect, and that sometimes people who have been through traumatic times are equipped to minister to others suffering similarly, in ways in which those whose life has always been easy are not so suitable. But I would expect those promoted to being bishops, like Gene Robinson, at least to demonstrate that their psychological hurts have been fully healed. And that should include them being in control of their own sexuality and so being able to live the celibate life if that is required of them – as, by the rules of the Anglican Communion, it is of Gene Robinson.
This post is not worthy of you. Really.
I have no idea what you’re trying to get across, but this sounds sarastic and mean-spirited.
More and more you are convincing me of the prejudice that I am trying hard not to hold – that conservative Christians don’t see gay people as fully human.
This is on a part with Driscoll’s rant about single men.
Maybe it’s a boy-thing. Like fart jokes?
Pam, let me put this more clearly. The evidence suggests that Gene Robinson has been living with gender confusion from birth and is still suffering from its effects. That does not make him less than human. But it makes him a wounded human. As such he is not suitable for high authority in the church. Is that clear? You can disagree if you like, but please do so with rational arguments, not name-calling.
Pam, your latest post was a little before this one, although I have only just seen it, so I can’t accuse you of responding to this. But maybe you think this post is yet another example of
So, note two things: firstly, in this post (although not elsewhere) I avoided the language of sin, portraying Gene Robinson as a victim rather than a sinner; secondly, I suggested that what he needs is not “willpower and moral fibre” but healing.
But thanks for the link to Steven Manskar’s post. The church indeed needs to be challenged about “its indifference to the suffering and death of countless millions … from AIDS”, as well as about the more “traditional” sins of “pride, indifference, fanaticism, lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy, , , etc.” It is not one or the other, it must be both.
I think those of us who do not know Gene Robinson in question should refrain from speculation about whether he is psychologically damaged. In fact, all humans are wounded. All have sinned, and fall short of grace. Who is to say that his wounds are more dangerous than mine?
Gene Robinson is a sinner. That does not make him less of a human being.
He obviously did not suffer from gender confusion from birth as he would have been unaware at birth of any such thing.
Bearing a particular name does not in itself promote so called ‘gender confusion’. ( See the UK wrestler Shirley Crabtree aka Big Daddy in the 70’s-90’s)
Peter, how can this be a step in any ‘right’ direction. Marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is an oxymoron.
Peter,
I appreciate your post, and your courage not to shy away from stating your convictions on an issue that cannot be ignored. Our “culture” rolls forward, and so does “the church,” with respect to what it can mean to be gay in both arenas.
Would you mind my bringing in William Webb again, and his very important study, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals? In comments on one of your earlier posts on gays, I think I may not have represented his crucial view on the biblical evaluation of one’s being gay today. So now I’ll just quote directly from pages 39 – 40:
“If a Christian wants to reflect the spirit and direction of the biblical text, a negative assessment of homosexuality needs to be retained. Only a negative-assessment application captures the essence of the movement between the ancient-world setting and the biblical text. Nevertheless, there are differences between the ancient and modern world, which should add a nuanced dimension to our negative response. For instance, our sexual ethic should articulate a variance within a negative assessment of same-sex activity, depending upon the type of homosexuality being addressed. Covenant homosexuality differs considerably from pederasty or homosexual rape. Furthermore, the death penalty within Israel’s documents should be transposed to excommunication within the church (e.g., I Cor 5:1-13). Within a pluralistic society, such as we experience today, Christians should actually defend the rights and freedoms of homosexuals to live out their beliefs. We should not legally impose our sexual ethic on others. Furthermore, the emerging biological and environmental research suggests that for some individuals the degree of non-volitional disposition toward homoerotic behavior is quite strong. For others it is simply a matter of personal choice, not clouded by volitional issues (see criterion 18.D). Even within a negative assessment we must recognize a sliding scale of culpability, as a Christian ethic does in other areas where non-volitional factors influence a particular behavior. These secondary or minor components of movement toward an ultimate ethic will be developed in detail in the chapters to follow. Nevertheless, only a negative assessment of homosexuality retains the redemptive spirit within the biblical text.”
The question is whether the biblical text (as interpreted as a whole, as God’s revisions of regulations for his people against the backdrop cultures) gives the “church” grounds for promoting Gene Robinson to his high position given his public confessions of homosexual activities. Or aren’t there grounds for his excommunication? And doesn’t the latter really require gentle wisdom and love?
I honestly think he was making a (rather lame) joke, although I was not there. “June bride” is a figure of speech. I just wanted to make a distinction between his homosexual practice and his state of mind. Whether or not he suffers from gender confusion, that is not a reason to disqualify him from office, I think. Presumably he could have stayed married, continue to suffer from gender confusion, and no one would have a quibble. Why is gender confusion worse than paranoia, megalomania, or any other psychological problems that people in leadership often suffer from? We just happen to know about his (alleged) gender confusion now because he is out.
I am hardly surprised to get stick from both sides on this.
SB, I am also psychologically damaged, and I know it, and that is a large part of the reason why I am no longer in full time Christian ministry. The danger is from those (on the conservative side as well as the gay lobby) who don’t recognise their own woundedness but seek to justify it as normality.
Glenn, citing “Big Daddy” as an example seems perverse! Is he your model of a proper real man? I don’t know enough about him to make any proper suggestions, but it may well be that turning himself into a huge wrestler was his way to hide the hurt he must have felt at his name.
Kurk, thanks for this. I agree with Webb in evaluating “Covenant homosexuality” less negatively than homosexual sleeping around. That is why I see Robinson’s “marriage”, a public covenant, as a small step for the better. Also I would not want to make homosexual practice illegal again; this is a matter for the church. But, in Webb’s language, anyone in high office in the church should be able to control their “non-volitional disposition”, which is effectively the same as saying they should be “temperate, self-controlled”, as Paul expected of a “bishop” (1 Timothy 3:2, TNIV). Actually I am not calling for Robinson’s excommunication, only for him to step down from ministry in the church unless and until he is able to control his sexuality.
Who knows what wounds cause what results? Seems to me that the wounds of Messiah are the means of our healing. Here is my Husband – a bridegroom of blood. He saw me in my blood and he said – in your blood live, and he repeated the command and gave me life different from the lives of others. What God has given, let not the human take away.
SB, on your second comment, if this was a joke it was indeed a lame one. But even people’s jokes are revealing. Why is it Gene, not Mark, who will be the June bride?
Meanwhile I do NOT consider “gender confusion worse than paranoia, megalomania, or any other psychological problems that people in leadership often suffer from”. Nor is gender confusion not a problem if the person remains married. A proper selection process for ministry (like the very long and detailed one for Church of England ministry, at least in my diocese) should aim to detect all of these psychological problems and refuse ordination etc to those who have not dealt with them. Of course some people will slip through any net, but the way to deal with them then is not to promote them!
Bob, I would be very happy if Gene Robinson were to let the wounds of the Messiah be the means of his healing. But the first step to healing is to admit that one is wounded.
Peter, I agree with you.
In a 1997 statement which they abandoned far too quickly, our Canadian House of Bishops recognised that there are deviations which are closer to God’s ideal than others. Of course we think that lifelong committed monogamous unions are better than promiscuity. Of course we’d rather people live in faithfulness to one partner than spend their lives crawling from bar to bar and bed to bed.
I know homosexual Anglican Christian couples in Canada who have lived together faithfully for decades. I disagree with their interpretation of the scriptures on the basic issue, but I’m far less bothered by their lifestyles than I would be if they were living in promiscuity. This is why, if my daughter and her partner decide to get married (as they can legally in Canada) I will attend the wedding. I still think gay marriages are a deviation from God’s plan, but far less of a deviation than promiscuity.
Tim, yes, we agree. I think you should attend the (hypothetical) wedding, at least if it is a state ceremony, but not officiate in church as that would give a different impression.
Why insist on assigning heterosexual roles to homosexual couples? Some conform to these roles, some do not. (Some heterosexual couples don’t want to, either). I suppose both could be June brides if they wanted to, or neither. My point is that I hardly suppose he meant literally “All my life I wanted to walk up the aisle in a fancy white dress with a veil in June.” But again, I wasn’t there. Perhaps he indeed meant it literally. If he did it will be interesting to see what the reaction is in your church after the ceremony.
I think I better pull out of this discussion, since my notion of sin is radically different from yours, consisting primarily in the performance/commission of sin, a criterion upon which I suppose I would be willing to judge Robinson were I an Xian. The standard of preventing anyone with any serious psychological trauma from taking office in a religion seems unreasonable to me, though. Obviously you don’t want a sociopath in office, but there are plenty of serious but much less visible traumas, and I don’t think you can even assume that everyone who is suffering from a trauma is fully aware of the exten tto which they are affected by it. What would be too great of a psychological wound to be a bishop? Moreover, how is someone in a position like that supposed to understand the wounds and trauma of others if he has not experienced both wounds and healing?
But again, I suspect there are real things about this debate that I don’t get, so I will go back to lurking.
SB, it was not me who assigned the role of bride to Gene Robinson, it was himself!
On the contrary, SB! Well, I didn’t mention sin at all in this post. But if Robinson is guilty of sin, it is precisely in the “performance/commission” of acts of homosexual intimacy which he is presumed to have done – and of the act of disobedience to those in authority over him in the church which he is known to have done, that is, his consecration as bishop, although in that matter the greater guilt is that of his immediate superiors who permitted and performed the act.
Indeed. That is why appointments to senior ministry positions (and indeed to senior positions in any organisation or company) should follow careful assessment by professionals of the candidate’s psychological suitability.
The evidence suggests that Gene Robinson has been living with gender confusion from birth and is still suffering from its effects.
You may or may not be correct, but unless you know him personally and have a degree in psychology, you are in no position to make such an evaluation.
What if I tried to psychoanalyse you for over-reacting to his use of camp humour?
Given that you and I have never met, please do not ever attempt to psychoanalyse me and please never do so in public.
OK, I can’t shut myself up for some reason.
–you assume that there can only be one bride at a wedding and that she must be a female. There is aparently something troubling to you about a man deciding to be a bride. That is heteronormative, as when you say, “why not assign the role of the bride to Mark?” Why can’t a man say he wants to be a bride, in jest or in seriousness? Is there something non-Biblical about that? I have a hard time believing that a statement like this is a sign either of sin or psychological warpedness, especially when we weren’t there to hear it said.
–I am having a really hard time understanding your post, I guess. Root him out because he is an open, unrepetant sinner according to the sense of the Tanakh. I get that. But take him out of office because he is allegedly suffering from some kind of psychological trauma? Is that a Biblical principle? Does it say somewhere “you shall not suffer someone with alleged gender confusion (or megalomania, paranoia, etc., etc.) to govern the Church?” Shouldn’t what “the Church” does follow according to the principle of Protestant sola scriptura?
Or maybe what you are saying is that according to modern principles of management we wouldn’t want someone with severe psychological problems leading a major organization. But I don’t see how this statement, or any of the evidence you cite, is really evidence of his deep disturbance. (Presumably someone can sin without being mentally disturbed. I hope so.) I also don’t buy that an alleged gender confusion is a sign of deep psychological trauma. Assuming he is gender confused (which hasn’t been proven, but only alleged), it could be hormonal, for example. Or a more flexible notion of gender than you have might not have to be seen as a sign of psychological trauma. At any rate, though, none of this seems very biblical to me.
Pam, your latest post was a little before this one, although I have only just seen it, so I can’t accuse you of responding to this. But maybe you think this post is yet another example of
talking about individual sins that someone else commits that (allegedly) a good bit of willpower and moral fibre could solve.
It didn’t have anything to do with homosexuality in particular but as long as we are being frank…..
Conservative Christians as a group appear to me to be obssessed with sex.
Straight men seem to be obsessed with committing adultary and if I listen to some conservative preachers, there are lots of conservative Christian men – lay and ordained – who seem to be having a very hard time keeping their pants closed. I’m either incredibly naive as a woman (possible) or there is something weirdly wrong with conservative Christian men and their obsession with sex.
How the above is connected with homosexuality, I don’t know. I’m beginning to think that there must be a lot more bisexual people in the world than I thought. Either lots of conservative Christian men think they are at risk of having sex with another man or they are guilty of an enormous amount of pride and judgementalism. I’m not sure which. Either way it’s not pretty.
I welcome Steven’s post because I think that conservative American Christianity in particular is enslaved to the god of consumerism. It worships the gods of money, power and privilege and doesn’t seem to recognise that Jesus taught against all the things that it claims are ‘biblical’.
Either lots of conservative Christian men think they are at risk of having sex with another man or they are guilty of an enormous amount of pride and judgementalism. I’m not sure which. Either way it’s not pretty.
By the way, I DO think it’s possible to think that gay sexual acts are sinful and not be guilty of pride and judgementalism. Tim’s posts communicate this attitude even if he’d not mentioned about his daughter. His posts indicate to me that he’s thinking and struggling and caring about a gay person. Other posts here just sound like people don’t actually have any gay friends who they care about. (I admit to having rather a lot for some reason, but then I have rather a lot of physically handicapped friends as well. I suspect for the same reason.)
SB, I am used to brides being female and grooms male. But I am not used to the language used in “gay weddings”. Is it normal for one party to be called “bride” and the other “groom”? Is it normal for one to wear a white wedding dress and the other a smart suit? From the few photos of such ceremonies I have seen I thought both wore suits. But it does seem to me something warped if a man wants to take upon himself a prototypically female role, or vice versa. I am not talking about gender stereotyping, not about a man who becomes a nurse for example. But for a man to call himself a girl would be very strange, and I would say the same about a man calling himself a bride. In fact really it makes sense only as a joke.
Then you ask:
Yes, if you want to appeal to Sola Scriptura, it does effectively say such things, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 for example which outlines several qualifications for church leadership, including being temperate and self-controlled. Those who do not meet these qualifications because of psychological trauma need to step down from leadership. Of course this is consistent with ancient as well as modern principles of management.
If Robinson’s problem were merely hormonal, I am sure that at one time, if not now, he would have welcomed hormone treatment. Would that the problem of sin could be dealt with so easily with chemicals!
Do you want me to be “biblical” and call for Robinson to be stoned to death? But that was not Jesus’ approach to the woman caught in adultery, he told her to go and sin no more. Similarly, I don’t condemn Robinson, but I do call on him to sin no more.
Pam, what a lot of comments to respond to!
1. You may be right, I shouldn’t try to psychoanalyse Robinson from a distance. But I was only making a tentative suggestion to open up discussion.
2. “Conservative Christians as a group appear to me to be obssessed with sex.” Women as well as men? Perhaps the problem is that most men, whatever their belief, as obsessed with sex. I hope you are not trying to psychoanalyse me to conclude that because I am (you think) obsessed with homosexuality I am in fact a closet gay myself. Well, you could apply the same argument to practically every Anglican leader!
3. I admit that I don’t have many gay friends. I do have a few who I get on with well. I must insist yet again that I am judgmental towards gay people ONLY when they are in positions of LEADERSHIP in the Anglican church, in CONTRAVENTION to the agreed rules of that church. I have very deliberately avoided being judgmental about other gay people; for them it is an issue between them and God.
So if the statement is indeed a joke, why is it evidence of trauma or gender confusion(whatever that means)? (Freud aside here)
I guess I don’t see what the issue is with a man calling himself a “bride.” Historically, for example, Moravian men frequently referred Jesus in their writings as their “husband,” even if I am sure this is not what Robinson meant with his statement. The Moravians were also occasionally known to state that the wounds in Jesus’ side were a “womb” which would gender him female. The Church is also referred to in much Xian theology as the “bride” of Christ. Does this really mean the Church is gendered female? Or if so, that that gendering carries with it all of the cultural trappings of our current understand of what a bride is? Of course I accept that you may think the Moravians were/are heretical.
I have read the NT text that you mention, and I can understand the subscription to it as an ideal. The problem for me is that I would wonder if anyone (whether or not they are homosexual or make campy hokes) really lives up to it. Are there really people in the world (let alone in the churdh, or the synagogue) who are above reproach? The easier solution would be just to get rid of this system of government.
I think it is one thing to call upon someone not to sin and another to hypothesize about their psychological condition. I also think based on my own experience that it is really hard for us with our current level of knowledge to state where biology stops and intent to sin begins. Probably it is different in different people.
And now I am really going to go back to writing. Not sure why this set me off so. Peace to you.
SB, I won’t try to continue our conversation if you don’t want to. Just one point: the church corporately is often considered to be female and as such the bride of Christ, but I have never heard of individuals of either gender calling themselves brides of Christ. The Moravian writings you cite may be an exception, but the point may be that Jesus is the husband of the church, not of individuals. Anyway, this is irrelevant to what Robinson said.
Well, at Lambeth next year the Anglican Communion will not make much of a July bride for Christ.
“Conservative Christians as a group appear to me to be obssessed with sex.” Women as well
as men?
Well, if you read conservative Christian women’s blogs, they are mainly about being a good wife and mother. With a little of that good old Protestant work-ethic and ‘confess your sins if your mind ever slips for one second to the thought of taking care of yourself’.
As you yourself have observed, the conservative church by and large dosen’t give a flipping pancake what women have to say about themselves. The only thing that matters about women’s lives is what the men tell us we are like. Our besetting sin is not sex but the thought that we might be equal to men. Allegedly.
Perhaps the problem is that most men, whatever their belief, as obsessed with sex.
So I’m told. I dont see how talking about it all the time helps. Maybe thinking about how to live out the Great Commandment into action might be an improvement?
I hope you are not trying to psychoanalyse me to conclude that because I am (you think) obsessed with homosexuality I am in fact a closet gay myself. Well, you could apply the same argument to practically every Anglican leader!
Both things would be unfair.
But I think that such an analysis would be a direct equivalent to saying that someone is suffering from gender confusion because he uses camp humour.
But I was only making a tentative suggestion to open up discussion.
About what? I honestly don’t mind someone saying, e.g., ‘Gene Robinson is going to have a civil partnership and that is wrong in God’s eyes.’ (And I would feel free to disagree!) But the remarks about gender confusion border on ad hominem
It’s the men who don’t do it all the time who talk about it all the time. That is, the Christian men whose wives are manipulating them by denying them sex, and don’t have the other options non-Christians have. Well, here I go psychoanalysing again.
Manoman, I knew I was going to regret this. This is what happen when you shut yourself up somewhere to write a book, you end up arguing with people you don’t know on the internet!! (bops self on head). I need to stop procrastinating.
I should be more precise and say that Moravian men wrote about Jesus as the “husband” of their souls, although I don’t know that they referred to themselves as female. But at least one scholar has gone so far as to suggest that the North American Moravians saw Jesus as female. I am not sure that case is sustainable, but their gender notions were clearly a bit more flexible than those of much of the Christian world today. They clearly thought the Holy Spirit was female. And the term “sponsa Christi” to refer to nuns is fairly common in sources from the Latin middle ages; you see it used occasionally even now to refer to nuns. I think that that would be translated appropriately as “bride” rather than “spouse.” In the high middle ages the symbolism was extreme; wealthy Augustinian canonesses had “wedding rings” to symbolize their relationship to Christ. I doubt, however, that male communities embraced these standards.
I think what was getting to me is that these remarks seemed to be out of left field. I really like your blog and I learn a lot from it. Today’s post just didn’t seem at the level of careful thought of a lot of what you have been writing since I have been reading.
That is, the Christian men whose wives are manipulating them by denying them sex
I hope you’re joking. ‘Every time a woman doesn’t feel like having sex, she’s manipulating her husband’? That’s worthy of Driscoll.
I’m actually beginning to wonder why I read this blog. Most of the time you talk a lot of sense.
Sometimes you sound like you think it’s really cool to objectify and demonise people.
I hope I’m wrong.
Thanks, SB. What you say about Moravians and nuns is interesting, but outside my direct experience. This was not intended to be a carefully researched scholarly post, more a matter of what I felt when I saw Robinson’s strange expression. And yes, maybe it was meant as a joke, I just didn’t realise that from the context.
Pam, I did not say ‘Every time a woman doesn’t feel like having sex, she’s manipulating her husband’. I was alluding in fact to discussions elsewhere about how this sometimes (of course not always) happens, and suggesting that the frustrated men, tempted by Satan (1 Corinthians 7:5) but faithful enough not to go to prostitutes, just start talking in condemning terms about sex, and blaming the women or men Satan uses to tempt them. But this is, I am sure, only part of the story.
Peter, I give you credit for being game to say anything. I am amazed at how some Christian people attack anyone who comments even by way of polite qualification about homosexuality in the Christian church. It is also interesting that promiscuous homosexuality is worse than monogamous homosexuality.
I myself have been curious for quite a long time as to where Christian homosexuals (of both sexes) find justification for their lifestyle if it is not sanctioned in the Bible. I know that certain passages are used by homosexuals to gain sympathy for their declaration that homosexuals were badly treated (even to death?) and others are interpreted and then negated or made to say what the passages literally do not say through the premise that homosexuality is OK but where – outside of themselves – do they find the idea that homosexuality is either permissible or desirable? I also wonder if people who think “loving” children is OK will want to actually find approval within the Christian church on the grounds that it does not actually say anywhere in the New Testament that it is wrong.
In general, this seems a fiery topic, so if you don’t like what I say, go ahead & disregard it…
but a comment on a Christian homosexual getting married & being “faithful” to another homosexual: isn’t he/she called to be faithful to God first? Isn’t the greatest command to love God, and the second greatest one to love others? Yes, to me it is foreign how a person can both be an active Christ-imitator and homosexual (mainly cause of Romans 1), but whether or not it is possible, Christians are called to put God first, before worrying about anything else. In the spirit of a missionary, it would seem that even if one is convinced he/she is the opposite gender, he/she should accept the general rules of culture in order to have the greatest influence over those around him/her.
Of course, if one believes that homosexuality is honoring to God, the faithfulness part of this opinion is void, thus causing the cultural part to become void as well, for there will be no interest in preserving the generations without a love for their Creator.
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Is Rowan fiddling while Canterbury burns?
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » What will Gene Robinson do in Canterbury?
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Gene Robinson’s Gay Rite
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, in a new article about this matter, has quoted extensively from this post. It is sad that he has not reported also on more recent developments on this story, as I did.
Welcome to readers coming here from that site.
Here is what I wrote to Peter (via the site’s contact page) in response:
Pingback: Gentle Wisdom » Gene Robinson nearly gets it right