Here’s my letter to the New York Times about the Robinson matter. Much of it’s based upon stuff I’ve written here.
“To the editor,
“The conflict over Gene Robinson, the bishop-elect of New Hampshire, has been fraught with highs and lows. The allegations against him MUST be taken seriously, especially after what’s happened in the Roman Catholic Church.
“But the timing is rather curious, to say the least. And the fact that it plays into a very old — and empirically false — canard that gay men somehow cannot be trusted to keep their libidos under control around other men also raises my suspicions.
“We gay Episcopalians have waited quite a long time for the Church to begin acknowledging us. There are already gay bishops in our church; Gene Robinson’s “crime” was that he did not hide the fact that he’s gay. Contrary to what the priest from Colorado Springs, Donald Armstrong, said, being gay is not a disorder. No legitimate scientific authority believes this. But in a complete Christianity, the hatred and bigotry that his comment reveals are disordered, and more than a conflict over gay issues, these are the sins of the Church.
“I hope that the charges are wrong. But if they turn out to be true, here’s a question to consider. Do other bishops who don’t receive as much attention get this thoroughly vetted? Sexual problems are no more common in gay men than they are in straight men (as copious psychological research has shown). Are other potential problem bishops being pointed out? Were the other nine bishops to be approved at the convention subject to this sort of vetting? Or were they merely rubber stamped, as Gene Robinson would have been, had he not been gay? I’m not taking sides here, but I’m wondering if the process only works when a bishop is “controversial.”
“Sincerely,
“Nathan A. Paxton”
Couple of other things. The conservative members of the church are entitled to their opinions and ideas, and since I don’t claim to know the mind of God, I welcome those. But the tactics sometimes border on the ridiculous or the hateful. The priest I mentioned in my letter should make all the arguments he wants based on Scripture, but to claim that homosexuality is a “disorder” is intentionally provocative language. It’s quite likely he’s not a research psychiatrist or psychologist, and so the use of the word indicates that he’s trying, inappropriately, to emphasize his own distaste for gays. But he should use the words appropriate to his own profession, knowledge, and understanding.
And come on! The porn thing? You can get to porn from anywhere on the Internet in fewer than 10 clicks….
