One more thing
There’s another key element to both my recent post on marriage, and my recent post on homosexuality, that I haven’t raised in the blog yet–I think. (I have been known to repeat myself, particularly when I’m fretting or impassioned about something, as I am about the way in which we speak about homosexuality in the Church.)
It’s not even particularly theological.
One of the troubles with many conversations about homosexuality is that the conversation is reduced to sex.
This tendency shows forth in a variety of ways: the previous ELCA policy which allowed gays and lesbians to be pastors as long as they weren’t in a relationship; the notion that homosexuality is sinful and must not “be acted upon;” the idea that one can “love the sinner but hate the sin,” the sin being, of course, physical intimacy.
Obviously, what makes the difference between “just friends” and “boyfriend/girlfriend/lovers/spouses” (gosh, that sounds jr. high-ish) is that there is some level of touch. Sexuality is part of the equation. And clearly sexual expression is to be taken seriously.
But I think that it is also true that touch, even something as simple as a gentle pat on the back, or sitting with arms touching each other on the couch watching a game, has some element of sexual intimacy to it. And I believe even tame sexual expression to be a natural and healthy demonstration of mutuality, of trust, of shared experiences, of affection, or of love. And aren’t even more intimate expressions of love binding and celebratory of the gift of relationship?
So, in addition to coming to a different theological conclusion than those who oppose the recent ELCA decision, there’s another dimension of my position:
I fear that forced celibacy translates into forced isolation.
I fear that to forbid touch is to encourage loneliness, despair, and alienation.
I fear that this is a terribly cruel prohibition for those who are not called to celibacy.
I fear that when gays and lesbians are told that “they can be gay” but “they may not show it,” gays and lesbians are implicitly being told that they are not allowed even the most mundane, common, garden-variety joys of companionship.
Healthy relationships manifest healthy touch.
So while obviously the notion of healthy sexuality must be addressed in the context of the conversation, it ought not be the conversation.
I doubt that the fundamental cornerstone of committed homosexual relationships is really sex per se…any more than it is amongst heterosexual counterparts.
Instead, I venture to throw out there that the fundamental cornerstone of committed homosexual relationships is cooking together, traveling together, balancing the checkbook together, going to movies together, enjoying a sunset together, buying a new tomato plant together, building a deck together…and that out of these shared experiences comes a desire to share touch.
Here and here are the links to the two blogs in question. Have at those and this one if you wish!
And then on to Exodus, and some blogs on creation in preparation for an upcoming public forum I’ve been invited to participate in on environmental stewardship.
Peace!
I can’t find the like button, so I’ll just tell you that I agree completely.
To be told that it’s okay to “be” of a certain inclination–in this case, gay–so long as one hides and denies and above all does not *act* on said inclination is to be told that it is *not* okay to be so inclined. It just sounds friendlier to some ears.
I have recently completed reading “Obedience to Authority”, a landmark study by psychologist Stanley Milgram on the role obedience plays in human organization. Without going into too much detail, the research placed human subjects into a situation whereby they administered increasing levels of what they thought were actual electric shocks on another human. An experimenter acted as an authority who encouraged subjects to continue the experiment despite increasing demands to stop the experiment by the actor pretending to be shocked. Milgram wanted to know at what voltage of shock the subject would disobey the experimenter and stop the experiment.
Several variations of the initial experiment were conducted. One variation required the subject to physically place the actor’s hand onto a plate in order to administer the shock. The number of obedient subjects was cut in half in this variation. There was something about proximity and touch that created a barrier preventing most subjects from inflicting harm.
The politics of touch in Christian community appears somewhat convoluted. Our closest genetic relatives – chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans – rely heavily on touch for individual identity and social organization. Chimpanzees, with whom we share 98% of our genetic identity, engage in multiple forms of hetero- and homo-erotic touch. We Christians acknowledge the fundamental need and desire for touch, but in our rush to distinguish ourselves from even our closest genetic relatives, we submit ourselves to complex regulations on touch: when and who should one hug; whose hands can we hold in public; is it alright to shake hands at the sharing of the peace; should we use common cup, or individual glasses; if an unmarried man shows up at church with an unrelated, unmarried woman, does that mean they are sleeping together. It is little wonder that Lutherans openly struggle with sex.
Consider the Israelites and Torah. Those legalisms whose consequences didn’t include slavery or execution involved physical distance between transgressor and community. The very touch of the “unclean” threatened the integrity of the community. Ritually unclean members of community were removed as if they were that one drop who would poison the whole well. So strong was the taint of the sin of the transgressor that even touching objects that were touched by the transgressor spread the uncleanness.
It should surprise no one that the debate over the role of gay and lesbian clergy in the church would boil down to anguish over sex. A Biblical tradition that dangles general social touch like a carrot combined with an air of superiority above all other creatures makes sex an easy target.